Seanad debates

Wednesday, 7 April 2004

Citizenship Rights for Non-Nationals: Motion

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad Éireann, noting the position of the Government that a Constitutional Referendum on the issue of limiting citizenship rights for non-nationals may be held at some point and mindful of the need to have a rational debate about this matter, calls on the Government to consult in detail with all members of Oireachtas Éireann before a decision is taken on this issue and specifically believes that the June 11th date for the holding of European and Local Elections should not be the date for the proposed referendum.

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the House and I thank him for his attendance, which is appreciated. Given the Government's announcement yesterday, it is significant that the matter is being debated in this House first.

The Minister and all Senators will be aware the issue of race and immigration is the most contentious of all on the basis of their discussions with people on the streets and polling evidence. There is a major responsibility on public representatives to demonstrate restraint, calm judgment and balance in respect of this issue. We have witnessed too often in western Europe the rise of the new right, fed on a diet of neo-nationalism. I refer to Mr. Le Pen, Jörg Haider and the rise of the British National Party. They have used race and immigration for their narrow party political advantage. It is absolutely crucial that those of us who hold positions of responsibility in the Oireachtas show leadership on this issue.

Vicious, appalling attacks on non-nationals have happened too often in our capital city and during the last general election campaign one candidate — there are others — used the issue of race for his own narrow party political advantage. All Members must be careful on this issue. If the referendum is held on the same date as the European and local elections, race and immigration has the potential to become an explosive issue and to allow untoward forces in Ireland to use it for their own narrow political focus. We must be mindful of that aspect.

The motion has been tabled so that the Government will rethink its attitude on when this matter should be put before the people by way of constitutional referendum. It is important that politicians take ownership of, and show leadership on, this issue. A wide debate needs to take place on the issue of race and immigration. Why, therefore, is the relatively small number of births to non-nationals the total focus of political attention currently? I am concerned about this point.

The Taoiseach stated that no promise had been made regarding a proposed constitutional referendum on 11 June when he replied to a question by the leader of my party on 17 February. He stated: "The Government has no proposals at present to hold a referendum to change the Constitution." Why did he not inform the other House and, through it, us of the Government's intention to hold this referendum on 11 June?

The Minister first informed the press of the intention to hold a referendum more than a month ago. He will be aware that both Government and Opposition Members asked him to reconsider 11 June as the date on which the referendum should be held. I will not name individual Senators as I am sure they will contribute to the debate. However, there was cross-party consensus in the House a month ago that 11 June would not be appropriate for the holding of a constitutional referendum, if such a referendum was needed. I ask him at this late stage, before the referendum legislation is published, to reconsider holding the referendum on 11 June.

A presidential election is due later this year. The President and other parties and individuals will determine whether an election will take place but it would be much more preferable to hold the referendum on the same day as the presidential election, as that would be a much less contentious time to debate this issue. It would also provide the Government with an opportunity to set out in both Houses why the referendum is necessary. The presidential election presents another window of opportunity. Even if a presidential election is not held, there would be no difficulty holding a referendum solely on this matter later in the year.

The Minister will be fully aware that there have been turnouts as low as 28% or 29% for previous referenda. However, tagging the referendum on to the European and local elections could provide the spark for dangerous comments to be made during the campaign and lead to a complete lack of leadership by irresponsible individuals who will use the issue of race and immigration for their own narrow political advantage.

The Minister should also be cognisant of two recommendations made by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, in 2001 in respect of the timing of constitutional referenda. It was the firm view of the committee that the Standing Orders of both Houses of the Oireachtas should be amended "to embody a presumption that every TD and Senator will have a sufficient opportunity to make their own contribution in relation to that proposal". In other words, legislation relating to constitutional referenda should not be guillotined. The Government intends to bring the other House back the week after holy week to facilitate the debate. However, the necessary time is not available to debate the legislation in both Houses to ensure all voices are heard on this matter.

The all-party committee's second recommendation related to the length of the campaign, that is, the period between the date of a proposed constitutional amendment passing through the Houses of the Oireachtas and the date it is to be put. It stated:

Accordingly, the All-Party Committee recommends that the Referendum Act 1994 provides for a minimum of 30 days and not more than 90 days for the holding of a referendum following the passage of an amendment Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Committee were of the opinion that the lower limit of 30 days should be retained to allow the Government both to cope with urgent requirements and to programme conveniently technical and non-contentious proposals. It recommends that the lower limit should not be otherwise resorted to because it is not ordinarily adequate. Moreover, its use for contentious or complex proposals might give the people the impression that they are being duly pressed into taking a particular decision.

The all-party committee recommends the 30 day requirement should not be the norm. Where an issue of fundamental national importance is to be put to the people, the 30 day stipulation should apply. This matter is contentious. It is primarily a matter that needs to be debated over a much longer period and I do not think we will have time for a rational, calm debate, which I know the Minister also wants, if it is rushed and put to the people on 11 June. Much will be determined by the consultative discussions that are now taking place between the Government and the Fine Gael Party and I am sure the Government will discuss it with other parties. I can see that point, but in a matter of such fundamental change, the embodiment of our law in the Constitution, we need to be mindful of the complexities and the potential for other issues to emerge that have not emerged to date.

I am aware of the Supreme Court ruling in January 2003 which interpreted the law in this matter, whereby the parents of non-national children born here have no constitutional rights in terms of citizenship and residency. I am also aware that since that ruling, there has not been a fundamental change in the total numbers of persons coming to give birth in this country. A document circulated by the Minister some weeks ago stated that it is clear from these figures that there has been a significant change in the situation since the Supreme Court judgment and the implementation of the Government's strategy on foot of it. If that is the case, why is the Government arguing for a constitutional change to Article 9, which will also bring about a fundamental change in the position in terms of the total number of people coming here and wishing to have their children born here? I do not believe that case has been adequately answered and I am sure the Minister will respond in the course of his remarks as to why he believes it to be the case. The substantive point is that we are asking the Government to reconsider holding the referendum on a later date than 11 June 2004.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the motion. I welcome the Minister to the House. Citizenship is fundamental and vital and is something in which we take great pride. It should be guarded jealously. I am sure the Minister would agree that in a constitutional democracy, there should be the widest possible consultation on citizenship, which may be the Minister's intention. I cannot understand the reason for such a tight timeframe, if we hold the referendum on 11 June. We should have the widest possible consultation and we should do nothing to damage our democracy, which I fear may happen because of this rush.

I look forward to hearing the arguments the Minister will put to us. As Senator Brian Hayes said, the fundamental question is whether the referendum will be held on 11 June. It is preferable to have all-party agreement on an all encompassing package of measures. That is what is required. This is a complex matter. Various articles of the Constitution are involved as well as the citizenship Act 1956, which I presume will be amended also.

We have been reading on the subject. An interesting case being made in Northern Ireland is that a child born in Northern Ireland to a Chinese mother is entitled to UK residence under EU law and the mother is dependent on the child for immigration status. Has there been a judgment on that as of yet?

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A child born anywhere, including Northern Ireland, would provide a basis for non-EU nationals to establish a right to reside in any other EU state. As we are aware, in 1998 an overwhelming majority of the people voted in favour of amending Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution by way of implicit approval of the Good Friday Agreement. This involved deleting the previous territorial claim and replacing it with a broad and inclusive conceptualisation of the Irish nation which states:

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland.

We have not yet seen the Government's amending legislation on citizenship but it has stated that the referendum will take place on 11 June. It now appears that the Government proposes a change to the current understanding of Article 2 by way of an amendment to Article 9, the enabling provision dealing with citizenship. The Bill will amend the Citizenship Act 1956 in the area of entitlement to citizenship on the basis of birth on the island of Ireland combined with residency. One would expect that a constitutional referendum on something as fundamental and sensitive as citizenship at least would be preceded by the publication of Green and White Papers as well as wide ranging public consultation and debate. In this connection, Senator Maurice Hayes said this morning that we would need to be conscious of the position vis-À-vis people in the North and I am sure the Minister has borne that in mind. We would not want to rush into it without consulting them as we want to bring them with us. We have to consider whether the proposed referendum on citizenship removes the fundamental rights conferred by the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

I am amazed at the Government's apparent rush to have everything in place for the referendum to coincide with the local and European elections, despite previous clear denials by Government that this would happen. Senator Hayes already referred to what we are aware of, although in one connection the lady said it was her personal opinion. Not alone will it lead to a heightened atmosphere but on a subject as sensitive as citizenship and the related issues of race, culture and identity, I think it is impracticable. It would seem that the Government is doing nothing to neutralise the suspected race factor in this proposal. The Minister must suspect that it will be almost impossible to have a rational debate on all of these issues. We need political consensus and that requires dialogue at this stage. I appeal strongly to the Minister to postpone the referendum. As Senator Brian Hayes said, there may be a presidential election in the autumn, but even if there were not, this is such an important issue that it needs to be teased out in rational debate and argument and all interested parties in the North should be consulted.

For the first time, people will be casting their vote by electronic means, which will add further to the confusion.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do not speak too soon on that.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is a reasonable man and I respect his opinion. I look forward to hearing the arguments he will make on this issue. I appeal to the Minister to consider the possibility that he may be accused of being guilty of using the race card.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to move the amendment but I reserve my right to speak to allow the Minister to address the House.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann," and substitute the following:

recognising that it is the firm intention of the Government to hold a Constitutional Referendum on the universal entitlement of those born in Ireland of non-national parents to claim Irish citizenship, reminds all members of the Oireachtas of the need for rational and balanced debate-

(i) on the requisite Amendment to the Constitution Bill in the Houses of the Oireachtas;

(ii) on any subsequent implementing legislation in the Houses of the Oireachtas; and

(iii) during the forthcoming local and European election campaigns.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to be here this evening for this important debate. As Senators are no doubt aware, the Government has decided to hold a constitutional referendum on 11 June to deal with the impact of the universal entitlement to Irish citizenship on those born in Ireland. The Government is aware that an announcement of this nature is, quite properly, a matter for public and parliamentary debate. It is important to ensure the debate proceeds on the basis of an informed view of the issues, of what is proposed and, more important, of what is not.

At the outset, I wish to speak briefly about the concept of citizenship, which involves a great deal more than entitlement to a passport. Indeed, many of Ireland's finest citizens, particularly in years gone by, never held a passport. Citizenship, rather, embodies the concept of membership of a modern nation state. Initially, Irish citizenship constituted a fundamentally important legal vehicle which was used to convey the legal and political independence of the Free State, and, subsequently, the Republic. Its purpose is given expression in Article 9.2 of the Constitution which imposes on all citizens the fundamental political duties of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State. Citizenship, therefore, should never be for sale. As Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I brought categorically to an end the practice of exchanging citizenship for financial payments or investments.

Citizenship, which imports loyalty to the State and fidelity to the nation, should not be available on foot of geographical accident. It is far more fundamental, implying membership of the moral and political community of the Irish State. While citizenship does not imply cultural uniformity or some narrow and out-dated view of what it means to be Irish, it is, nevertheless, the essence of our sovereignty as a nation. Citizenship is also the essence of the character of our nation state.

To facilitate further debate on the issues, I would like to make the following matters clear. The effect of the Government's proposal will be prospective and will not affect the rights of any person who has obtained citizenship or is already entitled to citizenship through birth on the island of Ireland. The proposal will only affect persons born in Ireland where both parents are, at the time of the birth, non-nationals and unable to satisfy a residency requirement. It will only be necessary for one parent to satisfy the residency requirement. There will be no residency requirement in the case of a parent who is a British national; not least because of his or her immigration-free status and the implications for the Good Friday Agreement. There will be no specific residency requirement in respect of a parent who is resident in Ireland without condition as to time. A recognised refugee would constitute an example of such a parent. All others will, at a minimum, be required to demonstrate a period of three years lawful residence in the four years immediately preceding the birth. The requirement to reside for three years in four permits a person to be resident here and to return to his or her own country or travel abroad generally without violating a required period of continuous residency. The three-year time period has a precedent in Irish citizenship law as the qualification period for the acquisition of the entitlement to post-nuptial citizenship. If a non-national marries an Irish citizen, he or she must remain in the State for three years before being entitled as of right to become a citizen. Given the misrepresentation of the proposals by many, it should be noted that the requirement compares favourably with time periods for the acquisition of citizenship in all other jurisdictions. At the end of the process, ours will remain one of the most open and fair citizenship laws and one of the most generous systems of nationality and citizenship in the European Union.

It is the intention of the Government to attain its objectives by a combination of constitutional change and subsequent implementing legislation. It is not intended to deal with the detail of the proposal in the Constitution itself, rather it is intended to provide the constitutional framework within which the Oireachtas can determine these matters. That is the intelligent way to proceed. I hope it is clear from what I have said that it is not the intention to debar the children of members of our established immigrant community from the entitlement to citizenship. On the contrary, the implementing legislation will act as a positive acknowledgement of the place of immigrants settled in Irish society by ensuring that their children acquire that entitlement. Those whose relationship with the State is far more transient or negligible cannot reasonably expect their children's citizenship entitlements to be the same as the entitlements of those with some connection to the jurisdiction. More important, the provision is not and will not be racist. I wish to emphasise that point in the context of the suggestion by some Members of this House and others that the proposals represent a playing of the race card or are themselves racist.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not just us.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In recent years, the issues of immigration and citizenship have assumed a new prominence in public debate. Ireland is experiencing the broader impact of an interdependent world where mass communication and transportation, geographical position, political instability and, indeed, organised crime impact upon the movement of people. We have become a modern and thriving economy, increasingly integrated with world markets and trends, and a participant in European integration. Ireland was for a century and a half a country of emigration and relative domestic homogeneity. It was focused on the struggles of economic development. We are now experiencing the ever increasing forces of migration in a completely new and, in many respects, wonderful way. We are challenging long-held certainties and assumptions. The debate which is under way challenges one of those assumptions which holds that everyone born in Ireland should be entitled to Irish citizenship solely on that basis alone and without further connection to this society or State.

It is a legitimate aspect of public governance to hold this debate given the considerable evidence which suggests that the unique nature of Irish citizenship law among the European Union and candidate states has given rise to serious abuse. It is the duty of the Government and the Oireachtas to address such matters. We have a duty not to be intimidated into ignoring them for fear of being targeted with ill-founded allegations of racism. We can all agree that the proponents of any change on this issue leave themselves open to charges of racism. We have had evidence to that effect. However, I acknowledge the onus on those who propose change to ensure that such changes are legitimate requirements of the common good and are neither overtly nor covertly racist in intent. I am confident that the Government's proposals will achieve that aim. A great deal of work has been done to ensure they will be acceptable to Irish citizens and members of our immigrant community alike.

Our immigrant community, of course, consists of a widely divergent group of persons from various social and economic backgrounds. It includes visitors, students, refugees, skilled and unskilled workers, business people and retired people who wish to see out their days in the State. It also includes asylum seekers, United Kingdom nationals who have been coming here for many years, nationals of European Economic Area countries who have in large part free movement entitlements, persons from developed countries such as the United States of America and persons from poorer countries. The vast majority in all those categories are legally present in the State and are welcome. They play a very important role in our society and economy. They enrich this country by their diversity and efforts to become part of our community. While a certain number, of course, are here illegally, the great majority are not.

The needs and expectations of immigrants vary greatly depending on their individual circumstances. In many instances, those needs have more in common with Irish citizens of a similar socio-economic background than with other categories of non-nationals. It is wrong to view all such persons as a separate, generic group whose views on Ireland, or more particularly Irish citizenship entitlements, can be neatly pigeonholed and unified into a single view. The vast majority of members of our immigrant community come from countries where the citizenship laws do not confer citizenship by place of birth alone.

How many of them would describe the laws in the countries from which they come, which do not have this jus soli element, as being bastions of racism as a result? I would say very few indeed. I fail to see, therefore, how persons could justifiably argue in good faith, and I believe many of the arguments are in bad faith, that a proposal of this nature is racist in intent. Any objective analysis, having regard to the situation throughout the world, would prove otherwise. It is open to any member of our immigrant community to apply for naturalisation after five years' residence in the State and indeed to continue to be a citizen of their own country thereafter. We allow people to be jointly a citizen of Ireland and a citizen of the State from which they have come after five years. That is not a paper right. This is a right that is accorded to people day in, day out. After five years, unless they have grievously misbehaved, they are entitled to apply for Irish citizenship and are granted it as a matter of course. As a regime, that is remarkably liberal by any standards and will continue to be the case after this referendum is passed, if that is the choice of the people. We have one of the most generous naturalisation laws in Europe, if not the most generous, and notions that we are turning into some kind of fortress Ireland are entirely false, misconceived and based on a completely failed analysis of the situation.

The acceptance of dual citizenship, a feature of our citizenship regime which will remain unchanged, is the hallmark of our open and inclusive citizenship policy. In many other states if somebody wants to become a citizen under their naturalisation law, he or she must extinguish their pre-existing citizenship. Ireland never does that.

I am well aware of the fact that any debate on these issues is capable of being distorted by those with racist intent but it is equally capable of being distorted, and I regret to say has been already, by those who criticise proposals as being racist when they patently are not. This plays into the hands of those with racist or fascist tendencies because it reduces the focus of debate from the merit or otherwise of the proposal and engenders a confrontational and simplistic approach to what are serious issues.

It behoves us all, therefore, to acknowledge that citizenship of a country is of its very nature selective. The task of the genuine contributor to this debate will be to determine whether the changes proposed are proportionate and balanced and to ensure that debate on the subject is well informed and constructive. I do not accept, however, that we should be intimidated out of discussing these fundamental issues for fear that persons with ulterior motives might wish to exploit any discussion which occurs.

If the fear were such to prevent people from debating these issues during the course of the local and European elections in June, then democracy would be in a very sorry state. I would ask Senators to consider the point that the very fact that the referendum will take place in a wider context will serve to diffuse or dilute the type of intensity that could arise in a single issue campaign and as a consequence reduce the scope for exploitation by persons with malevolent intent. I do not believe people will vote for councillors or aspiring councillors on one side or the other of this issue. I do not believe that people in Mullinahone, Pembroke Ward or anywhere else——

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They did in Cork North-Central two years ago.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Order, please.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I had intended to say that I do not believe a reasonable and practical constitutional and legislative proposal, which is designed to bring Ireland's citizenship laws into line with those of our European partners, can be termed racist. It does not bring them into line with our European partners; they will still remain far more generous than the vast majority of our European partners' laws. I do not accept the argument of those who say the holding of this referendum on the same day as an election transforms an otherwise reasonable proposal into a racist one, as Senator Ryan has suggested. This shows little confidence in the ability of politicians to lead a mature debate or in the capacity of voters to discuss serious issues.

It has been said that this referendum should be postponed until the presidential election. I do not know whether there will be a presidential election but on the assumption that there will be and if a Member of this House or the other House were to stand for election in the autumn, are they to be silent on this proposal if it was to be decided on the same day? If they are not to be silent is the incumbent, were she to re-nominate herself, to be debarred from comment on this subject? Is that what we want? Do we want the candidates for the presidency to be lining up on this issue or be like Trappists and say nothing about this issue?

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not the same election.

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the same day. I am fascinated that Senator Brian Hayes seems to think that if we held the presidential election on the same day as this referendum, none of the candidates in the presidential election would be expected or entitled to express views on a major issue happening on the same day. I very much doubt that and I do not think that anybody in good faith believes it.

I welcome the fact that because of the constitutional position it will be the case that the people of Ireland will be required to express a view on these matters. I see no merit in any attempt to ask them to express that view separate from the context of an election campaign. It is important that a good number of people turn out to vote in this election and not a narrow, ignored, academic paper exercise such as some of the referenda which have attracted a very low turnout. I believe the vast majority of the people are not racist and that they will be well capable of taking issue with any candidate who promotes a racist agenda or who seeks to exploit this issue to curry favour with them in regard to the local or European elections. Their views will also be informed by the work of the Referendum Commission. Perhaps I have more faith in the Irish electorate to be discerning in these matters than the proponents of the Opposition motion.

There are also sound practical reasons for holding the referendum at this time. It will save the State from the cost of having to organise a second polling day for this purpose. As I said earlier in regard to the presidential election, first, there is no guarantee there will be one and, second, it would not be either advantageous or particularly edifying to see the presidential candidates having to tog out on this issue and to see in particular, were it to be the case, the outgoing President forced to adopt a position on this because her opponents were adopting a position also. That is not desirable and, on reflection, I do not think this House will deem it desirable.

This issue is not new. In August 2002, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform published a report which it had commissioned from the much respected International Organisation for Migration. The report was entitled International Comparative Study of Migration Legislation and Practice and was intended to inform the development of immigration policy generally. At pages 97 and 98 the report discusses the nexus between inward migration pressures and citizenship and questions how such pressures can be managed. It goes on to state:

It may be necessary, when the migration management aspects are being examined, to go deeper and consider whether the particular feature of citizenship law itself should be changed. It is acknowledged that, depending on the approach finally adopted, it might be necessary to consider a change to the Constitution.

The issue was also flagged for consideration in An Agreed Programme for Government and all sides of both Houses are aware that it was being kept under review by the Government. All parties have been supplied with a comprehensive briefing document, and that document is also available on the website of my Department.

One aspect that has not been well canvassed is the European Union dimension to this debate. Article 17 of the EC treaty provides that every person holding the nationality of a member state shall also be a citizen of the Union. It is an accepted principle of European Community law, and indeed international law, that the regulation of a state's nationality comes within its own reserved domain. In that regard Ireland is the only country in the European Union or its candidate states which gives an automatic entitlement to citizenship to every child born here from the date of that child's birth. Once Irish citizenship is acquired, however, a European Union dimension kicks in.

The free movement of persons is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens of the Union. It is subject to certain tightly defined limitations. Indeed, the full extent of these limitations is still being judicially explored. It has been the case that such rights were understood to apply to adult persons and their non-national dependants. However, in the Chen case which is currently before the European Court of Justice, a non-EU national is claiming an entitlement to reside in the United Kingdom on foot of her Irish citizen child who was born in Belfast. It is common ground in that case that the reason Mrs. Chen went to Belfast was to ensure her child, when born, would acquire nationality, thereby enabling her mother to raise a possible claim to remain in the United Kingdom.

This case illustrates one of the perceived advantages of the current free movement regime. Those advantages do not simply flow from an immigration-free status in the State. They flow from an immigration-free status for Irish citizens in the United Kingdom because of the common travel area. In addition, they flow from the extensive right of Irish citizens to move freely throughout the European Union and the full extent of the implications are illustrated by the Chen case, which I just mentioned. In effect, what we have is Irish citizenship law being used in an attempt to circumvent UK immigration control through the exercise of EU free movement rights.

I mention these facts simply to illustrate to Members of this House that there is a significant advantage to be gained by organising the birth of a child in the island of Ireland even where the parent in question does not seek or does not attain residency on that basis. This is why many women are willing to risk their own lives and the lives of their children by arriving here in the late stages of pregnancy. In many cases I have no doubt that they are operating on the misguided notion that it is in the best interests not of themselves, but of their unborn children.

It is one thing to be generous in the application of our citizenship laws, but it is another when those laws operate in a manner which motivates prospective parents to travel here at great personal risk and at danger to their children in circumstances where they would not contemplate having a child here otherwise. The Government's view is that this activity should be curtailed and that the people of Ireland should be asked to approve such a course in referendum.

I will now set out a brief history of the constitutional entitlement to Irish citizenship for Irish born children since 1937. Article 9 of the 1937 Constitution provided that any person who was a citizen of Saorstat Éireann prior to its coming into operation would become a citizen of Ireland. That was the only overt constitutional guarantee of citizenship that existed prior to 2 December 1999.

On that date the Government declared, under Article 29.7.3° of the Constitution, that the State had become obliged, pursuant to the British-Irish Agreement, to give effect to the constitutional changes. Thus it was the case that during that period of over 60 years the citizenship entitlements of all persons born in Ireland, which probably includes the vast majority of Members sitting in this Chamber this evening, were determined by legislation and not by overt constitutional guarantee. Consequently, it was never a fundamental tenet of the Irish citizenship regime that citizenship rights had to be guaranteed in the Constitution.

The reason such rights were enshrined in what is now Article 2 was in the interests of guarantees to the people of Northern Ireland and the removal of the territorial claim in the pre-existing Articles 2 and 3, in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. However, Article 1(vi) of the British-Irish Agreement — the intergovernmental agreement — only imposed citizenship commitments on both states in respect of the "people of Northern Ireland". Annex 2 to that agreement defines the common intention and understanding of both Governments of that term as meaning "all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence".

The two Governments had a common intent to provide for the people of Northern Ireland that they could be citizens of one or other or both states, regardless of what happened to the status of Northern Ireland in the future. That guarantee of citizenship would remain and the extinguishment of the territorial claim as set out in the old Article 2 would not prejudice the rights in particular of Irish nationalists in Northern Ireland, who cleave to this State and citizenship of it, to retain their citizenship in future. Both Governments understood that to be that case and expressed solemnly in their agreement that to be the understanding they were reaching.

However, the new Article 2 of the Constitution, which was introduced at the time, went much further. It did not mention the "people of Northern Ireland", but refers to the people of all of Ireland and the rights of people born anywhere in the island of Ireland. On reviewing the British-Irish Agreement, it can be seen that a joint enterprise, which was to confer rights of citizenship on everybody in Northern Ireland to be citizens of either state or citizens of both states and which had a very particular meaning, emphatically excluded the notion that somebody could go to Belfast, have a child and thereby become an Irish citizen. That was excluded from the joint understanding of both Governments.

Unfortunately, that understanding was not reflected in Article 2 of the Constitution as amended. Therefore, there is now a lack of symmetry between UK law and Irish law. In UK law, those who are transient do not confer any right of UK citizenship on their children born in Northern Ireland. However, in Irish law, as a consequence of the wording of Article 2, the legal advice to the Government is that an absolute right to citizenship from birth — not postponed — was conferred, regardless of whether it takes place North or South. Therefore it is the view of the Government that what is being proposed will not be in conflict with that agreement. It is also the case that while there is no general principle under which the State's obligations under any international agreement must be enshrined in the Constitution, it is most certainly the case that the Government cannot introduce legislation which is in conflict with its international obligations.

The Government's proposal for an amendment to the Constitution will not, of itself, have any immediate effect on the citizenship entitlements of those born after its enactment. The wording of the amendment itself will not be exclusionary. The regime as provided for under existing law will continue to apply until such time as suitable amending legislation is passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The amendment will enable the Oireachtas to determine the citizenship entitlements of Irish born children who do not have an Irish parent at the time of birth. The Government will be publishing shortly a draft of the amending Irish nationality and citizenship Bill in the context of the referendum proposal. This will help to inform debate on the Bill to amend the Constitution during its passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas and during the subsequent referendum campaign.

Senators should be conscious that a vote for the constitutional amendment is a vote for the right of the Oireachtas to determine the citizenship entitlements of the children of non-national parents. I therefore respectfully suggest that it is not the case that one should reject the constitutional amendment simply because one finds fault with the Government's proposed implementing Bill. That is a separate issue.

It will be open to any Member of the Oireachtas to propose an amendment to the implementing legislation, which would maintain the status quo. That will not obviously be the Government's position but it will be a possibility, which comes within the ambit of the constitutional amendment. The effect of the constitutional amendment will be to enable the Oireachtas to decide the circumstances in which the child of non-national parents may become a citizen of the State, as was the case with all children born in the State for more than 60 years. I ask Senators to bear this in mind when considering the matter.

The Government's intention is that the legislation to accompany constitutional change will be carefully drafted to achieve the following aims: A person born, whether North or South, to non-national parents, either of whom has been lawfully resident in the State for at least three out of the four years preceding the birth, will have an entitlement to Irish citizenship. The European Economic Area, EEA, includes the European Union and certain other states. For non-EEA national parents, periods spent in the State for study purposes or while awaiting the determination of an asylum claim will not count.

A person born, whether North or South, to parents, one of whom is a British citizen or has an entitlement to reside in the UK and thus in Northern Ireland, without any restriction on his or her period of residence, will be entitled to Irish citizenship. A child born to a couple, one of whom is a UK national, or to a person who is a long-term resident of the United Kingdom, who is not a UK national, will be entitled to claim citizenship of this State, regardless of whether the birth takes place in Derry or in Letterkenny.

A person born, whether North or South, to parents, one of whom has an entitlement or permission to reside in the State without any restriction on his or her period of residence, will be entitled to Irish citizenship. A classic example would be a person who is not an Irish citizen, but a refugee who has been given the right to remain in Ireland indefinitely. Such a person would be entitled to have his or her child considered an Irish citizen.

A person born, whether North or South, to non-national parents, one of whom has been lawfully resident in Northern Ireland for at least three out of the four years preceding the birth, will have an entitlement to Irish citizenship. For non-EEA national parents, periods spent in Northern Ireland for study purposes or while awaiting the determination of an asylum claim will not count. Exactly the same regime will apply North and South in respect of that category of people.

The Government's view is that there should be a rational and informed debate on this matter and that there should be no objection in principle to that debate taking place in the context of local and European election campaigns. Furthermore, the Government is satisfied that the regime laid down in Article 46 of the Constitution provides a more than adequate framework for the involvement of the Oireachtas.

The Referendum Commission will inform the public fully and objectively on these matters. The issue is a fairly simple one. Despite all the claims that more time is needed, the following points should be taken on board by at least some Members of this House whose minds are open on this issue. If I were to state that there would be a referendum of this type in 2004 or 2005 then lawyers, such as the one advising Mrs. Chen, throughout Europe would advise migrant people with children to go to Ireland before the gate closed. It is not simply a matter of saying we should consider this issue at a later stage or that we should allow a long period to elapse so that we could reflect on it because the inevitable consequence will be that people will take advantage of the status quo. There is a sense of urgency on this issue. It is not a fanciful or dreamed up sense of urgency if our law is to conform with what is normal internationally while at the same time keeping the most generous nationality and citizenship law in any member state of the Europe Union. Those who doubt me and believe fortress Ireland is emerging out of these proposals should read Carol Coulter's article in The Irish Times last Saturday. They are wide of the mark.

Those who say this proposal is playing the race card or that it is racist in content must ask what it is about the laws of all other States that is not racist; what is it about the laws of all the countries of origin of migrants to Ireland, which do not share our current and unique situation, that is not racist. There is nothing racist in this proposal. I reject completely the suggestion that it is either the playing of the race card or a racist referendum. Those who have employed language to that effect should ask themselves whether they are using language honestly or dishonestly for the purpose of political rhetoric. I thank Members for their attention.

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am quite sure there is not one Member of this House who does not want to see this referendum brought forward in a calm and responsible manner. At the same time, I am sure I am not the only Member to receive letters asking what I intend to do about black girls pushing top of the range buggies in this city. We must recognise the facts on the ground. I am not suggesting the Irish nation is racist although anyone who has read the study by Father Micheál McGréil, the Jesuit socialist——

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is a sociologist.

Photo of Mary O'RourkeMary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would say he is also a socialist.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As a student, he was a socialist.

Photo of Mary O'RourkeMary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would say he is still a socialist, in the best sense of the word.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Henry without interruption, please.

6:00 pm

Mary Henry (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some 30 years ago he stated that Irish people were not racist because we were all much the same but that if we could be, we would be, which was rather depressing.

I can understand the Minister's reasons for bringing forth this amendment. It is not creating fortress Ireland; it is a perfectly reasonable amendment. There is genuine concern that there will be a racist reaction from many people such as those who have contacted me in the past. For some people in this country, the word tolerance is very small in their lexicon. We need to face up to this issue which arose in one constituency during the last election. That was a truly regrettable incident. Unfortunately, the person who put forward those racist views gained from them and many people will think it is the smart thing to do this time. While I do not believe the Minister wants that to happen, we must recognise that it could happen. Of course, every Member of this House will do their utmost to avoid it but, nevertheless, it will happen in the forthcoming elections.

The Minister spoke briefly of women coming here to give birth and endangering themselves. He stated:

Many women are willing to risk their own lives and the lives of their children by arriving here in the late stages of pregnancy. In many cases, I have no doubt that they were operating on the misguided notion that it is in the best interests of not only themselves but of their unborn children.

I believe it is in the best interests of the entire family. In the past, such people were granted residency. The Minister disabused people of the idea that this was his reason for introducing this amendment and I feel I have a duty to put on the record of the House the statement by my colleagues and constituents, Dr. Michael Geary, master of the Rotunda and Dr. Sean Daly, master of the Coombe. The Minister is reported as saying on 11 March 2002 following a meeting with the two masters which actually took place a year and a half ago:

They pleaded with me to do something to change the law in relation to this. They didn't ask for additional resources, they were asking me to change the law. So I'm a bit surprised if it is being suggested that that is not the request that was being made.

That quotation is contained in an article in The Irish Times dated 13 March 2004. The masters say they did not express an opinion on what the Minister should do. Their statements reads:

On Thursday, 17th October, 2002, we were invited by officials of the Department of Justice to attend a meeting the following morning. The meeting was co-ordinated by the officials of the Department of Health and the Department of Justice.

This meeting was called following discussions between the Rotunda Hospital, the Department of Health and the Reception & Integration Agency where it had been agreed a new facility was required in the Balseskin Reception Centre to streamline care for asylum-seekers newly arrived in the country. The meeting was attended by Dr. Sean Daly, master of the Coombe 'Women's Hospital, Dr. Michael Geary, master of the Rotunda Hospital, officials from the Department of Health, the Department of Justice and the Reception & Integration Agency, and the Minister, Mr. Michael McDowell. Dr. Declan Keane, master in the National Maternity Hospital, was unable to attend the meeting.

The two masters highlighted the need for increased resources as a result of (A) the increasing number of women presenting to their hospitals for delivery who were non-nations, (B) the complexity of the medical problems which they now encountered, and (C) the particular risks presented both to the individual and the staff by women presenting very late in pregnancy to access obstetric care. Drs. Daly and Geary emphasised the need for increased resources and the importance of a co-ordinated Government response.

The Minister for Justice outlined three possible options available to his Department: (1) Legislative change around the issue of citizenship; (2) The holding of a referendum; (3) Await the result of the pending Supreme Court judgment which was dealing with the issue of the right of parents to remain in Ireland to look after a newly-born Irish citizen.

It was generally acknowledged that the issue of citizenship was a major factor in women choosing to have their babies in Ireland and it was felt that this was an issue for Government. However neither Dr. Daly or Dr. Geary expressed any opinion as to the three options outlined by the Minister, and at no timepleaded for a referendum. The masters believed and appreciated that the need for increased resources within the context of a co-ordinated Government response was acknowledged.

The provision of maternity services was, and continues to be, the concern of the hospitals and a follow-up meeting was held with the Minister for Health on Wednesday, 20th November, 2002 to discuss resources.

Senator Brian Hayes is quite right in saying that following the Supreme Court case in 2003, when it was ruled that parents did not have a right to remain here because their child had been born in this country, not an unexpected ruling, there was no diminution in the number of people having children in this country. However, there has been an interesting change in the composition of those non-nationals. Before the court case, 75% of those giving birth in this country were asylum seekers and 25% were economic migrants, but now the position is reversed, with 75% economic migrants and 25% asylum seekers. Many of the economic migrants are from countries very shortly to become members of the European Union. I wonder whether we might not be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, given that the rate is apparently decreasing by 2% or 3% a month at present. That is substantial, month on month, and perhaps we are being hasty.

It is very worrying that people arrive so late in labour. Some 15% arrive very late and another 15% arrive within a week of the birth. One of the interesting and sad things is that, if those people had tried to give birth in their own countries, some of them would have died. That they managed to get here, even with the difficulties of delivering them — no one is complaining too much about that because we are perfectly able to deal with them and only want resources — is a problem.

It is all very well to discuss naturalisation, but I have been writing to the Minister's Department about two doctors whom the health service is desperately anxious to employ permanently. One has been here for 12 years and the other for seven years. I have been writing to the Minister's Department for years about naturalisation, but all the officials do every time is send me back more forms about how to go forward for it. I suggest that theMinister's Department needs to examine that aspect.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

By way of background, the Supreme Court case of January 2003 has been mentioned. That clarified the position of non-national parents. It was interesting that, following the judgment, between July and December 2003, the Department sent out 1,108 letters to persons with an alternative legal basis for remaining in the State rather than basing everything on the status of their Irish-born child. Some 358 letters were sent, stating that the Department was considering deporting people. As part of that process, the Minister should be commended for agreeing the new voluntary return programme with the International Organisation for Migration, whereby the non-national parents of an Irish-born child can return to their native country and training and other assistance is being provided to help them. Equally, reapplication for leave to remain can also be made, but that will be dealt with only when the asylum claim has been determined.

I believe Senator Terry mentioned that applications for asylum reduced in 2003. I understand that the figures went from 988 in January to 347 in December, but it is impossible to determine what gave effect to that, since there were several changes. Apart from the Irish-born child issue, there was the elimination of rent supplement for asylum seekers and the introduction of carriers' liability, all of which could have had an impact on some of those reductions. An interesting statistic from the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner was that 60% of female asylum seekers over 16 years of age are pregnant.

The Minister mentioned the growing concern of health care professionals in that regard. It should be noted that the three masters of the Dublin hospitals to which Senator Henry referred expressed a degree of concern. The number of births to non-nationals in Dublin was just under 5,000 in 2003 and represented 20% to 25% of all births. It was acknowledged by the masters that it gave rise to serious health and social policy issues, not to mention immigration policy, and they sought initiatives from the Minister in that regard. It is also important to acknowledge that many of those births are not necessarily to do with asylum seekers. That must also be put in context. Some people come here because Irish or EU citizenship is attractive, irrespective of their parental residence. In that context, we all now have EU citizenship as a consequence of being born in Ireland or another member state of the EU and it has been pointed out that this brings obligations as well as entitlements.

The Minister referred to the entitlement to citizenship for persons born in Ireland as being unique among EU member states. Most countries have citizenship acquired by descent from an existing citizen. Britain and Australia amended their legislation in the 1980s to deal with the issue with which we are endeavouring to deal here. It is worth describing the international scene. In Australia, a child acquires Australian citizenship if one of the parents is either an Australian citizen or a permanent resident. A child born to parents in the country illegally has no claim to citizenship and may be removed with the parents in accordance with normal removal procedures. In Britain, a child born after January 1983 is a British citizen if either the father or the mother is a British citizen or legally settled in Britain. A child born in the United States is entitled to US citizenship. The parents do not receive citizenship unless they have some legal basis for obtaining legal permanent resident status or otherwise meet the naturalisation eligibility requirements.

A child born in France to foreign parents automatically becomes a French national at the age of majority, which is 18. In Germany, if one parent has been a permanent legal resident for at least eight years, with a permanent resident's permit, children acquire German citizenship at their parents' request. In Denmark, the child of a non-Danish citizen does not receive Danish citizenship at birth. Since 1999, young foreigners aged 19 to 23 with a minimum of ten years' residence in Denmark have been able to request naturalisation. In Sweden, a child born to non-Swedish parents does not acquire Swedish nationality at birth. Spain does not grant Spanish citizenship to a child born to non-Spanish citizens. The child can gain citizenship between the ages of 18 to 20 by declaration. In Greece, there is no entitlement to nationality at birth. When a child reaches 18, he or she can apply for naturalisation. In Italy, with continuous residence since birth, a child can apply for Italian citizenship at the age of 21.

We can see from those comparisons that we are unique and well out of synch with what happens across the rest of Europe. Yet when this is proposed, people raise the spectre of racism. However, that is not mentioned regarding the current arrangements of those other countries and this shows that the argument is disingenuous.

The timing of the referendum seems to be the Opposition's main contention. However, the Good Friday Agreement was brought to the people within 44 days. The Minister made an interesting point about symmetry.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Good Friday Agreement was not contentious.

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Potentially it was.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some 94% of people voted for it.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps I might proceed without interruption.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Walsh has one minute left, without interruption, please.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We now have 65 days until 11 June, which gives ample opportunity to debate this matter. Senator Hayes referred to the possibility of the matter being contentious. I doubt if it will be very contentious. I do not agree with him that the issue is complex; it is very simple. It gives the Oireachtas the right to legislate regarding Irish-born children of non-nationals. The issue is very simple to place and will be easily understood by the public at large.

Regarding the racist reaction, it is not right that we imply here that people who put themselves forward for local government or the European Parliament will exploit the issue by running on a racist ticket. The analogy made with comments made during the general election is unsustainable in that there was no such referendum during the general election but it did not prevent people, if they wished, from commenting on matters of public concern. The same would apply in local or European elections without being magnified by the fact that we have a referendum, which people will understand quite easily.

Regarding the deferral of this matter to a presidential election, first of all there is some doubt as to whether we will have one. If we have, I believe this would be less appropriate in that scenario. To have it on its own where the debate would be concentrated on this particular topic would give an opportunity to people with racist leanings to make their case, which they would otherwise not have. In the context of local and European elections, they will not be given that opportunity. However, not to use such a forum would be to create the type of situation which Members are saying we should try to avoid.

I also think that the low turnout at referendums, generally, is something we should try to avoid. By combining this with the European and local elections, a much more representative decision of the people will be assured. That is important on any issue, and in particular on this one.

In amending our laws, we would have symmetry with people born in Northern Ireland. The arrangements here should be the same. As a republican, I would contend that people born in Northern Ireland should have no less entitlements than people in the Republic. To have symmetry between the arrangements in both jurisdictions is something we should be pleased to support and promote. Overall, I would commend the Minister for bringing this matter forward. It will regulate an area that is in need of regulation. There are no downsides from anyone's perspective with regard to it, certainly not for those who come here and want to be part of the Irish nation and who are prepared to play their part constructively and effectively. I think they will be welcomed.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I rarely use phrases such as "more in sorrow than in anger". However, I think it is an appropriate phrase here. The Minister makes a coherent case for dealing with what he believes to be a problem. It is no more than I would expect. He puts together a coherent constitutional legal case for dealing with the problem and he identifies anomalous issues in the Good Friday Agreement, using those to further build a case for resolving the issue. The whole flaw, of course, is that this document which he produced on 10 March fails miserably to suggest that there is a problem about the claiming of citizenship. I quote from the document: "Statistics on the nationalities of mothers of children born in the State have not been collected in a systematic way in the past."

We knew something about asylum seekers because we kept an eye on them. We now know that asylum seekers are not the majority — in fact they are a minority — of the non-national mothers who give birth in our hospitals. We know that the position of two of our senior doctors was misrepresented, accidentally I presume, in the days after the Minister produced his briefing document. We know that the Taoiseach, on 17 February, told the Dáil that there were no plans for a referendum. Three weeks later, approximately, we were told there would probably be a referendum. We went from "no referendum" to a referendum in three weeks on the basis of a document which admits that the information is patchy and which underlines that nothing is known about the motives of non-national mothers who arrive here. I quote from the Minister's document: "Anecdotal evidence suggests that many women are travelling from the UK in the later stages of pregnancy."

What an extraordinarily plausible and coherent position to be in, staging a referendum on the same day as an election based on what the Minister himself concludes is anecdotal evidence, with no evidence at all in some cases. The remainder of his document is equally confusing, switching from non-EU nationals to non-nationals almost paragraph by paragraph. The consequence of this is to mislead and confuse. He admits in the bulk of the document that the problem is not with asylum seekers but proceeds to produce pages and pages of data in Appendix 1 about them. The conclusion I draw is what we knew to be the case — the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was always unhappy with Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, as they were drafted in the Good Friday Agreement. The Department could not coherently object during a referendum on the Good Friday Agreement. However, it wanted to close the gap that it — in its peculiar capacity to identify problems nobody else can — believed to be there. It started off on the campaign which ended up in the Supreme Court judgment about the "non-right" of the parents of a child born in this country to remain in Ireland. It achieved that part of its objective, so it then started on the next stage. Contrary to what the Minister says, however, it did not tell anybody about it. An Agreed Programme for Government stated——

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All-party discussions.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, it mentioned all-party discussions would be initiated on the issue of such constitutional or other measures. The all-party consultations for a referendum that was not going to be held on 17 February commenced with a briefing document stating what the Government wanted to do on 10 March. Now on 7 April, these all-party discussions having presumably concluded, we are told the Government will have a referendum on 11 June.

I live in Cork North-Central and I happen to have the misfortune to be represented by the most disgusting Member of Dáil Éireann, a man whose position in an opinion poll——

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is inappropriate for the Senator to use language of that nature.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is the least principled Member of Dáil Éireann. He is not disgusting, he just has no principles.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is Senator Ryan withdrawing his first comment?

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is not disgusting. He has no principles.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Free speech.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not appropriate language for the Senator to use, in fairness.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I leave it to the Members of this House to decide what adjective to apply to a man who was at the bottom of an opinion poll——

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is Senator Ryan withdrawing the remark?

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Which one of them am I to withdraw, that he has no principles or that he is disgusting?

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Both of them.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I said he was not disgusting. It is probably too kind to call him disgusting. He is worse than that, but we will leave it out.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Senator withdrawing the remarks?

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am withdrawing as much about him as he withdrew about innocent asylum seekers, which is shag all.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, those remarks, as the Senator knows, are intemperate and inappropriate and should be withdrawn. It is not the first time——

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not a point of order. Is Senator Ryan withdrawing the remarks he made?

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I withdraw whatever adjective I used that people do not like.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Senator.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I can write them all outside the House, anyway. It is an extraordinary fact that in here where I have privilege I cannot say the words that I have said frequently and in debate with this individual outside the House. However, I repeat that politics were demeaned in Cork by one individual in particular, who Fianna Fáil opinion polls showed was at the bottom of their three-candidate league table until he beat the racist drum. Then he jumped to the top.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is sour grapes.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not sour grapes. The Senator should consult his own constituency colleague. Fianna Fáil private polls show that this man jumped from the bottom of the polls to the top.

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach put this matter absolutely straight.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach made this man Chairman of an Oireachtas committee. Whatever the innocence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform — God help me, after all the years I do not believe he is intent on using race — not for the first time since going into Government with Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats has been conned into a position which it must now defend. If we have a referendum on such a difficult and complex topic as citizenship, in the middle of two elections, then immigrants, immigration and race will be covertly and overtly an issue in those elections.

We cannot be sure about intent in these matters. I cannot read other people's minds. However, I can be sure that either this Government is profoundly inept or it has chosen to go ahead with this in the certain knowledge that what I have foretold will happen. If either of those is the option, we then return to what I said at the outset, with the rational course being to first agree that we have a problem. There is no need for a referendum to be announced. That was one of the Minister's more misleading remarks. One simply quantifies the problem. That is possible. One can keep proper records, assemble the information and then invite the leaders of the various parties in the Oireachtas to look at the information and the trend and to consider what can be done. That is what we did regarding the issue of private property. It is fascinating that on a far less emotional and less politically sensitive issue, namely property rights, we got an Oireachtas committee to review the matter. We will shortly get a report on that issue. Yet this is a manifestly more sensitive issue, one more widely open to distortion, abuse, misrepresentation and the use of race — for those few in politics who wish to so use it as a political issue.

Since the issue arose, the question unanswered by the Government is what happened between 17 February and 10 March to persuade the Government that something that was not apparently being thought about on 17 February became a critical and urgent issue on 10 March. If there is evidence that it suddenly became critical, let us have it. If there is a case that suddenly became critical, let us have it. If neither of those exists, we must conclude that it was deemed to be politically expedient, meaning useful to Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, to hold the referendum on the same day as the local and European elections. If that is the decision, that is bringing race into our elections and the Government should be ashamed of itself.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the Government amendment. Timing is everything. If one does not get timing right, one is either too late or too early. Unfortunately, this evening's debate falls into both categories. It is too late to affect the Government decision to hold a referendum on 11 June, given that the Government took the decision yesterday, and it is too early to have an informed discussion on the substantive issue, as we still await publication of the legislation accompanying the proposed constitutional amendment.

This debate allows us to address a number of points. In assessing any course of action, one must take into account the consequences. I spoke on this issue in this House a few weeks ago and although certain people have chosen to distort my words for their own political advantage, I clearly stated that if such a referendum were to take place in conjunction with the local and European elections, it would need to be clearly explained in order to avoid the playing of the race card by certain parties or individuals for personal electoral gain. Unfortunately, the tenor of this debate has already centred on racism rather than on the substantive issue. I make no apologies for voicing these concerns. I appeal again to all politicians and candidates in the forthcoming election to consider the damage that can be done by following this route.

While I believe this debate will be conducted in a responsible manner by the majority of people, I will recount my own experiences in the last general election as a salutary lesson as to what can happen if someone plays the race card. I contested the last general election in Cork North Central. As in all elections, the issues were wide and varied. However, the issue that sickened me to the core was that of non-nationals in Ireland. Given the huge increase over the previous few years in the number of non-nationals entering this country, this was certainly an issue which needed to be addressed. All politicians acknowledge this, but the manner in which one candidate used it for personal gain was grossly irresponsible.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For those Senators who have not experienced such a situation, I will say why I formed the opinion I did and why I spoke out against racism. I do so in the hope that the lesson I learned will serve as a reminder to some and a warning to others, between now and 11 June.

I attended a public meeting in Cork on a proposed location for the housing of asylum seekers. I heard there the most extreme views expressed on both sides, from those with open arms philosophy and those with a clear racist and closed doors philosophy. Deputy Noel O'Flynn lectured the meeting on our responsibilities. He produced a document purporting to be a copy of the Geneva Convention and left people in no doubt that we had responsibilities in this regard. Within a matter of days he did a complete U-turn on his position and directly attacked all asylum seekers. The result was a heightening of racial tensions in the city and while those of us who tried to contain the issue worked to that end, he saw political opportunism and exploited it.

For me, there were a few defining moments, which I will highlight in order to appeal to the candidates in the forthcoming election to act responsibly and be aware of the consequences of such action. A young Cork girl, a university student, visited me in a distressed state. Her father was from Hong Kong, her mother from Cork. She was born and educated in Cork, and resided there. She was as much a Corkonian as I am. However, because of her different ethnic looks, she was now a victim of racial taunts. A mother of two foreign adopted children also contacted me. Her children had settled into school and had been in Ireland since they were a few months old. They were now being taunted in the school yard. Cork people who had married non-nationals who had integrated into the community, and who had worked and lived in Cork for a number of years, contributing to our society, were now being racially abused. Elderly ladies living alone were in fear of being assaulted or raped by non-nationals, who, according to myth, were rampant on the streets of Cork. This was a result of stirring it up, of playing with people's emotions. Fuelled by some local journalists, the myths and tensions grew.

Together with Pat Cox I organised a public meeting in Cork City Hall and there we heard many stories relating to the same issues, all as a result of the racist card being played for political gain. I chose not to play it, I spoke against it, and I failed to be elected. Opinion polls showed Deputy O'Flynn moving from losing his seat to topping the poll.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator cannot refer to Members of the Lower House.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I disagree. This is a matter of public record as it was published in every newspaper in the country.

Senators:

Hear, hear.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a precedent that no reference should be made to Members of the Lower House. Each House respects the other's Members.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been named consistently in the Lower House over the past several days on this issue.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a matter for the other House. I rule that the Senator will respect the Members of the Lower House.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Leas-Chathaoirligh, this matter happened and is on public record.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It may well be, but the Chair rules that Senators respect Members of the Lower House.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not refer to Deputy O'Flynn again, a Leas-Chathaoirligh.

I sleep with a clear conscience on this issue. I did not want to be elected to the Dáil on the back of the misfortune of others.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad it was isolated to Cork city. However, I appeal to all Members to prevent this debate being replicated in such an outrageous manner throughout the country on 11 June.

Have I reservations about having thereferendum on 11 June? Any Member would have reservations if he or she had a similar experience. The Government has made a decision which I respect. I hope the referendum can be addressed in a temperate and constructive manner to allow the people to decide. If this debate is used to incite racial tensions for personal political gain, there will be innocent victims. I hope there is a rational debate in the weeks ahead. When it is over, I hope we can hold our heads high in the knowledge that a difficult situation was dealt with in a humane and constructive manner, ensuring that what is good about Ireland, which we are proud of, remains intact. A coalition of extremes from both sides of the debate cannot be allowed to hijack this issue and defeat the silent majority's viewpoint. The one advantage of the 11 June date is that an acceptable degree of voter turnout is assured. I place my trust in the silent majority to exercise its democratic right responsibly. I spoke to the motion and I look forward in the weeks ahead to speaking on the substantive issue.

Photo of Michael McCarthyMichael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Photo of Paul BradfordPaul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate Senator Minihan for his outstanding contribution to this debate. In addressing the House, Senator Minihan did not speak from the book of political theory but from the bible of political practice. He recounted, as Senator Ryan also did, what happened in the Cork North-Central constituency during the last election. It is a chilling reminder of what happens when individuals turn the sensitive issue of race and citizenship into a political football. Doing so is the last thing needed in this socially, economically and culturally changing republic. Unfortunately, the assured way of achieving this is by having a debate on citizenship and race when every town and townland will be discussing politics at local and European level. The political parties will be at each other's throats to win every vote they can. Throwing the issue of race into that political fire will only lead to a dangerous equation.

This motion calls on the Government to consult in detail with the Oireachtas before substantial decisions are made on this issue. However, this is no longer relevant because the decision was made yesterday. The Fine Gael Party requested that no prospective referendum be held on 11 June. I listened with interest to a very fair and balanced speech by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, he did not address the central question of the timing of this proposed referendum. The Minister and the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, have addressed this issue as fairly as possible. However, selecting a date divided by party politics should have been the last one. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, indicated on RTE that he was not in favour of having the referendum on 11 June. A number of Government Senators, the Leader of the House and the Tanáiste all expressed similar sentiments. I am disappointed by the Government's decision to opt for 11 June.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform claims that once a signal that restrictions are to be put in place is sent abroad, lawyers will advise people to emigrate to Ireland before the gate is shut. That is a weak argument. If the Minister wishes to commence public consultation and give an indication that there will be some restrictions, simply adding that they will be implemented retrospectively solves that problem. It is difficult to find one good reason why this sensitive and substantive issue has to be thrown into the melting pot of town and county council and European elections. I am not convinced by the argument of taking political advantage of large voter turnout. Substantive questions about the broader issue must still be asked and answered. This is an issue that needs to be addressed but there is no unanimity on how to do so. Until the proposed wording to the referendum is published, a definitive answer cannot be given. From the Minister's speech, it is clear that the Government is attempting to solve the problem in a fair and balanced fashion. However, such an approach will be negated by holding the referendum on 11 June.

The Senators on the other side of the House must ask their Government colleagues to reflect on what they have done. Voices from the coalface, such as those of Senators Ryan and Minihan, who had to deal with what happens when one or two politicians turn this issue into a nasty political football must be listened to. I fear what happened in the 2002 general election in Cork city may happen throughout the country in the forthcoming local and European elections. We cannot legislate for good political behaviour or reason and fairness. By setting aside a separate date for the referendum, the extremists and bully boys on both sides would be marginalised. The Government made a decision yesterday, but it can be changed. It has already indicated decisions on social welfare cutbacks may be changed. However, limiting citizenship rights is a graver issue. The Minister of State should express to his senior colleague, Deputy McDowell, and his party colleagues his personal view, which is, I believe, that this serious issue needs to be addressed. This problem needs to be rectified and regulated, but the worst possible way of doing so is to proceed with the proposed referendum on 11 June. I say that sincerely. We must approach this issue in a calm and sensitive manner. If we want to keep party politics and naked racist arguments out of the campaign, we should find a new date for the referendum.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to share my time equally with Senator Mooney.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If there were ever a case of a motion being overtaken by events, I suppose this is it. It does not matter whether we like the proposed timing of the referendum or the substance of the decision, because the decision has been taken. There are differing views on such matters. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made a cogent and reasoned case for what he is doing. I welcome the generally calm tone of the debate in the House. Such a tone has not been a feature of all aspects of the debate on citizenship.

I completely disagree with the main thrust of the argument that has been made by speakers on the other side of the House. They have said that having a referendum on this issue on the same day as the European and local elections will heighten racist tensions. I recall that when there was a referendum on abortion, which is another emotive subject, on the same day as a general election in 1992, the issue being voted on in the referendum was practically buried. Some people might argue that it was not necessarily a bad thing, but the debate on the issue did not become highly emotive and did not affect people's voting decisions in the election.

I would like to make a prediction. I do not think that the substance of what is being proposed is very controversial. I notice that it has not been the subject of a full-frontal attack from any side in this House. I do not think that local council candidates will spend their time discussing or hyping it. It will be dealt with separately by a referendum. If we want to keep the temperature down, the proposed vote may not be such a bad way of proceeding.

I accept that there are tensions and that it is in all our interests to keep them down. I wish that Opposition speakers would not continue to throw charges of racism at the Government, as I do not think such charges can be sustained. The Government has done a remarkably good job in this area in the last six years. I accept there was an element of trial and error at the beginning, but that was because we were on a steep learning curve, not having faced the problem before. I would like us to have an asylum and immigration system in which people have confidence and which is fair, firm and reasonably liberal. I think the current regime, including this proposal, satisfies all those conditions. Such a system will reduce the tensions and pressures that exist.

I do not accept for a second that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has somehow had the wool pulled over his eyes by his Government partners in some sort of political conspiracy. He is very much his own man. He has brought forward these proposals, which have emerged from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I totally reject the racist epithets applied to civil servants on the Order of Business this morning. I hope that the person who made the remarks receives a proper letter from the relevant trade union, which the Labour Party is supposed to represent.

Photo of Michael McCarthyMichael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We represent everybody.

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In my experience, such an allegation is absolutely without justification. Such attacks on civil servants should not be made.

I am aware that this matter has been discussed for some time. The meeting with the masters of the maternity hospitals may have been a catalyst for action, but it certainly did not represent the beginning of the discussion. It is obvious that there is a Northern dimension to the issue, but nobody raised the issue with me when I met representatives of all the Northern parties during two visits there in the past three or four days. The manner in which it is proposed to address the matter completely protects what was done in the Good Friday Agreement, which, of course, was introduced in substitution for the State's assertion, at least at a theoretical level, of jurisdiction over the entire island. This assertion meant that the people of the island were entitled to be part of the Irish nation. We can continue to be proud of that and I do not think it will be impinged on in any way by this change. We await the details of the referendum Bill to judge the matter further. It is also important that we bear in mind the diaspora dimension.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful to Senator Mansergh. I appreciate the comments he made, which encapsulate in a concise manner much of what I intended to say. I agree with him that most people's concerns about this proposal do not relate to its concept, but to its timing. Although Opposition Members have every right to express their views, I am somewhat disappointed that the word "racism" has been used. I am afraid that it is not a new phenomenon, however.

I raised the question of citizenship in this House six months before the 2002 general election. It is somewhat ironic that my colleague, Senator Ryan, called for a debate on citizenship in the House this morning, as I called for such a debate over two years ago in the context of the arrival of large numbers of people to this country. Some friends of mine who work in the obstetrics departments of major Dublin hospitals have told me that it is obvious that people deliberately choose to arrive in the days before they are due to give birth. Their exclusive reason for arriving at such a late stage is to avail of the liberal nature of the laws introduced after the Good Friday Agreement. There were noble aspirations at the time, but we took our eye off the ball in that legislation, despite the expert advice available to us. We did not take account of the possibility of what eventually became a reality. There should be no question of racism. I was accused of being racist by the Leader of the Opposition at that time because I raised a simple issue and asked for a debate on the concept of citizenship. The man in question later retracted his accusation.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not accuse the Senator of being racist.

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to a former Leader of the Opposition who ironically — I use the word "ironically" under privilege — is now in charge of human rights. I have my own views about the gentleman in question. He did not make the allegation in this House because he did not have the courage to do so, but he ran to the newspapers the day afterwards. He came up with an apology three months later. I do not want to be distracted from what I wish to say.

I share the belief of Senator Mansergh and others that there will not be a racist dimension to the local elections as a result of the decision to have this referendum. An overwhelming majority of people across the political spectrum is in favour of this measure. I am proud of my citizenship. I am proud to be Irish; I am proud of all that encompasses. That is not the same as being xenophobic or having a "little Ireland" view. Regardless of where they come from or the colour of their skin, I resent people who deliberately use the laws of this country to give birth to a child so that he or she automatically becomes a citizen without any knowledge or any care for what this country stands for, what it means or what we are as a people. I suggest to the Minister of State that the Government should consider some sort of nationality test for those who wish eventually to become Irish nationals. Perhaps such a test, which is in place in the United States, has already been discussed.

Photo of Michael McCarthyMichael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share my time with Senator Morrissey.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Photo of Michael McCarthyMichael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a very sensitive area and has only become controversial over the last number of years, for a plethora of reasons. The timing of this referendum is important. The Government has announced its intention to hold it on 11 June, but I am strongly of the opinion that it should not be held on the same day as the local and European elections, for a number of reasons. Those who turn out to vote will be more engaged with issues that normally arise during local or European elections. The poll provides an opportunity for some bad-minded people to use the issue of race, which applies to a category of people who are generally worse off than others, for electoral gain.

Senator Minihan spoke eloquently and passionately about what happened in Cork North Central two years ago. Research was done, as it was in most areas, and according to this research, one candidate was at the bottom of the list. This generally suggests defeat. However one construes it, his exploitation of a certain issue led that candidate to head the poll. We all know who I am talking about. That person blatantly took advantage of the position of asylum seekers and passed unforgivable remarks about people who are less well off than others for a variety of reasons. That person was returned to Dáil Éireann and subsequently rewarded by the leader of his party with the chairmanship of a Dáil committee. That was not dealing with the matter. It was anything but doing so. If the Government had been made up of the Labour Party, Fine Gael and the Green Party and if swift action had not been taken to dismiss a person who made comments such as these, Fianna Fáil members would be the first to start jumping up and down about it. Nothing was done about this Deputy.

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He was severely reprimanded.

Photo of Michael McCarthyMichael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There will be thousands of candidates in the local and European elections. There are no guarantees that people will not take advantage of this issue. I have yet to be convinced by the Minister, Deputy McDowell, and others that this will not happen.

The local and European elections are 65 days away. Why has this matter become so urgent? In the middle of February the Taoiseach said in the Dáil there would not be a referendum of any description. All of a sudden, on 10 March, a referendum was announced. What happened between 17 February and 10 March? Can the Minister of State deny that an American researcher was engaged by the main Government party to find out the main issue of concern to people in advance of the local elections and that the answer the person came up with was the issue of citizenship or some variant thereof? If that is the reason the Government proposes to change our Constitution — the charter which guarantees the fundamental rights of our citizens——

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is not a scintilla of truth in it.

Photo of Michael McCarthyMichael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why is the Government attempting to change the Constitution——

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not the reason.

Photo of Michael McCarthyMichael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——on the basis of this research?

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is complete rubbish.

Photo of Michael McCarthyMichael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have yet to be convinced. I would welcome an attempt by the Government, particularly by Senator Mansergh and others, to convince me that is not the case.

The proposed referendum also has strong implications for the Good Friday Agreement. The Agreement, which was ratified by people on both sides of the Border, guarantees citizenship to every person born on this island. Has the Government seriously thought about the effect on the Agreement of the proposed change in the wording of the Constitution? It is already receiving a hammering from a number of different interests. It is disgraceful that the Government would attempt to do something for electoral gain which would affect one of the finest——

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not for electoral gain.

Photo of Michael McCarthyMichael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is absolute nonsense. I have yet to be convinced it is not for electoral gain. I reiterate that I would welcome any attempt to convince me otherwise. I do not think it is a good idea to hold the referendum on 11 June. It would be wrong. I welcome the comments made by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, on "Questions and Answers" on Monday night, without committing him to this as the reality of the situation is very different. It is characteristic of a wider view held in Government circles, whether in the Lower or Upper House. For an issue as serious as this, the Taoiseach and the Government would be much better off to engage in all-party talks. This was done, as Senator Ryan pointed out, when the issue of property rights was being discussed, and a reasoned and balanced debate took place. This referendum should be fought on the same basis. Unfortunately, that is not happening.

Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some two to three weeks ago I, and representatives of all other political parties in the Oireachtas, attended a meeting in the Shelbourne at which we signed an agreement to have a non-racist local and European election campaign. In view of that, I do not see why some Senators continually refer back to what happened two years ago. All parties in the House have now signed up to that campaign.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That Deputy signed up as well.

Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope the local election candidates will have more on their minds than this issue over the next 65 days. European election candidates should certainly have much more on their plates, with the enlargement of the EU and all that brings with it. We cannot go around with our eyes closed. There is a problem in our maternity hospitals. I and other Senators have friends working in Dublin maternity hospitals who tell us these stories. This is anecdotal evidence. They are true stories of people coming to this country and trying to obtain residency and citizenship. They are coming here because we have a liberal regime. According to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, even if the Constitution is amended we will still have the most liberal regime in the EU. When this is put before the people and they see the minor alterations to the provisions on citizenship they will wonder what the hoo-ha is about.

This is not the first time a referendum has been held in conjunction with a general or local election. In 1992 people were asked to sign green, pink and blue forms to vote on three issues concerned with abortion. They were well able to understand it. This is much less convoluted. It is about restricting the right of citizenship, North and South, to those who have been resident in the country for a certain period. I will support the amendment and I appeal to Senators and the wider public not to engage in a racist campaign. The points made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform tonight should allay those fears. The Government parties will not be conducting a racist campaign.

7:00 pm

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate, which was an excellent one. Some important issues were raised. I passionately believe that the role of this House is fundamentally different from that of the other House when it comes to debating issues such as these. We feel lucky to be in the House when we hear the kind of spectacular contribution that was made by Senator Minihan. It was an honour to hear him speak outside the party box and put on the record, in a cool and honest way, what happened during the last general election campaign in Cork. We need that kind of honesty in politics. I compliment him on his remarks.

We are joined by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, who gave us his view on the matter, a view he shares with many colleagues on that side of the House, last Monday. As Senators, we have a role to ensure that the Executive knows our views on these matters and tests them in the context of the debate. I do not accept the fatalistic view that the Government has made its decision and nothing more will happen. That is why we have a republic — so that open debate of this nature can be heard in the House, arguments can be tested and, most importantly, the Government can admit it is sometimes wrong. The Government would display much rationality if it stated that it would be wrong to proceed with this referendum on 11 June and if it listened to its Ministers, to significant figures in the House, such as the Leader, and to significant figures in the Government parties and then decided not to proceed.

The Minister of State should pass on my next point to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Will the Minister publish the minutes of the meeting between himself and the masters of the three Dublin maternity hospitals to give us an independent account of what occurred? I am sure his Department has the minutes.

The point was well made by Senator Ryan that the programme for Government contained a promise of all-party consultation and discussion before this matter would be put to the people, but that has not happened. A nine-page memorandum given to Opposition spokespersons three weeks ago is not the same as an all-party discussion. I disagree fundamentally with Senator Morrissey who said this is a straightforward and simple issue. It is not straightforward, it is highly complex. All these matters ultimately come before the Supreme Court and it is that court's interpretation which wins out. The suggestion that this legislation can be passed through the Oireachtas with a short debate before 11 June is nonsense. The very people who gave us the changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, who framed those words and who brought the Bill before the Oireachtas, are now proposing amendments to our citizenship laws. The notion that Governments are infallible and never get things wrong is nonsense. The Government was wrong in 1998 and when we go through the detail of the forthcoming legislation, it may well be proven wrong again. That is why we need to proceed with this matter in a deliberative fashion.

I want to respond to the Minister's arguments about why we should not hold this referendum on the same date as the presidential election. All the candidates in the presidential election, if we have such an election, would not be asked their views on this matter because they would be pre-empting a decision of the Houses of the Oireachtas should the referendum be successful. The presidency is a fundamental part of the Oireachtas, so in the context of a presidential election this issue would be parked because the candidates would not be able to express their views. They could not do so because the Bill would not have gone through the Oireachtas.

In the context of the local elections and the experiences we have heard about from Senators Ryan and Minihan, the notion that this issue will be neatly parked during the campaign in the run up to polling day on 11 June is farcical. Government candidates in particular will be under much pressure in the elections. Those who will want to play the race card by following the illustrious example of the honourable Member for the Dáil constituency of Cork North-Central, will play that card, if it suits them, to get back in for five years. That is the inherent danger that lies behind putting this proposal to the electorate on 11 June.

I want to put a final argument, which has not been answered by the Minister. The Supreme Court ruling of January 2003 is very definite on this issue. It says that if a non-national child is born in this country it is automatically guaranteed citizenship but that its parents are not guaranteed citizenship or residency rights. What has changed so dramatically since that ruling? Has it led to a dramatic reduction in the number of people coming to this country? As Senator Ryan said, we do not even know the latest data concerning the total number of such people. It has not led to a radical reduction. The Minister should explain, therefore, why changing the Constitution will alter the scenario in terms of the number of people who want to come here.

What we need are more midwives to deliver the babies being born here. We also need a bit more honesty on the issue of the unborn child. We have had great debates over the past 20 years concerning the unborn child but it seems that if a child is black or comes from a poor country, it will be forgotten about. Let us join up our thinking on this issue and get back to the notion of the Republic. Those who lay most claim to being republicans in this debate are acting in a most improper fashion. We have much thinking to do. We need more time and that is why this issue should not be put to the electorate on 11 June.

Amendment put.

The Dail Divided:

For the motion: 29 (Eddie Bohan, Cyprian Brady, Michael Brennan, Margaret Cox, Brendan Daly, John Dardis, Timmy Dooley, Geraldine Feeney, Liam Fitzgerald, Camillus Glynn, Brendan Kenneally, Tony Kett, Michael Kitt, Terry Leyden, Don Lydon, Marc MacSharry, Martin Mansergh, John Minihan, Paschal Mooney, Tom Morrissey, Pat Moylan, Francis O'Brien, Labhrás Ó Murchú, Mary O'Rourke, Ann Ormonde, Kieran Phelan, Eamon Scanlon, Jim Walsh, Diarmuid Wilson)

Against the motion: 14 (Paul Bradford, Fergal Browne, Paddy Burke, Ulick Burke, Paul Coghlan, Noel Coonan, Michael Finucane, Brian Hayes, Mary Henry, Michael McCarthy, Joe McHugh, Shane Ross, Brendan Ryan, Sheila Terry)

Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators U. Burke and McCarthy.

Amendment declared carried.

Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Photo of Mary O'RourkeMary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 11 a.m. tomorrow.