Speaking in the Seanad on 8 December 1999 on the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, I said:

Senators Connor and O'Donovan referred to this as an historic and significant Bill. May I use the word "emotional"? 

I say this on a personal level as my father came from County Down and my mother from County Armagh. They married in Dublin and my only sister married a Portadown man. I grew up in a household which has strong northern connections. The changes to Articles 2 and 3 are quite emotional for me and for many of my cousins in the North.

However, we welcome this change because of the much broader implications. I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue's imaginative solution to the entitlement. 

His speech to the Dáil was as follows:

"Instead, the Bill starts out, as it must, from the premise that every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, is entitled to be an Irish citizen.... This is a new concept in Irish citizenship law. It reflects the entitlement and birthright, set out in new Article 2 of the Constitution, for every person born in the island of Ireland to be "part of the Irish nation". By taking this approach, we ensure respect for the position of those who do not wish to exercise that entitlement. At the same time, those who do wish to assert their Irish citizenship are free to do so."

This is imaginative and will ensure a respect and regard for the Bill which I welcome.

I have great difficulty with those who have not travelled north of the Border understanding that we are part of this northern "thing". I recall buying a wedding present some time ago. As my colleague and I had decided to buy an Irish made present, I suggested buying linen. He said, "No, we should buy some of our own" - the implication being that the North was not part of Ireland.

In my company five or six years ago we put little shamrocks in front of every Irish product. A great number of our employees and customers queried whether some of the items should be marked with shamrocks as they came from north of the Border. It never entered my mind not to regard Counties Antrim, Down and Armagh as part of Ireland. 

It seems to me that the further one travels from the Border, the more partitionist one becomes. I am pleased, therefore, that this solution is moving in the right direction.

I will give a couple of examples from history which my father related.

One was the introduction of the Control of Manufacturers Act, 1934. My father had been living here for some years and his attention was drawn to the fact that the wording originally proposed for the Bill would mean that his friend from County Fermanagh would be excluded and not regarded as Irish. He approached Frank Aiken, the then Minister, and the wording was changed before the Bill was published.

It appears that aspects sometimes slip through. 

This almost happened last year in relation to the George Mitchell Scholarship Bill. The Bill was initiated and passed in the Dáil and it was only when it came to this House it was discovered that it related to scholarship and money spent for study in this State. It was only when this aspect of the Bill was queried in this House that the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Martin, decided to change the wording to cover the whole island.

Any changes in relation to citizenship are fundamental and need great scrutiny. Changes should never happen by accident and without great openness and transparency. 

As I listened to Senator Connor speak about passports for sale, I automatically began to sympathise with his point of view. I tabled a Private Members' motion three years ago which I believe was highly influential in ending passports for sale.

However, I have some criticism of the Bill. The explanatory and financial memorandum reads:

"The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, 1999, makes changes in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts, 1956 to 1994, consequent on the coming into effect of the new Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution arising out of the package of measures comprising the Good Friday Agreement."

This is exactly what should happen and I welcome it. 

However, paragraph 4 reads: "Along with the changes necessary as a consequence of the Constitutional changes, the Bill includes measures..." and it then lists a number of measures.

The Bill should not have done this. The Minister explained effectively the purpose of the Bill. However, it should not have been used as an opportunity to make other changes which came to our notice only in the last few days. I am aware the Bill was published last Thursday but I did not see it until yesterday. Therefore, I have not had a chance to scrutinise it or listen to the views of those likely to be affected.

Any changes to citizenship are fundamental and, in essence, will be contentious. Therefore, there needs to be openness and transparency. There needs to be lobbyists and a raft of interests expressing their views.

For example, in relation to marriage, we are changing from automatic right to citizenship to a naturalisation process which will have a time limit. This may be a good thing but I have not had time to listen to the views of those who may be affected.

Therefore, this is the wrong context in which to introduce these measures. There should be openness and transparency in relation to this matter so everyone can express their points of view.

There is a danger that we have not heard the views of the asylum seekers, refugees and others who might have a view. There is also a danger that the Department has not earned the trust and confidence of the nation in this area. It now needs to work hard to establish credibility among those who will be most affected.

I would prefer if these fundamental changes to our citizenship law were not slipped into a Bill which is effectively taking place as a consequence of the Good Friday Agreement and the agreement last week.

I congratulate the Minister and his team on introducing this imaginative solution but I question the introduction of the other changes. I would prefer to have them introduced with much more openness so that we could have identified and queried the pitfalls. 

We could then say the Bill was scrutinised fully, and that we are happy with it.