Has a decision been made on the date to hold the referendum on citizenship? Will the Tánaiste explain to the House why the Taoiseach told us on 17 February that there were no proposals to hold any referendum in 2004 and why a couple of weeks later, on 10 March, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform said there would be such a referendum and it would likely be held in conjunction with the elections on 11 June? Why did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform say his decision was based on a meeting with the masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals who he said pleaded with him to change the law?

It is a disgrace.

Why did the Minister state that the meeting was held at their request when we now know from a statement issued by the masters that they deny ever asking the Minister to change the law or hold a referendum? It turns out it was the Minister's officials who invited them to the meeting which took place in October 2002.

It is misinformation.

Perhaps the Tánaiste knows the answers to these questions because I do not. How can this be reconciled with the Good Friday Agreement? What changes will be necessary to it given that Articles 2 and 3 derive from it? How can it be reconciled with the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, chaired by Deputy Brian Lenihan, which recommended not just that sufficient time should be given to debate a measure like this, but that Standing Orders should be changed to embody a presumption that every Deputy and Senator who wishes to discuss this ought to be permitted to do so and that a separate Oireachtas committee be set up to examine the Bill when it is published? He said that in exceptionally urgent circumstances, the 30-day limit should apply. Why is this so urgent? Does the Tánaiste agree with the leader of her party in the other House, Senator Minihan, who said it would be most unwise to hold this referendum in the context of the local and European elections, given how the race card has been played by some Members of this House and many candidates outside it?

Indeed.

Does the Tánaiste agree with her colleague, Senator Morrissey, who said at a meeting last Sunday that a decision had already been made to hold the referendum on 11 June?

I hope we do not start playing the race card here.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has already started.

No one has been more open or liberal on immigration issues than me but the fact remains that the law in this country is being abused, everyone must acknowledge that. It is not acceptable that people can fly here from anywhere in the world to give birth. The referendum was discussed at Cabinet this morning but no date has been agreed yet.

What was decided?

We decided two weeks ago to hold a referendum but the date for it has not yet been decided. Many would be of the view that we are having an election anyway ——

Disgraceful.

—— and it makes more sense to have it on that occasion than to have it during the presidential election, if there is one.

There will be an election.

Will the Deputy be a candidate?

There will be an election.

I thought the motley group that got together had already broken up because it could not agree on the Hanly report.

We have four times as many votes as the Tánaiste's party.

I request that the Tánaiste does not respond to interruptions and I point out to her that this is Deputy Rabbitte's question. He is only the person entitled to an answer at this time.

How many Members has the Tánaiste's party?

I would look forward to an election. No agreement has been reached on when the referendum will be held, that has still to be decided by Government. Any referendum will be totally compatible with the Good Friday Agreement and there will have to be a debate in this House. There are time deadlines for the passing of a Bill before a referendum can be held and the Government, when it discussed this matter some weeks ago, decided that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should enter consultations with Opposition parties, which he did in advance of the Government decision. That remains the position.

The necessity for the referendum occurs because of what is happening and no one can disagree with that. The proposal is in line with almost every other European country, many of which have much more restrictive rules on residency than we are proposing in this legislation.

The Tánaiste is supposed to be closer to Boston than Berlin.

I agree with the Tánaiste that we cannot have a situation where anyone can fly in from any part of the world to use the maternity services in this city. However, we do not know the extent to which that is happening because the only figures the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has given are those for non-nationals. Furthermore, the Minister seriously misrepresented the meeting with the masters. When Deputy Gay Mitchell tabled a parliamentary question in this House to find out the extent of the phenomenon referred to by the Tánaiste, the answer was that the figures were not available and the Deputy would be contacted in writing. As of yesterday, that had not yet happened.

Why does the Tánaiste want to hold this referendum in the context of elections? Why did the Taoiseach tell the House on 17 February that no such referendum was proposed? Why would the meeting with the masters be misrepresented? Why do we not have time to tease out the implications for the Good Friday Agreement given that it can only be jointly reviewed?

Is the Tánaiste aware of the consultant from the United States brought in by the Fianna Fáil Party to identify the current issues in this polity. It was they, not I, who identified immigration as the main issue, 17 points ahead of health?

That is despicable.

Any collusion by the Progressive Democrats Party in permitting that issue to be put in the context of elections would be unworthy of the Tánaiste's party.

I was not at the meeting with the masters and I am not certain what occurred at it. I doubt very much if the masters would have come to it looking for changes in legislation but I know from private discussions with people working in the maternity hospitals in Dublin that there is enormous concern about what is happening. One senior consultant told me some time ago that if the trend continued we would need another hospital facility in the greater Dublin area. There is, therefore, considerable concern about what is happening.

We need another maternity hospital in any case.

The relevant figure for the Coombe is 2%.

As the Deputy knows, non-nationals account for 22% of births in Dublin, many of whom come here for that purpose.

Many of them are working here.

No, not many of them are working here.

They are in——

Again, I remind the House that this is the Labour Party's question and it is inappropriate to answer questions from the Technical Group, which will have an opportunity shortly.

As regards the date for the referendum, it is important to acknowledge that it has not yet been agreed. It is also important to acknowledge that there is no doubt that whenever it is held it will stir up undesirable feelings. The onus is on all of us in the House who want to ensure that racism does not take hold in Ireland to ensure that the campaign is conducted to the highest possible standards, which has been the case generally with most parties in the House on this issue.

By holding the referendum during the local elections, the Government is ensuring we will have a racist campaign.

Is the Deputy opposed to the referendum?

The Government is facilitating——

Is Deputy Joe Higgins taking the Technical Group's question today?

I was remonstrating with the Tánaiste.

We will have order in the House.