Vol. 54 No. 9
I move amendment 1:—
In page 2, Section 2 (I) (e), line 39 to delete the words "subject to the subsequent provisions of this section."
These are the words which were responsible for a certain amount of confusion on the Committee Stage. The change is consequential on an amendment introduced on the Committee Stage.
I think the amendment meets to a certain extent the difficulties which I pointed out during the previous stages of this Bill with regard to citizens of Northern Ireland. I should like, however, to ask the President if he has got any definite policy with regard to this Bill as to what can be done to avoid the prospect of Irish citizens of Northern Ireland having to go to England to register in order to retain their Irish citizenship. Perhaps, in the Seanad some amendment will be introduced which will avoid that. I still insist that something should be done to avoid the necessity of Irish citizens, born in Northern Ireland, having to go to the High Commissioner's office in Piccadilly Circus to register.
I am not sure that the Deputy realises the provisions that are made in this Bill to meet the situation which he has in mind. First of all, people residing in the Six Counties on 6th December, 1922, were in the territory of Saorstát Eireann, as ascertained and defined by a judical decision. The next thing is that children of the first generation automatically become natural-born citizens of Saorstát Eireann. It is only in the third generation that there is any need for registration and that registration can be done either in the manner the Deputy was indicating or directly here through the Foreign Births Register which is kept at the Department of External Affairs. These are the provisions in the Bill at the moment and I think these are as ample as we are in a position to make.
Would the President ring up Lord Craigavon and ask him if it would be a suitable thing to establish a High Commissioner's office in Belfast? That would save all this trouble. If we had a High Commissioner's office in Belfast, with the approval of Lord Craigavon, we might get over these difficulties.
That would be in the third generation.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 5, Section 7 (1), to delete all from the word "having," line 55, to the word "years," line 57, and substitute the words "on account of the Irish descent or Irish associations of a person who has not attained the age of 21 years and having regard to the other circumstances of the case, issue to such person."
This amendment has been introduced in deference to the views expressed by the Opposition during the Committee Stage. As it stood originally, it was suggested that the section was too wide, and when I pointed out that we had in mind, for the most part, minors of Irish association, it was suggested that we might make an amendment to that effect. That is the purpose of this amendment that we are now proposing.
I propose amendment No. 3:—
In page 5, Section 7 (1), line 58, to delete the word "a."
This is merely a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 6, to add at the end of Section 7 a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) A person to whom a certificate of naturalisation has been issued under this section may, within one year after attaining the age of twenty-one years, make and lodge with the Minister in the prescribed form and manner a declaration of alienage, and thereupon such person shall cease to be a citizen of Saorstát Eireann.
The object of this is to enable a minor who might be naturalised on the request of one of the parents, to be in a position to exercise his own right when he comes of age. We have in other cases some such provision, and we thought it wise to put in the provision here also.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 7 to delete Section 11 (b).
As I pointed out on the last day, this sub-section, as it stands, indicates power to terminate the citizenship, even of a natural-born citizen. We think that that would be altogether undesirable, and we have decided to take that out.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 7, Section 11 (d), lines 57 and 58, to delete the words "her or his certificate has been terminated or", and in line 59 to delete the words and brackets "(as the case may be)."
Amendments 6 and 7, I think, are consequential on the deletion of sub-section 11 (b).
No; not amendment 7.
There are two places —lines 57 and 58—to delete the words "her or his certificate has been terminated or"—that is clearly consequential—and in line 59 to delete the words and brackets "(as the case may be)". That is consequential also.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 9, Section 17 (b), line 55, to delete the words "within twelve months after the passing of this Act."
During the debate in the Committee Stage, it was suggested that there should not really be a time limit set. Of course, in five years, in any case, the person would be applying for a certificate, and would have full residence qualifications for naturalisation. Consequently we decided that the time limit was not necessary. I was rather anxious to have the time limit in order to give special privileges if applications were made immediately. But in view of the opinions expressed here and on reconsideration, we thought it as well to omit that time limit.
Amendments 7 and 8 are really the same thing. I welcome these amendments and I should like to express my appreciation of the fact that they have been introduced especially in view of the fact that the President refused to accept them on the Committee Stage.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 10, Section 18 (c), line 23, to delete the words "within six months after such marriage".
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 14, section 32, line 28, before the word "Citizenship" to insert the words "Irish Nationality and".
In the Short Title of the Bill it is proposed to insert the words "Irish Nationality" before "Citizenship," not that we feel that there is a need for doing it, but it was suggested by the previous Attorney-General, Deputy Costello, on the Second Reading that we meant to make some point with regard to Nationality and Citizenship. Although my view with regard to it still remains the same, the word has no legal connotation. At the same time to prevent any suggestion of that sort getting circulation or getting accepted, I think it might be wise to put the words "Irish Nationality" into the Short Title of the Bill.
I wonder if the President would read the phrases used in Deputy Costello's speech?
This was said by Deputy Costello:—
"The words `Citizen and Citizenship' in relation to international law, are, I think, words that have only come into common use in connection with the subject matter of Nationality in fairly recent times. It is rather inexact phraseology, from the point of view of public international law, to treat the subject of nationality as being the same as citizenship.
"In practice, I think the modern tendency is to assimilate the nomenclature of citizenship with that of nationality, but, in public international law, the real thing is nationality, and this Bill deals, in my view, with something which is not really nationality, and this Bill is really not a nationality Bill at all."
I agree with the views expressed by Deputy Costello. I disagree with this amendment and I must oppose it. I associate this amendment closely with what is now Section 30 of the Bill which purports to abolish, so far as Irish citizens are concerned, the common status possessed by every one of the King's subjects throughout the British Commonwealth.
I wish to say a few words about the principle and philosophy behind this proposal. The President and his Party accepted here, less than two years ago, a motion declaring that voluntary reunion of the Irish Free State with Northern Ireland should be the principal object of Irish statesmanship, and that every other constitutional issue should be subordinated to that. Although they accepted that motion they have frequently acted in a manner entirely opposed to it. In this Bill they act in a manner entirely opposed to it. They do so without the excuse of their achieving anything at all. What they are putting into the Bill here is just words. The President speaks as if he were saving this country from some form of degradation by declaring that it would be henceforth an impertinence for anybody to allude to us as British subjects. If there is any degradation it does not consist in what people call you. It consists in how you behave yourself. The President is not proposing that measures should be taken to stop Irish citizens from taking advantage of whatever privileges are available as a result of our belonging to the British Commonwealth. He is not even proposing, so far as I am aware, to make a patriotic appeal to them to refrain from making use of such privileges. If he was sincere in this talk of "impertinence" and this implication of degradation, he, surely, would introduce some such legislation or make some such appeal. He tells us that he proposes to change the basis of these privileges, that we are to have in future some sort of reciprocal arrangement—a reciprocal arrangement that can be made with any other country just as well as with Great Britain. I venture to say that that statement was sheer humbug. He knows perfectly well that there is no prospect of obtaining in any other country the privileges that we at present enjoy in Great Britain. He knows, moreover, that he himself is not prepared to offer such privileges to other countries, nor is he, I take it, prepared to offer to Great Britain the full privileges for British citizens that are available for Irish citizens in Great Britain. Even if he were prepared to keep the door on this side as wide open as they keep it on their side, he knows very well that a small and poor country like ours has got nothing equal in value to offer. I ask him to consider what the logical conclusion would be if he were to be taken seriously by the British.
The Deputy purports to discuss the philosophy at the back of this amendment. In doing so he is making a Second Reading speech, and in expressly replying to something the President said on Second Reading he is obviously reopening that debate.
I wish to represent to you that the matters to which I am objecting were introduced into the Bill on Committee Stage, that they were not there for me to attack in my Second Reading speech, if I had wished to do so; that the phraseology of the President to which I object was used, not in his introductory speech on Second Reading but in his closing speech on Second Reading, to which I had no opportunity to reply.
The Deputy will have an opportunity on Fifth Stage of discussing what is then contained in the Bill.
If you prefer me to deal with these matters on Fifth Stage, I bow to your ruling.
I do not know whether this is the proper occasion on which to raise the matter, but I feel in certain things the President and the Attorney-General, however inadvertently, have misrepresented the views of certain people. If I am permitted to do so, I would like to rectify these things now.
Could not these matters be raised more appropriately on the Fifth Stage of the Bill?
I agree.
