Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 May 1998

Vol. 490 No. 5

Written Answers. - Passports for Investment Scheme.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

280 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of the 114 persons who applied for, and were granted, naturalisation under the investment based scheme between 1988 and 1994 who had complied fully with the criteria for naturalisation established by the Government decision of December 1988 before being granted naturalisation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10785/98]

As I informed the Deputy in my reply to Question No. 240 on 31 March last, the scheme for investment-based naturalisation was administered by my predecessors pursuant to their powers under section 16 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, as inserted by section 5 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986.

As I have said in the House on previous occasions, the exact criteria for naturalisation under the scheme varied over time. In practice, they appear to have centred, up to 1994, on acquisition of a residence in the State.

The records in my Department confirm that, of the 95 adults who applied in the period 1988 to 1994 and were subsequently naturalised, the vast majority, 83, purchased a residence in the State. Our records in the Department may not be completely exhaustive but I have put the Deputy in possession of the information I have in this matter.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

281 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when the report of the review of the investment based naturalisation scheme which commenced in September 1997 and was completed in March 1998 will be published; and, if not, if the information therein will be made available to those who have been tabling parliamentary questions on the issue. [10786/98]

The outcome of the review which I carried out was presented to Government in the form of an aide-memoire and it would not be appropriate to publish it. As the Deputy may be aware, the Government formally decided on 20 April that the scheme in question should be abolished. The Deputy has tabled a number of questions in the past few months about the operation of the scheme and, despite the fact that the questions relate to events which long predate my assuming office, I have provided the Deputy with as much information as possible, short of identifying the companies or investors involved.

Top
Share