On the Second Stage I commented on the absence from this section of a definition of "alien," a word which is used in the side notes of a number of sections, and the President, in concluding the debate, indicated that an Aliens Bill was impending which would define aliens. I should like to know if the President could give us any idea as to when that Bill might be circulated because, I think, it has a bearing on this Bill. I do not want to anticipate the discussion on any other section, but the final amendment sets out that this Act shall not come into operation until such and such a date prescribed by the Minister, and there are terms in the Bill which, it seems to me, may not harmonise with that. They are such things that operate on the passing of this Bill and if the Bill was delayed in its operation, until the Aliens Bill also became an Act, certain things that follow, according to the Bill as it stands, on its passing, might be affected by the time factor which might intervene between the passing and the coming into operation of the Bill, so that if this last amendment has any bearing on the operation of this Bill, I suggest that it would be well to have some indication of when the Aliens Bill is likely to be circulated, and, therefore, some idea as to when it might become law.
Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, 1934: Committee Stage.
The intention is that the three Bills, namely, the Bill extending the operation of Article 3—the Constitution (Amendment) Bill—the Aliens Bill and this Bill should come into operation at the same time. The two other Bills are down for consideration by the Dáil when it assembles on the 13th February, and I take it that they will be before the Seanad within about a month from that time. The intention is that they should all come into operation at the one time.
There seems to be a difficulty in this sub-section, and if amendment 1 is passed in its present form, it seems to me that it would perpetuate it. The sub-section contains two sequences. The first sequence is lettered (a), (b) and (c). The second sequence, I think, deals with a different matter, but it is lettered (d) and (e), and so is made to form part of the first sequence. I would suggest that the first sequence of three should be numbered and the next sequence lettered.
We have got this from the draftsman, but we could consider it on Report.
I would suggest adjourning the amendment until Report Stage.
I think that if there are to be changes of a purely technical type we could deal with them on Report.
Whatever you desire.
I move amendment No. 1:—
Section 2, sub-section (2). Before paragraph (d), line 15, to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) if such person is born in Northern Ireland, in the Northern Ireland births register, or (in any other case)".
I second.
The purpose of this amendment is to meet a point made by Senator Johnson, who suggested that it was hardly right that those who would have to register from Northern Ireland should have to register in a book entitled "Foreign Births Register." This amendment is designed to institute a special register for those who would have to register from Northern Ireland. Perhaps I might be permitted to say, generally, at this stage, that there are really only about two substantive amendments on the paper and this is one of them. It has entailed a considerable number of consequential changes which are intended to be met by the other amendments. That is the reason why the number of amendments is so large.
I move amendment No. 2:—
Section 2, sub-section (3). After the word "entry" in line 25 to insert the words "in the Northern Ireland births register or".
I second.
This is simply a drafting amendment, consequential on the first.
I move amendment No. 3:—
Section 2, sub-section (3.). Before the word "shall" in line 29 to insert in brackets the words "(before or after the expiration of such year)".
I second.
This is a similar amendment.
With regard to amendment No. 4, I think that paragraph (b) of the section should end with the word "appointed" in line 63 and the word "shall" should be given a new line, full length. That will be effected before Report Stage?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Section 2, sub-section (4). To insert before the sub-section three new subsections as follows:—
(4) Every person who is not a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution but was born before the 6th day of December, 1922, either in Ireland or of parents of whom at least one was born in Ireland shall—
(a) if such person is at the passing of this Act or becomes thereafter permanently resident in Saorstát Eireann, be deemed to be a natural-born citizen of Saorstát Eireann, or
(b) if such person at the passing of this Act is permanently resident outside Saorstát Eireann and is not a naturalised citizen of any other country, be deemed, upon being registered in accordance with the next following sub-section of this section, to be a natural-born citizen of Saorstát Eireann.
(5) No person whose right to be deemed to be a natural-born citizen of Saorstát Eireann under the next preceding sub-section of this section is made by that sub-section conditional on registration in accordance with this sub-section shall be deemed to be a natural-born citizen of Saorstát Eireann unless, within one year or, where the Minister (before or after the expiration of such year) because of special circumstances so permits, within two years after the passing of this Act, the name of such person is registered—
(a) if such person is, at the passing of this Act, permanently resident in a country in which there is a Saorstát Eireann legation or consulate, in the register of nationals kept at such legation or consulate or in the general register of nationals, or
(b) if such person is, at the passing of this Act, permanently resident in a country in which there is neither a Saorstát Eireann legation nor a Saorstát Eireann consulate, in the general register of nationals.
(6) Every person born before the 6th day of December, 1922, who is, at the passing of this Act, employed outside Saorstát Eireann in the civil service of the Government of Saorstát Eireann as an established officer but is not a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution shall be deemed to be a natural-born citizen of Saorstát Eireann.
I second.
This is the second of the substantive amendments and it is the amendment to which I referred on the Second Reading. Its purpose is to take out of the section dealing with certificates of naturalisation and so forth the case of persons who were born in this country and who did not happen to be domiciled here and so become citizens under Article 3. The intention is that if they come in permanently to reside here, they shall be deemed to be natural-born citizens. If, on the other hand, they remain outside the country and even become citizens of any other country, on registration they shall be deemed to be natural-born citizens. That is the substance of it.
I think the point I alluded to in regard to Section 1 arises on this, but I find it difficult to follow the phraseology or sequence of some of the points in this. As a layman it strikes me that this might apply to many places where a similar phrase occurs. I suggest, therefore, that the President or his advisers might look into this in the meantime and that the term "at the passing of this Act" might be substituted by "at the coming into operation of this Act." I take it that this law will not be enforced until it comes into operation. I gathered from what the President indicated that it will not come into force for about three months, so that the effective period, so far as I can gather, would not be two years but one year and nine months. If the period was intended to be two years, it should be dated from the period when the Act comes into operation. I think the consideration bearing on that will be found applicable to several places where these words "at the passing of this Act" occur. I suggest that it might be looked into and, if my opinion is accurate, that the necessary changes might be made.
We can have that matter examined into. If it has to be dealt with, I think it will have to be dealt with in connection with amendment 22. We can amend it in an omnibus way so as not to have to follow it right through the Bill, as it is constantly occurring.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Section 4, sub-section (4). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Where the applicant for a certificate of naturalisation is the spouse of a person who is under this Act deemed (in virtue of permanent residence in Saorstát Eireann) to be a natural-born citizen of Saorstát Eireann, the Minister may, if he so thinks proper, dispense in the case of such applicant with compliance by such applicant with so much of this section as relates to residence in Saorstát Eireann prior to the application for a certificate of naturalisation.
I second.
This is to bring in certain marriage provisions that have to be inserted so as to make the case of the citizens we have just dealt with now parallel with the case of natural-born citizens which occurs afterwards in other parts of the Bill. It is simply carrying out the function of the main marriage provisions elsewhere.
I move amendment No. 6:—
Section 4, sub-section (5). Before the word "at" in line 14 to insert the words "she was".
I second.
This is a purely drafting amendment. The idea is to prevent overlapping. We have distinguished between those who are residing outside and those residing in the country. We want to make it quite clear here that there is no overlapping.
I move amendment No. 7:—
Section 4, sub-section (5). To delete in line 14 the words "she was" and to substitute therefor the words "and is at the date of such application".
I second.
That deals with the same point.
I move amendment No. 8:—
Section 4, sub-section (5). After the word "residence" in line 18 to insert the words "or to intended residence".
I second.
This is really a drafting amendment. It is to make sure that "residence" and "intended residence" are covered.
I should like to have a little more light on this section. I called attention to this on the Second Stage and quoted from the President's statement when he suggested that the only purpose that this was intended to effect was that if a person, or the child or grandchild of a person, who had done signal honour or rendered distinguished service to the nation, applied for naturalisation, certain formalities would be dispensed with. I suggested that, while sub-section (2) might bear out that view, sub-section (1) certainly gives it a much wider scope. Sub-section 1 reads:—
The Executive Council may, if and whenever they so think proper, cause a certificate of naturalisation to be issued under this Act to any person or to a child or grandchild of any person who, in the opinion of the Executive Council, has done signal honour or rendered distinguished service to the Irish nation.
There is, I think, a clear indication of spontaneous initiative on the part of the Executive Council without any request for naturalisation by the individual concerned; and if the intention is to confine the operation of this section to the purpose indicated by the President in the paragraph I cited on the Second Stage, then I say that that should be clearly and explicitly set out. In any case, I do not expect that the President will agree with my view on that point; but, if not, then I suggest that we should get some more light on what exactly sub-section (1) is intended to convey or to cover.
Further, I do not understand why the children or grandchildren of a person who has rendered distinguished service should come within the category of those favoured persons. There must be some definite reason for this. If it is desired to dispense with certain formalities in the case of certain persons, I think we ought to know who they are. They cannot be very numerous. If, however, the purpose is merely to dispense with certain formalities in regard to distinguished aliens or non-citizens, or their children or grandchildren, I suggest that that should be very definitely set out. It is a curious and novel provision that is proposed here. I read very carefully the passages in the Dáil Debates which dealt with that and certainly there seems to be an entire lack of convincing reason on the part of the President in his advocacy of this section.
If the intended scope of this section is what he indicated, I think that he has gone much beyond that in the section as it stands at present. If it is intended to be a process of conferring this as a recognition of merit, introducing some species of Order of Merit, I think it is a very poor substitute for anything of that kind. If there is any person of another country who has rendered distinguished service to this nation or this State I think that merely to dispense with certain formalities and inscribe his name on the roll of citizens is a very poor attempt to show the appreciation that this nation should indicate for the services rendered. If that is not the object that is in view, I do not see what the objective of the section is at all. If it is intended to take away certain formalities in certain special cases when certain persons have made application for naturalisation, then I think it should be clearly set out that that is the specific purpose of the section. At present it seems to have a much wider scope.
I should like to give what I hope is the ordinary view of this section. When I read this Section 5 it occurred to me that it lifted the Bill altogether out of the ordinary humdrum legislation in relation to nationality and that there was some imagination in the conception of it. I recalled that a provision such as this must have existed in the laws of the great civilised States of the past. I conceive that the intention is to do honour to people who have served this State, or whose fathers or grandfathers have served this State. Senator Milroy asks why we should go back as far as the father or the grandfather. The reason is that a certain man may have served this State in the last year, or the last ten or fifteen years, and this service may not become known for 15, 20 or 40 years, because every man who serves this State does not blazon it about on the day he renders that service.
The Senator misquoted me. He said: "Why go back to the father or the grandfather?" What I said was: "Why go down to the son or grandson." The Senator is reversing what I said.
One is the converse of the other—the father or the grandfather renders the service and, as often happens, the child or grandchild reaps the reward.
The hereditary principle.
The hereditary principle exists here. The next point made by Senator Milroy was: why should citizenship, as a matter of honour and dignity, be conferred upon a person unless he makes an application for citizenship? I wonder whether the Senator really means that to be taken seriously, because I think it would be very ridiculous, say, in the case of Themistocles if he had gone to Sparta and asked them to make him a citizen. Citizenship which is conferred as a matter of distinction, as a matter of honour, as a reward for services, is given freely without being asked. So far as I can read in this section, I think it is conceived according to the highest principles and that it is carried out in the proper way. For that reason, I think there is no substance in the criticism which Senator Milroy has made of this section.
In order that there should be no misapprehension in Senator Comyn's mind that I am trying to diminish the extent or operation of this section or its intent, I shall quote for him again the words of the President during the Committee Stage in the Dáil.
You did not quote them already. That is not an answer to what I say.
The Senator is entitled to make a second speech if he so desires.
He said he wants to read what he had already quoted. He quoted nothing.
I quoted it on the Second Stage. In Column 1226, Volume 54 of the Dáil Debates of 13th December last the President is reported as saying:
"In cases where an applicant for naturalisation is himself a person who has rendered, in the opinion of the Executive Council, signal services to the country, or, if a son or a grandson of such a person applies for naturalisation, is it not right that the Executive Council—it is not merely the Minister in this case—should be in a position to grant that naturalisation without insisting on the conditions imposed elsewhere?"
That is really what the section means. My only argument is that if that is all that is intended, the operation or power of the section should be limited to that.
I think Senator Milroy is to be congratulated on raising this question. I have not read the passages in the Dáil Debates which explain the Executive Council's intention regarding it, but on reading this particular section I had in mind the freedom-of-the-city sort of thing. I assumed that the initiative in that case must come from the Executive Council, but I hesitate at once over the principle involved in this—that signal service done by a man might be honoured in the grandson-because once we begin to introduce that principle in matters of honour we are getting right back to hereditary Second Chambers and, perhaps, hereditary monarchies. I, for one, am not inclined to accept that principle for a moment.
I think there is something to be said for Senator Milroy's interpretation. Perhaps the history of this would make it clear. The intention was that where the son or grandson or the person himself had rendered signal service to the country and where he applied for a certificate of naturalisation that in such a case the ordinary conditions, responsibilities and so on should not be demanded. Then the question was if there was such a case, or if the Government had to deal with such a case, whether it was fair to ask that the person should formally apply? Or if it came to the notice of the Executive Council that such a person wished to become a naturalised citizen, whether that person would have to apply in the ordinary way or whether there was to be more generous action on the part of the Executive Council by which they would dispense with the ordinary requirements or formalities? I do not think that the present Executive Council would hesitate before they would use it in a general way.
The case where the person wanted to become a citizen would have to be an outstanding one. In such a case we should not proceed in the rather mean way of compelling the person to go through all the formalities which are required in the case of a complete stranger who had no association with the country that entitled him to special privileges in the matter. There is, of course, the danger that a subsequent Executive Council might use it in quite a different way from the way in which it was intended when this section was drafted. I would hesitate myself very much before I would put that section into operation and issue a certificate in such a way as one might get the freedom of a city. However, as it stands, it can be used in that particular way. The original intention was to dispense with the ordinary conditions in the case of a person who is the son or grandson of a person who did some outstanding service for the country. It may happen that the son or grandson may have directly suffered as the result of what the father or grandfather did for the country. By that action they might be said to have deserved well of the country. They might have deserved well of the country themselves by reason of the sacrifices they might willingly or unwillingly have been compelled to make. However, I do not think you are establishing the hereditary principle much in this. As regards the other question, I think myself that we should meet the case half-way.
On this question I do not know whether a certificate of naturalisation confers citizenship. That question did not occur to me until now. But if it does confer citizenship, that implies also the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. If a certificate of naturalisation confers citizenship, then we should not confer citizenship on a person who is not prepared to accept the duties and liabilities of citizenship. If we are to confer citizenship on a person with its rights and privileges as a mark of gratitude for what that person himself or his father or grandfather did, then citizenship must only be conferred on somebody who is living here and who accepts the responsibilities of living here, or on somebody who is in the service of the Government outside the country. Something slightly different from that should be given, for it is something in the nature of a recognition or a mark of gratitude. It is something like having conferred on one the freedom of a city, but that involves no liabilities and no acceptance of the responsibilities and an attitude of obedience towards the State. From the discussion it seems to me that this is a matter that should be reconsidered on Report Stage.
If the Senator will look carefully at the Bill he will find that a naturalised citizen has the rights and obligations of a natural-born citizen. Therefore, if this certificate is issued to anybody it does imply that the person accepting it will have the same obligations as the natural-born citizen. It is not intended to give privileges that do not imply obligations as well. I think the history of the whole scheme here indicates that it is intended to be a more generous dispensation in the case of the person to whom we are referring; just as if we said: "All right, we will not insist on the other qualifications in your case." On the other hand, it could only be given where the person to whom it is given is willing to accept the obligations of citizenship as well. I do not think that there was in mind anything such as is implied when the freedom of a city is given to one. The words in the section really originated because the possible case was mentioned to me of where a person might wish to become a citizen. I think, as a matter of fact, the case raised is covered in the Bill in the section as it stands. I think the proper thing to do would be to dispense with the ordinary conditions, and if the ordinary conditions were dispensed with it would be only a case where the Executive Council happened to go a step farther.
It is really a question of what was the intention. If it is not the intention to make it something like the freedom of a city, then there should be some formal indication from the person that he wanted to be a citizen here and that he was prepared to accept the rights and duties of citizenship.
I think that in some at least of the Constitutions of various European States which have been formed in the last 10 or 15 years you will find there is a provision of this kind and so far as I know it has not led to any great injury in any of those States. Senator Johnson said there is time enough yet. I think it would be very dangerous to give a certificate of naturalisation to a person which would entitle him to the rights of citizenship without any of its duties and obligations. I think that would be a most inconsistent thing. It is a thing which has no precedent so far as I know in the constitution relating to citizenship in any European State. There is a clause similar to this—and I am sure I read it quite recently—in the Constitution and Citizenship Act of other European States. When reading these things I understood the purpose was—I suppose it was a mixed purpose—to give some exceptional facilities to people who had done service to the particular State. The exceptional facilities might be very small. This is probably the smallest exceptional facility that could be given to any person who had done service to this State in the last 10, 15 or 20 years.
I know nothing about its history or origin, but I would say that in one sense it indicates a desire to give to certain persons some small facilities for acquiring citizenship. There might also be behind it the desire to give those facilities as some sort of mark of distinction, some sort of recognition. I do not know if that is the case but that is the view which I took of this section, having the advantage of construing it now without knowing how it originated. I am construing the section now as we read it without knowing anything about its history in this Bill. Looking at it now and reading it, I think this section ought to be retained without any alteration because it properly expresses what naturally is a sort of gesture to people who, or whose fathers or grandfathers, have suffered for this country or who have done some signal service to this country. Now I would say to Senators "Do not be afraid in this case of hereditary principles." There are no such things as hereditary principles enshrined in this section at all. As soon as Senator Johnson heard the words "hereditary principles" I could see his figure getting taut and his eye getting ready for battle.
I did not hear the words "hereditary principles" at all.
You heard Senator Milroy saying something about it—a whisper which passed along the benches. I do not think we really ought to be diverted in the serious matter of legislation by impressions formed by Senator Johnson as a result of something which Senator Milroy said, without quite meaning it.
The President in explaining this said that it was not by any means the intention that a person, to whom a certificate is issued by the Executive Council, should not fulfil the obligations of citizenship but one of the conditions in Section 4, which the Executive may dispense with, is that the person intends after the certificate is issued to have his usual or principal place of residence in Saorstát Eireann and that such person has made a declaration of citizenship of Saorstát Eireann. If those conditions may be dispensed with, then the President's intention is not being fulfilled. Sub-section (2) says that the Executive Council may authorise the Minister to dispense with these conditions. Some of the conditions are that the person shall declare his intention to accept the obligations of citizenship. The President says that such person shall be obliged to accept them. There seems to be a little inconsistency in that.
I quite agree.
Before passing the section I should like to have some undertaking from the President that he will look into this section before the Report Stage.
I did consider this whole question very carefully, and after full consideration I came to the conclusion that it was just as well to leave it as it stood. We had, in fact, drafted a long amendment to make it appear that it was the original power, that it was purely a dispensing power. Then there was the other consideration that if we did dispense, we might as well do it generously and graciously. With regard to the obligations, I should like to consider that statement of Senator Johnson again. I know we did exclude a person who was a number of years away from the country—in other words the residence qualification was not to be insisted upon on a number of occasions. We shall probably come to that later however.
As Section 5 stands at present it is in the power of the Executive Council without any notice—I was going to say to the victim—to the person whom they seek to honour, to confer on him a certificate of naturalisation. He will have to accept automatically and without his knowledge, obligations about which he knows nothing. Perhaps the President would consider between this and the Report Stage if something could not be inserted in the section which would prevent that. I take it he would be communicated with before being honoured in this way.
I take it that would be done as a matter of course. No Executive would attempt to act in this way otherwise. No honour is ever conferred without communicating with the person to be so honoured.
Obviously the Government would not thrust citizenship upon a person who did not want it, otherwise you would have all sorts of repudiations. I do not know, however, whether any difficulties would arise in relation to another citizenship. Suppose a person is a citizen of the United States and that he makes no application for a certificate of naturalisation here or that he makes no declaration of acceptance. In that case we would possibly create a double citizenship.
It is quite obvious that that is a case where communication would be made with the person concerned. That is a thing that a person would have to take into account, whether accepting our nationality involved sacrificing the previous nationality.
As the Bill stands, might it not readily happen that a person would be communicated with from here with regard to conferring Irish citizenship upon him and he might say "Delighted" but his saying "Delighted" would not be sufficient to rid him of the other citizenship which he possessed?
There are cases of dual citizenship. That is a matter to be borne in mind.
If you have a person living here who has another citizenship, and you confer citizenship on him, then you are doing something like giving him the freedom of the city, but if it is the intention not to have something like giving him the freedom of the city, then it should amount to making him a citizen of Saorstát Eireann and not of any other State.
You cannot thrust upon a person a citizenship which will deprive him of his natural citizenship. There may be different citizenships in the same person. This is being too meticulous.
I move amendment No. 9:—
Section 6, sub-section (1). To delete in line 40 the words "question or dispute".
This amendment is to delete certain words which were felt more or less to be tautology. They do not add anything to the other words in the section and they might possibly involve some difficulties in construction. There are three amendments of this character.
I move amendment No. 10:—
Section 6, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 42-43 the words "or settling such question or dispute".
This is consequential on the last amendment.
I move amendment No. 11:—
Section 6, sub-section (1). To delete in lines 46-47 the words "or to settle a question or dispute".
This is also consequential.
I move amendment No. 12:
Section 8, sub-section (4). After the word "have" in line 26 to insert in brackets the words "(subject to the provisions of this Act)".
I think there must be something wrong with this amendment. There is no word "have" in line 26.
I think it should read "in line 27."
Amendment altered accordingly.
The only remark about this amendment is that it was felt that all rights are not exactly the same in regard to nationality and it was thought better to insert this clause "(subject to the provisions of this Act)".
I move amendment No. 13:
Section 10, sub-section (2). Before the word "such" in line 12 to insert in brackets the words "(except in the case of a person who has not attained the age of twenty-one years and the case of a person to whom the Executive Council have caused a certificate of naturalisation to be issued)".
The idea underlying this amendment is that in the case of a minor or of a special honour in the case we have just been dealing with, absence of seven years should not automatically revoke the certificate.
I move amendment No. 14:—
Section 16, sub-section (1). To delete all from and including the word "Where" in line 49, page 8, down to and including the word "Eireann" in line 1, page 9, and to substitute therefor the words:—
"Where either—
(a) one of the parties to a marriage solemnised (whether in or outside Ireland) before the 6th day of December, 1922, became a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution and the other of such parties did not become a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of the said Article, or
(b) one of the parties to a marriage solemnised (whether in or outside Saorstát Eireann) on or after the 6th day of December, 1922, and before the date of the passing of this Act was, immediately before such marriage, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution and the other of the said parties was not, immediately before such marriage, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of the said Article,
and in either such case the parties to such marriage have for at least two years before the passing of this Act or, where such marriage was solemnised within those two years, continuously since such solemnisation been ordinarily resident outside Saorstát Eireann and intend to continue ordinarily resident outside Saorstát Eireann, the party to such marriage who (as the case may be) became a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution or was, immediately before such marriage, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of the said Article."
This amendment is a long one, due to the fact that we are conferring citizenship, under certain circumstances and conditions, on those who were not domiciled here on 6th December, 1922. The idea is to bring the marriage provisions in regard to these persons in line with the marriage provisions we already had in the section.
I want to draw attention to the fact to which I alluded in the earlier portion of the debate. Under sub-section (2), paragraph (a), it is provided that particular persons shall lose citizenship of Saorstát Eireann at the expiration of one year after the passing of this Act. It has been already indicated that this Act is hardly likely to be operative for three months, though it may be passed within a week. I ask the President to consider between now and the Report Stage whether the wording there should not be altered to "one year after the coming into operation of this Act." I do not ask the President to comment on that suggestion now but it is a matter which has a bearing on the amendment to which I have already referred. If the provision remains as it is, the period will be reduced from one year to nine months after the coming into operation of this Act. I do not think that that is the intention and the wording should be brought into accord with the intention.
As I have already told the Seanad, that point will receive careful attention.
I move amendment No. 15:—
Section 17. To delete lines 48 to 56, inclusive, and to substitute therefor the words:—
"(a) either
(i) one of the parties to a marriage solemnised (whether in or outside Ireland) before the 6th day of December, 1922, became a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution and the other of such parties did not become a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of the said Article, or
(ii) one of the parties to a marriage solemnised (whether in or outside Saorstát Eireann) on or after the 6th day of December, 1922, and before the date of the passing of this Act was, immediately before such marriage, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution and the other of such parties was not, immediately before such marriage, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of the said Article, and
(b) the party to such marriage who (as the case may be) did not become a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of Article 3 of the Constitution or was not, immediately before such marriage, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann by virtue of the said Article duly".
This amendment is of the same type as that with which we have just dealt. The intention is to bring the marriage provisions into line on account of the change made in Section 2.
I move amendment No. 16:—
After the word "Eireann", in line 11, to insert the words "before the application".
This is a drafting amendment.
With reference to the last few lines of the section, I should like to know from the President if it is the intention, in the case of a male citizen of Saorstát Eireann who marries an alien and proposes to reside in the Saorstát, that in ordinary circumstances—unless some special cause is shown—he should be able to apply immediately for citizenship.
I shall have that point attended to before the Report Stage. I do not guarantee that we shall change the Bill to meet the point raised by the Senator, but we shall consider it carefully. If the Senator desires to make doubly sure, he can put down an amendment for Report Stage, or discuss the matter with us.
In line 34 of the section, I take it that the words "the provisions of this Act..." should commence a new paragraph.
That is so.
In this very long section there is a great deal involved and more elucidation is essential in respect of some of the matters dealt with. Sub-section (2) says:
"Whenever the Executive Council is satisfied that by virtue of the law for the time being in force in any country, citizens of Saorstát Eireann enjoy in such country ... all or any of the rights and privileges of citizens of such country, the Executive Council may by order declare ..." certain things.
What I suggest is that all such orders should be laid on the table of each House and should be subject to approval or annulment. In Section 26 there is a provision which would seem to indicate that that would be done, but I should like to be confirmed in that impression. Section 26 says:
"The Minister may, by order, make regulations in relation to any matter or thing referred to in this Act as prescribed or to be prescribed."
Then it goes on to say:
"Every regulation made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas."
It does not seem to me to follow that it will be obligatory on the Executive Council to lay upon the Table the orders themselves, especially the orders bearing upon sub-section (2) of Section 23. I think that that should be done—that we should know before such orders become operative what it is that the Executive Council has committed itself, or the State, to in respect of reciprocal privileges. I suggest that that is a flaw in the structure of the Bill which could be remedied with advantage and which would make for the continuance of democratic control over Executive action. I take it that that will not be regarded as a controversial point, that this omission was unintentional and that it will be rectified before the Bill is passed.
I should like to know from the President what reciprocal privileges this State would propose to confer upon the citizens of another State. It seems to me that, under sub-section (5) practically every privilege that our citizens enjoy in other countries could be negatived. I listened to the President discussing this matter in the other House and I read his statement in the Dáil Debates. He spoke in a general way of reciprocating privileges granted our citizens elsewhere, but he did not give any definite instances. For instance, I take it that it is not intended to allow any non-national to enter into our Civil Service, our Army or our police force; and in certain matters dealing with the control of manufactures they are practically precluded from embarking upon industrial enterprise in this State. I am not saying that these restrictions are not sound and conducive to internal stability. What I ask is what are the privileges that this State is going to confer upon non-nationals in countries where our people enjoy wide and important privileges? I should like the President to be more definite than he has been on these points. I do not want to elaborate these matters, as I think I have said sufficient to indicate the point upon which I would like some light thrown.
There is one other question on which I would like to have some further light thrown. This sub-section (5) (c) of Section 26 reads:—
Nothing in this section or any order made under this section shall operate
(c) to entitle any person to become or to be the owner of a ship or a share in a ship registered in Saorstát Eireann and having the status of a ship registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, unless such person is a citizen of a country between which and Saorstát Eireann, or between the Government of which and the Government of Saorstát Eireann, a convention exists and is in force by virtue of which citizens of such country are entitled to own any such ship or share in any such ship as aforesaid.
This retains and emphasises the importance of the shipping register under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. It is interesting to know what that status is. That specifically lays down what is the status of ships owned by British citizens. I want a statement from someone familiar with this matter, and who is acting as one of the advisers to the Government, as to whether the shipping register under this Citizenship Bill is embodied as the basis of the status of our ships. The Shipping Act sets out that a naturally born British subject, and so on, comes within the category, in one way or another, of a British subject. This Bill, I am aware, enables amendment to be made to the Shipping Acts if such is sought or desired. But it seems to me—and I would like to have the opinion of someone conversant with the legal side—that we are retaining the Shipping Act in this Bill holus bolus without any variation whatever. Are we not, in effect, making the status of ships registered in Saorstát Eireann the status of British ships in this section? If that is so, it seems to me to be at variance with the spirit of the declaration made by the sponsor of this Bill. This British Shipping Act of 1894 makes it clear that no ship registered within the British Dominions or Commonwealth can be owned, or in part owned, by other than citizens of the Commonwealth. I should like to have some elucidation of the law in the latter part of this section. Can we make a convention with some non-Commonwealth State and by such convention enable the citizens of that State to own ships within this State? It seems to me that if we stand on this Shipping Act without any amendment we are doing something that will render the section inoperative. I am not raising this matter from any controversial point of view. I am raising it because the matter seems to me to be ineffective as it stands. My interpretation may be entirely inaccurate and, if so, I would like the matter cleared up so that we may be quite sure that this section is going to effect what it purports to do or what the Government expect it would do under this Bill. Personally, I cannot see how it is going to be incorporated in this Bill without some amendment adapted to the circumstances of Saorstát Eireann if it is to be effective and I would like to have some further light thrown upon the section.
First, with regard to the mutual rights and privileges. It is intended to confer upon people of other countries with whom we have a convention by which our citizens are accorded certain rights, rights similar to those accorded to our people. What we say is that in such a case the convention itself would set forth those rights. The rights that would be accorded by us would be similar to those and, therefore, would be specified in the convention. The convention would set out the rights and privileges of both sides. It would be bi-lateral or multi-lateral, but usually bi-lateral. What this Bill says is that where such a convention is entered into the citizens of the other country would be accorded rights and privileges similar to the rights and privileges accorded by the other country concerned. Where by law our citizens in another country enjoy certain privileges, then in that case the Executive Council would order, by virtue of that, that the citizens of the other country would be accorded similar privileges here. I cannot tell you what the privileges in general are, but whatever they may be, similar privileges would be conferred on the citizens of the other country here. As Senators will notice, we have excluded certain cases in other sections. We have done that deliberately. The first case is that of a group of qualified persons, as somebody suggested we should call them in these new Acts instead of using the existing phraseology. This does not confer rights that are specially restricted to a certain group or class. The next is that it does not enable a woman, for instance, who might not become an Irish citizen or who might marry an Irish citizen and, if British law remained as it is in that regard, might be regarded as a British citizen and therefore coming in indirectly to share in the privileges accorded only to our citizens or to citizens of another country with which we have relations. In other words, if her title, so to speak, to be regarded as a British subject was, by British law, to be deduced from her marrying somebody regarded as a British subject, that would not enable her to get the rights here that would otherwise be conferred.
The third case is the one to which Senator Milroy referred at length. That is the case of a ship. As the Senator is aware, we have an agreement with regard to rights hitherto accorded to British ships, provided they are completely Irish-owned. In virtue of that convention, these rights are not to be accorded to ships which were not completely Irish-owned, and we say that unless by a special convention a right of this sort were accorded, this general section would not cover such a case. Senator Milroy, of course, is right in this: that if the present arrangement continued we could not enter into a convention with another country without agreement with the States with which we already have this existing convention. I think there is nothing that need be changed. It is simply a matter of protecting an existing convention and saying that unless a new convention were arranged such a ship would not be accorded the privileges which Irish-owned ships at present enjoy. There would be a barrier, however, to our making an agreement with other countries unless we made it by agreement with the States with which we have an existing convention.
It could happen in connection with copyrights and such things. I fancy that that is one of the uses of this section.
The President did not deal with the point raised by Senator Milroy regarding the orders made under this section. Section 26 makes it obligatory to lay upon the Table regulations of various kinds, some of which might be important and some of which might be merely formal and would probably be automatic. This is a much more important matter, however, and I think it would be necessary to make it obligatory that an order under this section should be laid upon the Table, if only to give a formal opportunity to either House to discuss the making of that order and the conditions specified in the order. I take it that the President has no objection to this section making it obligatory to lay an order upon the Table.
Senator Johnson is quite right in saying that I did not deal with that point. I meant to do so but was switched on to some other point and forgot to deal with it. It does seem to me that there is a case for laying this on the Table of both Houses. At the same time, Senators will remember that, in the first place, there is the convention itself which, in all probability, would be a matter to be discussed by Parliament. Therefore, the terms of that would imply this other, and consequently there is no order in that case. Then, in regard to the order, which would be issued by the Executive, where certain privileges are conferred by law in the case of other countries, any such order would have to give similar privileges to the others. I see no great objection at any rate to having that section amended in that respect. Accordingly, I shall try to have it done on the Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 17:—
Section 24, sub-section (3). To delete in line 23 the words "such book" and to substitute therefor the words "the foreign births entry book kept in such legation or consulate."
This is purely a drafting amendment.
Section 24 has been amended and passed, Senator.
I wish to speak about the whole section.
The section has been amended and passed as amended, so I think we can hardly go back on it now.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 18:—
Section 25. To delete the section and to substitute therefor a new section as follows:—
25. —(1) The Minister for External Affairs shall cause to be kept—
(a) a register to be called and known and in this Act referred to as the Northern Ireland births register; and
(b) a register to be called and known and in this Act referred to as the foreign births register.
(2) The birth in Northern Ireland of a child whose father is, on the day of such birth, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann shall be registrable, in accordance with regulations made under this section, in the Northern Ireland births register.
(3) The birth outside Ireland of a child whose father is, on the day of such birth, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann shall be registrable, in accordance with regulations made under this section, in the foreign births register.
(4) The Minister for External Affairs shall cause to be registered in the foreign births register every birth which is entered in a foreign births entry book and a copy of the entry of which in such book is transmitted to the said Minister in pursuance of this Act.
(5) Every document which purports to be a copy of an entry in either of the registers kept in pursuance of this section and to be duly authenticated in accordance with regulations made in respect of such register under this section shall be admitted in evidence in every court of justice without proof of the seal or signature by which such document purports to be so authenticated or of the authority of the person by whom such seal was affixed or such signature was made and, until the contrary is proved, shall be deemed to be a true copy of such entry and be accepted as good and sufficient proof of the fact and terms of such entry.
(6) The Minister for External Affairs may by order make regulations relating to all or any of the following matters in respect of each of the registers kept in pursuance of this section, that is to say:—
(a) the form of such register and the officer by whom and the place and manner generally in which such register is to be kept;
(b) the persons by whom and the manner in which births may be registered in such register;
(c) the particulars to be entered in such register in respect of every birth registered therein;
(d) the inspection of such register by members of the public;
(e) the furnishing to members of the public of copies of entries in such register and the authentication of such copies;
(f) in the case of the foreign births register, the entry in such register of births copies of the entry of which in the foreign births entry book are transmitted to the Minister for External Affairs under this Act;
(g) with the consent of the Minister for Finance, the fees (if any) to be charged for the registration of births in such register, for the inspection of entries in such register and for copies of entries therein.
The purpose of this amendment is to make amendments in the section consequential on the first amendment in regard to Northern Ireland and to bring the whole thing into line. The section has been redrafted for that purpose.
I move amendment No. 19:—
New section. Before Section 26 to insert a new section as follows:—
26.—(1) The Minister for External Affairs shall cause to be kept in every legation and every consulate a register to be called and known and in this Act referred to as the register of nationals.
(2) The name
(a) of every person who is a citizen of Saorstát Eireann and is residing either temporarily or permanently in a country in which a register of nationals is kept, and
(b) of every person permanently resident in a country in which a register of nationals is kept whose right to be deemed a natural-born citizen of Saorstát Eireann is under this Act conditional upon registration in the register of nationals or in the general register of nationals,
shall be registrable, in accordance with regulations made under this section, in the register of nationals kept in the legation (if any) or any consulate (if any) in the country in which he is so resident.
(3) From time to time, but not less than once in every year, there shall be transmitted, in accordance with regulations made under this section, from every legation and every consulate to the Minister for External Affairs a copy of every entry (if any) made in the register of nationals kept in such legation or consulate of which a copy was not previously so transmitted to the said Minister.
(4) Every document which purports to be a copy of an entry in a register of nationals and to be duly authenticated in accordance with regulations made under this section shall be admitted in evidence in every court of justice without proof of the seal or signature by which such document purports to be so authenticated or of the authority of the person by whom such seal was affixed or such signature was made and, until the contrary is proved, shall be deemed to be a true copy of such entry and be accepted as good and sufficient proof of the fact and terms of such entry.
(5) The Minister for External Affairs may by order make regulations in respect of all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) the form of the register of nationals and the officer by whom and the manner generally in which such register is to be kept;
(b) the persons by whom and the manner in which names may be registered in a register of nationals;
(c) the particulars to be entered in the register of nationals in respect of every name registered therein;
(d) the inspection of registers of nationals by members of the public;
(e) the furnishing to members of the public of copies of entries in registers of nationals and the authentication of such copies;
(f) the transmission in pursuance of this section of copies of entries in the register of nationals to the Minister for External Affairs;
(g) with the consent of the Minister for Finance, the fees (if any) to be charged for the registration of names in a register of nationals, for the inspection of entries in such register, and for copies of entries in such register.
(6) As soon as may be after the entry in a register of nationals of the name of any persons whose right to natural-born citizenship of Saorstát Eireann is under this Act conditional upon registration in such register or in the general register of nationals, the Minister for External Affairs shall publish in the Iris Oifigiúil notice of the fact of such entry and the name of the person to whom such entry relates and such other particulars (if any) as the said Minister may think proper.
This is to enable a register of nationals to be set up. I do not think there is anything that needs explanation. It is simply a formal matter.
I should like to ask the President what is meant exactly by the term "nationals". I know that it is purely formal and quite right, but is there any difference in meaning between the word "national" and the word "citizen"?
I must confess that when Senator Brown formerly raised the question of the difference between the two terms I found it very difficult to get anywhere any clear setting out of the difference. The word "nationals" seems to be applied for the most part in regard to international affairs and in international law. The other word is applied in the same way sometimes, but not in all cases. The origin of the word does not help us either, and the two words seem to be synonymous in application.
And interchangeable?
Yes, and interchangeable also.
I only want to know why is it used in this section only. Is there any special reason for it?
I do not think there is any special reason for it.
It is just a question of keeping in line with the practice of other nations.
I move amendment No. 20:—
New section. Before Section 26 to insert a new section as follows:—
26.—(1) The Minister for External Affairs shall cause to be kept a register to be called and known and in this Act referred to as the general register of nationals.
(2) The name of every person who is permanently resident outside Saorstát Eireann and whose right to be deemed a natural-born citizen of Saorstát Eireann is under this Act conditional upon registration in the general register of nationals or in either that register or a register of nationals shall be registrable, in accordance with regulations made under this section, in the general register of nationals.
(3) The Minister for External Affairs shall cause to be registered in the general register of nationals every name which is entered in a register of nationals and a copy of the entry of which in such register is transmitted to the said Minister in pursuance of this Act.
(4) Every document which purports to be a copy of an entry in the general register of nationals and to be duly authenticated in accordance with regulations made under this section shall be admitted in evidence in every court of justice without proof of the seal or signature by which such document purports to be so authenticated or of the authority of the person by whom such seal was affixed or such signature was made and, until the contrary is proved, shall be deemed to be a true copy of such entry and be accepted as good and sufficient proof of the fact and terms of such entry.
(5) The Minister for External Affairs may by order make regulations in respect of all or any of the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) the form of the general register of nationals and the officer by whom and the place and manner generally in which the general register of nationals is to be kept;
(b) the persons by whom and the manner in which births may be registered in the general register of nationals;
(c) the particulars to be entered in the general register of nationals in respect of every name registered therein;
(d) the inspection of the general register of nationals by members of the public.
(e) the furnishing to members of the public of copies of entries in the general register of nationals and the authentication of such copies;
(f) the entry in the general register of nationals of names, copies of the entry of which in a register of nationals are transmitted to the Minister for External Affairs in pursuance of this Act;
(g) with the consent of the Minister for Finance, the fees (if any) to be charged for the registration of names in the general register of nationals, for the inspection of entries in such register, and for copies of entries in such register.
(6) As soon as may be after the entry in the general register of nationals of the name of any person whose right to be deemed a natural-born citizen of Saorstát Eireann is under this Act conditional upon registration in the general register of nationals or in either that register or a register of nationals, the Minister for External Affairs shall, in every case where the name of such person has not been entered in a register of nationals, publish in the Iris Oifigiúil notice of the fact of such entry in the general register of nationals and the name of the person to whom such entry relates and such other particulars (if any) as the said Minister may think proper.
This is simply to have a corresponding book kept at headquarters.
I beg to move amendment No. 21:—
New section. Before Section 27 to insert a new section as follows:—
27. The Minister, or the Minister for External Affairs, or any diplomatic or consular officer authorised in that behalf by the Minister for External Affairs may, upon the application of any person who is a citizen (other than a naturalised citizen) of Saorstát Eireann and upon payment by such person of the prescribed fee, issue to such person a certificate in writing stating that such person is, at the date of such certificate, a citizen of Saorstát Eireann.
It was thought that it might at times be desirable that a certificate should be available for a person who might want to prove his or her nationality abroad, and this gives power for the issuance of such a certificate. I find that the Departments concerned would prefer if the amendment ran "The Minister for External Affairs" without bringing in the Minister for Justice, who is the Minister in the Bill.
I am sure the House will agree to the deletion of the words "The Minister, or" and let it read "The Minister for External Affairs...."
I beg to move amendment No. 22:—
Section 32. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Minister shall, by order made after consultation with the Minister for External Affairs, appoint.
Perhaps it might be as well to leave this amendment over until the Report Stage. I would like to have it reconsidered in the light of the remarks made by Senator Milroy. I may have to amend this so as to meet Senator Milroy.
Further consideration of amendment adjourned to Report Stage.