Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 May 1956

Vol. 46 No. 1

Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, 1955—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

When this Bill was introduced last December, a memorandum was circulated with it explaining its provisions in some detail. On the Second Reading in the Dáil, I gave a general outline of the reasons for its promotion and why particular principles were being followed—some of which were at variance with the principles followed in framing the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935. There was general acceptance, on all sides of the other House, of the proposals in the Bill and only a couple of suggestions were made for its amendment in minor respects. I do not think that this House expects me to make a long Second Reading speech to-day as, owing to the fact that the Bill has passed virtually unchanged through the Dáil, the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill and the Second Reading speech recorded in the official records of 29th February (Volume 154, No. 7, columns 996 to 1005) explain the position fully.

I feel that I should mention that there is a constitutional necessity to enact legislation to deal with the acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship. Article 9.1.2º of the Constitution reads:—

"the future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be determined in accordance with law".

The task of framing legislation to give effect to this provision of the Constitution of 1937 has been delayed somewhat owing to the war and all the problems of its aftermath. However, the long period, in between, has given the various Government Departments concerned an opportunity of studying the changes which have come about in recent times in the nationality laws of many countries. In consequence, I can say that the proposals in the Bill before you are the result of prolonged, deliberate consideration both by the official experts and by Government itself.

Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil a lán sa Bhille seo go bhféadfadh duine mórán cainte a dhéanamh mar gheall air. Bille isea é atá fé scrudú le tamall maith sa Roinn Dlí agus Cirt agus a chuireann feabhas, is dóigh liom, annso is annsúd, ar an dlí a bhaineann le saoránacht agus náisiúntacht. Tá an-chuid le déanamh ar na hAchtanna atá ann cheana a bhaineann leis an rud so agus rud anachrannach isea é im thuairim.

My remarks on this measure will be brief, because I realise it is essentially a Committee Stage Bill, dealing with the law of nationality and citizenship. We are discussing this measure this evening as one of the results of the passing of the Consititution of 1937, under an Article of which there is power to deal with the nationality and citizenship law of this country as circumstances may demand. It was only right and proper, of course, to leave that Article of the Constitution in that way, so as to meet the contingencies of the years as they arise.

There are a few changes in this Bill, and, even though they could not be described as fundamental, still they are welcome. As I have read the Bill, one change is to ensure that people who are born here and who have left to take up their abode in other countries will not lose their Irish citizenship, even though they become citizens of the country of their adoption. That is my interpretation of it, and, if that is so, I welcome it as a step in the right direction. It will, of course, in some cases, result in what I might describe as dual citizenship and it could result in multiple citizenship. No matter what takes place in other countries, as far as Irish people are concerned, it is right they should not be deprived of their Irish citizenship because of that.

The section dealing with that is of importance in certain ways. One is the case of people who were born in this country and went abroad to earn money. If they come back and if they want to purchase property here, they will now be entitled to the discrimination, I would call it, which we have in the financial legislation in this country in connection with the payment of stamp duty. That is only right because many of us on former occasions found fault with the existing position. It was our belief that if a person went abroad, with the intention of coming back at some time to purchase property here, he should be entitled to get the same privileges as the people living at home who had never left home.

There is one thing that agitates my mind in connection with this Bill, and that is the wording of Section 7. The section deals with people living in the Six Counties and the purpose of it is to confer citizenship on the people there.

To confer the right of citizenship.

To confer the right of citizenship, provided they make application for it. I wonder is it right to make use of the words "Northern Ireland" in a measure of this kind? I do not regard the Six North-Eastern Counties as Northern Ireland and I think we should get rid of this phraseology. It is a phraseology being made use of by the people up there and also by the British, and I do not see why we should fall into line with them in this matter. Instead of the words "Northern Ireland," we should have "the six occupied counties". I have not very much more to say on the measure. As I stated at the outset, it is a Committee measure. It is rather involved, but I think it is very well drafted. I was glad that we got the explanatory memorandum in connection with it.

I should like, as a lawyer, to welcome the Bill. I think it clarifies and simplifies the position very considerably. I welcome it particularly in that it removes the extraordinary anomaly that existed previously under the Control of Manufactures Act, under which a person who was an Irish citizen had not the rights of people who are called qualified persons or Irish nationals. I think the general conception that anyone who is a citizen is to have all the rights of any person living in the country is a very proper approach to that.

I also welcome it very much for Section 7, which, I think, states the national position very much more clearly in respect of the people who are resident in the Six Counties. I think the Minister and the Government are to be congratulated on having brought it in. As Senator Kissane said, there are probably a good many points in the Bill which could much better be dealt with on Committee Stage and most of the points that occur to me are Committee Stage points. However, I should like to say it does seem to me that one ought to say at this stage that Section 6, which defines who are citizens, seems to me to be far more involved and complicated than is necessary. Obviously, the intention is to say that people born in Ireland are Irish citizens. Then the section deals with the difficult point of people who may not have been born here, but one of whose parents was and who would have been, if this Act had been passed, an Irish citizen.

That is really a point for Committee Stage. The wording of Section 6 would appear to raise considerable complications as to how far back it operates. It is clear under it that a person who would not otherwise be an Irish citizen is qualified, if either of his parents was an Irish citizen. The parents would be deemed to be Irish citizens if they were born in Ireland or if one of them was born in Ireland. Section 6 would seem to open up a vista of complicated legal argument as it stands. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 provides that neither sub-section (2) nor (4) of Section 6 shall confer Irish citizenship on a person born outside Ireland, if the father or mother through whom he derives citizenship was also born outside Ireland. Section 6 has said that if either the father or mother was born in Ireland, it would confer citizenship and I am not at all sure that sub-section (2) of Section 7 is not a contradiction of that. I think that is a point on the interpretation of the Bill which should be considered. There are a number of other points I should like to raise, but they are clearly matters for Committee Stage.

In my opinion, the draft legislation contained in this Bill is desirable, as it extends the number of our Irish stock who will be, or who may become, citizens of the country. Ireland is indeed a mother country and her sons and daughters have peopled many lands. They brought the Faith to many races and have assisted in building up and have contributed to the development and administration of many countries throughout the world.

Although a big percentage of our people emigrate or require to emigrate, due to economic reasons, I believe that one day most of them hope to return to end their days in their own country, to be buried beneath the green sod, to be mourned by those near and dear to them in their native land. Sometimes, however, it is their children who come back, and it is right, therefore, that there should be adequate provision to permit our emigrants, or their descendants, to return to Ireland as their country even though they may have become naturalised citizens of another country.

As Senators already remarked, it is particularly important, because of the discrimination in favour of Irish citizens contained in the Finance Act of 1947, the Control of Manufactures Act and the Moneylenders Act that some concession has been made under the recent Finance Bill, whereby non-nationals may come under a lower rate of stamp duty, if they are buying a private dwellinghouse or a site for industry, but a great number of people who come back come back to buy dwellinghouses with land attached, and apparently those people, if they are not Irish citizens, will still have to pay the 25 per cent. duty.

Section 21 of the Bill permits persons to renounce citizenship if resident outside the State by lodging with the Minister a declaration of alienage, and is it not possible that it may be a condition precedent to confirming naturalisation in some countries that such a declaration of alienage be made, or that the Irish citizenship of origin be forfeited? I assume, for instance, that does not happen in the United States, but if that was the position, and if the law was such in some countries, has the Minister made any provision whereby that person may again acquire Irish citizenship other than by naturalisation in the ordinary way, or would the Minister consider that he had such power under Section 16? Does the Minister also consider that the last two words of Section 7 which sets out "public service" are sufficient, or would it be desirable to add "of Ireland"? That same remark would apply to Section 16. There was considerable discussion in the——

Public service is defined in the definition section.

——other House in connection with the words "Irish association", and it was suggested that these words are too vague and indefinable, and the Minister on the Report Stage promised he would have the matter reconsidered. It seems to me that the draftsman is giving tremendous power to a Minister to permit him to give a certificate of naturalisation to a person, if he has Irish associations. One could even imagine an Asiatic, playing, say, in an Irish band in New York, being regarded as sufficiently qualified under that definition.

Senator Kissane has already referred to the words "Northern Ireland" which are contained in Section 7, and I, too, feel that the term "Northern Ireland" is most inapt. I am sure many of the members of this House are aware of the fact that Malin Head is described as being "that part of Southern Ireland which is north of Northern Ireland". If that is the case, then the words "Northern Ireland" are not particularly suitable.

Could we not say "Six Counties"?

Or North-East Ireland. As a neighbour of the people of the north-eastern counties, I am pleased that the Minister has provided under this Bill that people born in the north-east counties have equal status with those born in the Twenty-Six Counties, where either of their parents is Irish, and that is the position without any formality of registration. It is only right and consistent with Article 2 of the Constitution passed in 1937 which sets out that the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas.

Recently, however, the Minister, when piloting the Gaming and Lotteries Act through this House, prevented, under Section 8, an Irish citizen who is ordinarily resident in the Six Counties from promoting or assisting, or even providing facilities for, gaming at carnivals, bazaars or sports meetings, even though under Section 7 the promoter may not derive any personal profit from the event or game. I think it is inconsistent for the Minister to give all these privileges of being Irish citizens and then, on the other hand, to take away the privileges he has conferred under this Bill.

I agree with the other Senators who complimented the drafters of this Bill. I think it is quite right, as Senator Cox has said, that it clears up a number of points that have been insufficiently clear up to now, but that does not mean that it is beyond reproach. I should like to speak mainly about Section 7 which has already been referred to. I would agree with those Senators who would prefer to see the area in the North referred to as the Six Counties rather than Northern Ireland, though I think to suggest that we should use the term the "Six Occupied Counties" would be to use a misnomer in respect of four of them.

No matter how much we may deplore it, I think it is quite clear at present that so far we have failed to persuade the people in four of those Six Counties to vote in a majority for coming in with us. Consequently, those four counties cannot be said to be occupied against their will. However that may be, using the phrase "Northern Ireland" here is unfortunate, and I think perhaps the Minister might consider changing it to the inoffensive term of "Six Counties".

I also notice the date—people "born in the Six Counties on or after the 6th December, 1922". I am not quite sure that that is the best date here. I am not sure that the best date might not be 1925 because it was, I think, in December, 1925, that the Dáil ratified the agreement which made permanent, up to now at any rate, the present boundary around the Six Counties, and the ratification of that boundary definition stems rather from the 1925 agreement than from the Treaty. It was not until 1925 that we as a Parliament approved of that, admittedly with a good deal of dissent, nevertheless by a substantial majority.

We did not approve of it, Sir, by a majority or otherwise. That is the argument of the Northern Unionist that the Senator is giving us now. It is quite untrue to use the word "approved".

It was ratified.

It was not approved by anybody.

It was "confidently recommended to the Irish people" by Messrs. Cosgrave, O'Higgins and Blythe.

The Senator can say what he likes. Nobody in the Dáil approved or ratified the Border. He is quite wrong. He is using an old and completely fallacious argument. There is nothing in this Bill to suggest it.

It was described by these three gentlemen then as offering "a sane and constructive basis" for permanent peace.

It was not the approval of the Border that was recommended.

And it was "confidently recommended to the Irish people" by these three gentlemen——

——having concluded an agreement——

——which they said was "negotiated in friendship." I am only quoting their words. I do not know what evidence Senator Hayes has to the effect that they did not mean them, but I think, in justice to the men concerned, that they did mean them.

In relation to citizens born in this area, I should like to ask the Minister in regard to the records which are referred to in Section 27, of people who claim Irish citizenship, and who are outside the jurisdiction for the moment, whether it is the intention to keep separate records of those who make that claim, arising out of the fact that they were born in the Six Counties? In other words, will it be possible from the record to see how many people in the Six Counties take the step of claiming Irish citizenship? I cannot help wondering whether this particular section does not in fact allow the North to opt out of Ireland, allow a large number of people in the Six Counties to decide quite clearly and prove it on paper that they do not regard themselves and do not want to regard themselves as citizens of Ireland.

Furthermore, even among the strongly nationalist people in the Six Counties, there might be many for whom it might be awkward, for one reason or another, to declare themselves now as Irish citizens. I am not sure whether full consideration has been given to the fact that we may be placing many people who are in sympathy with the Republic in an awkward position in demanding that they should publicly declare themselves as citizens of Ireland without, in fact, there being as yet a uniting of the two parts of Ireland.

Are you not more or less admitting that they have a right to opt out of Ireland?

I think that is what is being admitted by the Bill.

I do not think so.

Unless they make the declaration "in the prescribed manner," they shall no longer be considered as Irish citizens—that is the purport of Section 7. I am just asking the question: is this wise?

In relation to that, I should also like to ask the Minister whether there is any time limit for this declaration? We are going to allow the people in the Six Counties to declare themselves as Irish and to become Irish citizens by a simple declaration, but there is no reference to a time limit. We do not say "you must do it within a year or two years or ten years of the passing of this Act," so that it would be possible for a person to be considered by us as an alien, or as a British subject, and perhaps 25 years later for him suddenly to make this application and declare himself Irish. I just wonder whether the Minister has considered the question of a time limit and of a date and whether he has considered just what the full implications of the seventh section are, and whether the clauses do not in fact allow a lot of potential Irish citizens, as it were, to opt out.

That is the main point I want to make, but there are two or three other sections to which I want to make at least passing reference. One is Section 15, paragraph (d). I notice that a person applying for naturalisation has to have one year's continuous residence in the State immediately before the date of his application, and to have been a total of four years here in the eight years preceding that. I cannot help wondering whether the period of one year's continuous residence as a basic requirement is not just a little short. A person can qualify to become Irish by having just one year's continuous residence. Admittedly, he will have had to spend four years off and on in the preceding eight years in the State, but I still wonder whether the one year is not, perhaps, in this case over-generous.

The next point I want to make is in relation to Section 19. Section 19 allows the Minister to revoke a certificate of naturalisation for various reasons, if he thinks it has been fraudulently acquired for instance, and I do not think anybody could object to revocation in that case, but, also, if the person "by any overt act has showed himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State." I cannot help wondering whether that phrase, although it sounds all right when you read it there, might not be capable of, shall we say, ungenerous interpretation in certain political contexts, to deprive a person, who quite justifiably had got Irish naturalisation, of his citizenship. In other words, is it not rather a weapon, a club, held over the heads of the naturalised citizen, which might prevent him in fact even from adhering to certain political parties in the country, if a narrow view was to be taken of what is his "duty of fidelity to the nation"? In other words, are we not, by such a section as this, instituting something that looks like second-class citizenship, because I think I am right in saying that it would take rather more in the case of an Irish citizen, Irish by birth, to have him deprived of his citizenship rights than simply to say that he had shown himself to have failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation!

There are many young men about whom that might be stated, and has been stated, by different political parties and yet I think one would hesitate to say that they deserve to be deprived of their Irish citizenship. In the case of naturalised citizenship this, apparently, is going to take place, and I suggest that the implication of this section is to institute a second-class citizenship and not, in fact, to give full citizenship to those who have fulfilled the requirements for naturalisation. I would deplore that attitude. I have no objection to the qualifications for naturalisation being made fairly difficult, but I do feel that, once they have been fulfilled, the naturalised person, except in the case of his having fraudulently acquired that certificate, should have full citizenship rights of which he cannot be deprived any more than any other citizen.

I notice that in sub-section (5) of Section 19 there is the right to revoke a certificate of naturalisation, and so on, and the person concerned "shall cease to be an Irish citizen". I should like to ask two questions in relation to that. Does such a naturalised citizen who loses his citizenship in this way become a Stateless person? Has the Minister considered just what is the status, the international status, of a person who loses Irish citizenship through losing this certificate of naturalisation? I would presume, by that certificate of naturalisation, that he already has forfeited the citizenship of the country from which he came. What happens when he loses our citizenship? Does he become a Stateless person?

We have noticed elsewhere in the Bill that the children of a naturalised person become naturalised also in certain circumstances. What happens to them when such a naturalised person loses his certificate? Do they remain Irish, and do they remain Irish even if he has acquired his certificate fraudulently? These are matters on which I am not quite clear and on which I would appreciate hearing the Minister's views.

Section 26 provides that where the Government are satisfied that,

"under the law of another country Irish citizens enjoy in that country some or all of the rights and privileges of a citizen of that country the Government may by Order declare that citizens of that country shall enjoy in the State similar citizenship rights and privileges to those enjoyed by Irish citizens in that country."

What exactly has the Minister in mind there? Earlier to-day we were dealing with a situation in which we were being pretty ruthlessly nationalistic in demanding that when a tea wholesale company wanted to get a licence, not merely did they have to have the majority of the owners Irish but every single share in the company had to be "in the beneficial ownership of Irish citizens." Had the Minister in mind to make concessions to British subjects, or American citizens, or the citizens of any other State, and, if so, along what lines?

Mr. Douglas

I join with the other Senators in welcoming this Bill. I think it does, to a very great extent, clarify the position of citizenship. Listening to the other speeches, I have been wondering whether we may possibly be opening the door a little too wide.

I think it was Senator Walsh who mentioned, in connection with Section 7, that you might have the improbable case of a person employed, say, in an Irish band in New York claiming to have rights to Irish citizenship although his parents might be of African or Asiatic descent.

With regard to Section 6, we could quite easily have children of parents of, shall we say, Nigerian or Korean citizenship, who are over here studying. It could happen that a child would be born to them here and that that child would have a right to be an Irish citizen. That also appears to be the position under Section 13. I am not necessarily objecting to a child of Nigerian or Korean parents becoming an Irish citizen, but I am wondering whether that was really the desire or intention of the Government, when drafting this Bill.

On Section 19, Senator Sheehy Skeffington mentioned—incidentally, I agree very much with what he said on that section—that if we deprive a person of citizenship, we might create a Stateless person. He asked the Minister what would happen to the wife or children of such Stateless persons.

Section 13 might create possibly an improbable problem, but nevertheless under Section 13 (2) it is provided that a person who is born the child of aliens in a foreign ship or in a foreign aircraft, while the ship or aircraft is within Ireland or its territorial seas, is deemed not to be born in Ireland if at the birth the child acquired the citizenship of another country. We might find that one of these Stateless persons in a foreign-owned ship in Irish seas would produce an infant that could claim Irish descent and it might create considerable difficulties for the Department of Justice.

Sections 6, 7 and 13 provide methods of acquiring Irish citizenship for persons or for children of persons who are citizens of foreign countries. I feel that, in an Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, we should have some clause which would prevent a child born in Dublin or in the Twenty-Six Counties of two foreign parents from automatically acquiring Irish nationality.

There are just three short points which I should like to raise on this Bill which seems a very desirable Bill. I agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington that some legal complications may result from Section 7. It seems to me that if an unscrupulous person from the Six Counties found it advantageous to change his nationality overnight—as he could under this Bill—he might exploit it to his advantage and to the disadvantage of honest people. I think it is advisable, and I should like the Minister to consider it, that some time limit should be included here, as otherwise there is the risk of some knavery of that kind.

As regards Section 19 (1) (b), I agree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington that there may be some risk in the future in a phrase like "...failed in his duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State,..." Can I take it from the Minister that such a person would have an appeal to the courts in a matter of that kind? If such a person deemed he was unjustly being deprived of citizenship under this clause, could he take the matter to the courts? If he could, it seems a reasonable enough protection.

Finally, as regards Section 26 (4), I am not quite clear what is intended. Would the Minister be good enough to give us an example of "any right or privilege reserved by law to any class or group of persons, howsoever defined"? It may be sheer stupidity on my part, but I should like some clarification of that sub-section.

I wish to express my thanks to the Senators for the manner in which they have received this Bill and also for the very kind remarks about the draftsman and my officials. I am very pleased that we all recognise the principle; it is just a matter of the minor points that could properly be discussed on Committee Stage. I welcome the criticism of this Bill or of any Bill, as I believe it is the desire of the Senators, as it is my special desire, to have a good Bill that will meet with the approval of the people.

Before the Committee Stage, I intend to send to each Senator who has spoken in this debate my views on the various points raised so as to enable each Senator, if he disagrees with the points, to put in amendments and to have them discussed. It is our desire to get a Bill that will meet with the approval of the House.

I thank the Senators for the manner in which they have received not alone this Bill but any Bill which I have brought into this House. I have received nothing but courtesy and assistance from the members of this House and I appreciate it very much.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

This day fortnight, and the Bill need not be taken if it is not ready.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 30th May.
Top
Share