We now come to amendment No. 3 and before I call on Deputy O'Keeffe to move it I should point out that there is an error in the first line of the amendment. It should read "in page 3, after line 45, to insert the following".
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, to insert the following:
"(d) where fees have been collected for a particular service (including applications for registration in the Foreign Births Register in the Department of Foreign Affairs, or in the Foreign Births Entry Book kept in missions abroad), the restriction on the delivery of such service arising from statutory time limits shall not apply.".
We now come to the meat of the Bill. The most shameful example of Ireland's uncaring approach to our citizens overseas has continued for over seven years. Before the expiry of the statutory deadline of the end of December 1986 thousands of legitimate applications plus fees were lodged with our overseas diplomatic and consular missions but these have never been processed. Indeed, the fees paid have not been refunded. The purpose of this amendment to the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Provision of Services) Bill is to remedy this injustice and restore the good name of Ireland.
Under the 1986 Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act persons born outside Ireland could register as Irish citizens if they showed that they had Irish-born grandparents or, in certain circumstances, great grandparents. Applicants' details are registered in the foreign births register in the Department of Foreign Affairs or in the foreign births entry book kept in our missions abroad. This entitles them to citizenship and a passport. Under the 1986 Act fourth generation applicants, that is, those whose great grandparents were born in Ireland, could only be registered if the parents through whom they were claiming Irish descent were already registered at the time of their birth.
There was a six month period of grace, ending on 31 December 1986, during which the previous provisions continued to apply in respect of those who had lodged applications and paid their fees and had been registered by the end of the year. That is the background to this matter.
During the period of grace some of our missions abroad, in particular the consulate general in New York and the consulate in Johannesburg in South Arfica, were inundated with applications. Over 4,000 applications were processed before 31 December 1986 but over 3,000 remained to be dealt with. The small staff in our missions, which had been supplemented, could not cope with the numbers and, through no fault of the applicants, the applications were not processed by 31 December 1986. In the normal way these would have been processed by the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and cleared. However, the Attorney General advised that, even though the applications had been lodged and the fees paid prior to the relevant date, registration could not be completed by the Department after that date. His interpretation of the relevant section in the 1986 Act was that because the process of registration had not been completed by the Department before midnight on 31 December 1986 it could not be completed thereafter. As a result thousands of applicants have been in limbo ever since. The purpose of the amendment is to bring this to an end and allow them after seven long years to have their applications completed and registered so that they will be able to qualify for an Irish passport.
Most of the 3,000 applications outstanding are from people who live in either the United States of America or South Africa. We are all aware of the support we receive in America when our young people want to go to there, of the efforts of Irish-American politicians, in particular those responsible for securing the Donnelly and Morrison visas availed of by our young people, and their support for the Internationl Fund for Ireland. For the past seven years many of these supportive Irish-American politicians have being demanding that we discharge our responsibilities to those people who are entitled to an Irish passport. Meetings have been held with Ministers and letters have been written. Some time ago the Taoiseach was approached on this issue but to no avail. I do not want to be alarmist about the position in South Africa and I hope that there will be a peaceful transition to majority rule but people living there who are entitled to Irish citizenship and an Irish passport would feel more secure if they knew that the door would be open for them here in the event of a catastrophe in South Africa.
The promises made have not been kept. We have been assured at all times that a technical amendment to the law is necessary before the matter can be resolved but this has not been made to date. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that this is made today.
I have in front of me a letter which one of these applicants received from the consulate general in New York, dated October 1988. It was confirmed at that stage that the preliminary work on the necessary Bill to amend the 1986 Act was well under way to facilitate those who had lodged applications within the specified time limit. The consulate general further pointed out as regards the fees which had been paid that while these remained lodged in the account of the Consulate General of Ireland applications would remain "under active consideration" pending the implementation of further legislation. This money has been held for the past seven years under false pretences.
It is time to bring this shameful episode in Irish overseas relations to an end. We can do this by accepting the amendment I have tabled as it would remove the statutory time limit which the Attorney General says prevents the registration of more than 3,000 applications which have been gathering dust in our diplomatic offices overseas since 1986.
Finally, what we are doing here is not unnoticed abroad. In case anyone needs any evidence I have the Irish Echo, the paper most read by our emigrants in the States, the front page heading of which was “Passport Logjam”. That was nearly three years ago. Here is another headine from the same paper, “Great Passport Fiasco, Year Six”. The only difference is that now it is the “greatest passport fiasco, year seven”. Still nothing has been done. I want to press the Minister on this issue. It is utterly unfair to these people to allow the present situation to continue and a minor technical amendment is required to resolve it. I have tabled that amendment and I ask the Minister to accept it.
I simply want to support my colleague. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986, was enacted to allow people with claims to Irishness the facility and privilege of Irish citizenship. The expiry date in the Bill was 31 December. Only about half of the people who were eligible for citizenship under this Act actually got it. So far the other half have remained deprived of their legal right. Fees were taken from people abroad, in the USA, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in India and so on. Everywhere there were Irish to any extent there were applicants for citizenship. These funds were collected back in 1986, and seven years on, these people do not know what has been done with these funds; they have been told that the whole case is still under consideration.
All that is needed here is a small technical amendment bringing forward the time limit in the legislation to the present time or to a date one year hence. The spirit of the Act of 1986 was to extend the facility of Irish citizenship to every person who qualified in terms of the relationship requirements laid down. The Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time, Deputy Barry, made that point when introducing the Bill in the Seanad in 1986. Therefore I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. The purpose of the legislation before us is to up-date old fashioned terms in the previous legislation. It would be a useful piece of additional work if this committee were to deal with this irritant which has existed unnecessarily for the last seven years.
The points raised by the Opposition speakers do give rise to some concerns which certainly should be addressed and this Bill is the most appropriate way to do this. I am somewhat surprised to hear that there is a backlog of applications for Irish citizenship. It seems there is a serious problem in our approach to passports generally. Every spring one finds people queueing down Kildare Street from the Passport Office and that has gone on year after year. If we have any real concern for consumers, it is unacceptable that that kind of thing should be allowed to continue. It is also unacceptable that people making application for passports should have their money held. The least that should be done is to return these people their money until the matter can be dealt with through legislation.
In fairness to the people who deal with passports in this country, where there is an element of urgency in regard to an application they have been very helpful. I have never heard of a case of a passport not being provided when it was urgently sought. Nevertheless, the matter should be addressed and I would be very interested in hearing from the Minister.
I compliment Deputy O'Keeffe on tabling this amendment and presenting a very strong case here this morning. The amendment is reasonable in that it only asks that facilities be extended to those whose applications are currently in Department of Foreign Affairs offices around the world, particularly in New York and South Africa. It is important that those who are interested enough to apply for Irish citizenship should have their applications processed.
There are over 40 million people of Irish extraction in the United States and quite a number in South Africa. In the past six or seven years there has been huge interest in Australia in Irish origins and we know that over one-third of the Australian population is of Irish extraction. Rather than facing down this amendment, not alone should the Minister accept it but he should consider extending the relevance of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act and inviting further applications, particularly from people in those countries where there are quite a number of Irish people. This would improve relationships between the countries and bring many more people from those countries to Ireland. There is huge potential for tourism which is something neither the Minister for Tourism nor the Minister for Foreign Affairs should ignore. This is a limited and reasonable amendment dealing specifically with what is currently before his Department. The fiasco has gone on for seven years and it is most unfair to leave the people concerned in a state of limbo.
This amendment has raised many interesting issues. Quite a few of the people involved have been in touch with us. Those whose applications had not been processed when the deadline passed feel that they have not been treated fairly.
In dealing with these applications, one normally has to deal with the Aliens Section in the Department of Justice. We should certainly facilitate those people who have made legitimate applications. Can the Minister say if this is the legislation in which to address this? If not, should we be calling on another Minister, the Minister for Justice, who is, I understand, at a fairly advanced stage in the preparation of a Bill to deal with aliens?
I notice that Deputy O'Keeffe is laughing; he does not believe anything until he sees the proof on the floor of the House. Deputy O'Keeffe was a Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs for a considerable time and did not address this issue. I note the Deputy's jocose remarks about the proposed aliens' Bill and that matter must be addressed also. The matter raised legitimately by Deputy O'Keeffe should be addressed in that legislation if this Bill is not the appropriate one. I know the Deputy is not suggesting that even if people had applied before a deadline and their case was found not to be legitimate they should not be dealt with. In such cases all the Deputy seems to be suggesting is that in such case be refunded. These people are likely to be more interested in proving their Irishness, in not being left in a State of limbo, than in their application fee. We might get consensus in this House today to accept that it is necessary to address this issue as a matter of urgency and perhaps the Minister would advise as to the best way to deal with the problem.
I support the amendment tabled by Deputies Owen and Jim O'Keeffe. I do so on the basis that this kind of red tape can envelop an issue and infuriate public representatives. We are talking of applications that were made some years ago under the legislation pertaining at the time or on the basis that an application had to be made by a specific date pending amendment of the then legislation. The matter has not been addressed in the meantime. It was always difficult for an Irish citizen to get a visitor's visa for the United States. The procedure involved is probably one of the most bureaucratic in the world. It is ludicrous that a number of people having expressed an interest in Irish citizenship, having submitted their applications and fees and complied with the regulations, find, five or six years later, that the whole procedure is still very bureaucratic. This must result in a lack of confidence in that system. It is no consolation to us that the US system is not free of bureaucracy. We know that is the case but we are trying to improve the system here to make it more consumer friendly. People of all countries are concerned about how modern technology enhances bureaucracy and impacts on their daily lives by slowing matters down to such an extent that the statutory progress is impeded. Statutorily, in relation to the processing of applications for Irish citizenship, there is no progress. I support the amendment and compliment my colleagues for tabling it.
This amendment tabled by Deputies O'Keeffe and Owen and its proposals for dealing with the problem are imaginative. It is worthy of support. Any transaction where money has changed hands should be concluded. It is intolerable that people be left in a state of limbo as outlined by Deputy Ferris. Limbo has been abolished but there are still some bodies floating around.
God is nearly abolished, too.
He made a comeback.
Obviously, there are some bodies floating around and from the point of view this Bill is very worthy. I agree with the point made in relation to bureaucracy. Sometimes bureaucracy gives rise to crazy positions and a most extraordinary position has arisen as a result of a particular cut off date in legislation. Even if the Minister does not accept this amendment I hope he will deal with the position that has been ongoing for a period of seven years. When I read the amendment and heard the case Deputy O'Keeffe made in respect of it I wondered if Jack Charlton had had a word in his ear and if more people with Irish grannies would come forward in the future. Even on the tenuous grounds that we might attend the World Cup matches in America, we should support the amendment. I am not sure if Deputy O'Keeffe is a soccer supporter?
Deputy O'Keeffe
I am indeed.
Deputy Kitt
We could do with good backing there.
That might be an extra incentive to the Minister who might support our team in America if it qualifies for the World Cup next year.
The Minister will not be allowed into America if this matter is not resolved.
We all appreciate the work of the consular services abroad and that of US politicians who provide assistance for our emigrants living in America. I know there are embassies in some countries but in others business people carry out the consular work and in many cases are poorly paid. When that is the case, the result is that often what is provided is not a first class service. Consequently, we should consider upgrading the service we provide in other countries. Then the kind of situation to which Deputy O'Keeffe referred would hardly arise.
One of the values of the committee system operating this week is highlighted by an issue such as this. The extent and detail of discussion on this amendment would not have been possible during a Committee Stage debate in plenary session. The amendment tabled by Deputies Owen and O'Keeffe highlights a particular trait in the Irish mentality. I am not sure whether the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, who has an opportunity to travel abroad on Government business on a regualar basis, has ever talked to any of those applicants who have legitimately applied for Irish passports. It is a matter of honour that is at stake here. It is hurtful to people who have applied to the Department of Foreign Affairs for something that is rightly theirs by birth that they are being denied that right. The further away one travels from this country the stronger is the perception that the Government of the day can do all things. However, there are 3,000 people livng in various parts of the globe who believe that the Government, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the powers that be are letting them down.
The value of an Irish passport in international circles rates a mark of eight out of ten. It was said during the time of the international coverage given to the Oliver North trial that some of his colleagues had acquired Irish passports. The gold harp on the European passport, as a symbol of national identity is something that is very dear to a great number of people.
For instance a Unionist player with the Irish rugby team travelling to England will say he is from Northern Ireland but when travelling on the continent he may say he is from Ireland. He is entitled, under the Constitution, to an Irish passport. If a person goes into a post office to buy a dog licence he pays his money and gets the product. If an item advertised in the media is purchased there is a consumer law to protect that contract, but in this case 3,000 people paid their money seven years ago but still have not got their just entitlement. Many of these people may become very annoyed over this issue, particularly the outstanding payment.
The Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, in reply to this matter on 25 March said that the situation would need to be tackled as a matter of urgency, bearing in mind the many cases that have remained unresolved for some years. I do not know who wrote that statement, but if there is any clout vested in the constitutional office of the Minister for Justice or Minister for Foreign Affairs, a political directive from either or both Ministers should be sufficient to sort out this matter. As Deputy O'Keeffe pointed out, this matter is of particular importance to a great number of people. I see no reason, considering all the paper that crosses desks in consular offices, diplomatic negotiations and so on, that something that is perfectly legitimate, that has been paid for and that means so much to so many people cannot be dealt with. There is a perception that the Government should be able to handle this matter.
The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, is a young man with extensive experience of politics and he should make his mark as Minister of State by sorting out this problem. When he next confronts the people he should be able to say that at least he has something to his credit. The former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, made his name by a variety of methods. He dealt with taxation for artists, social welfare and so on and many of his actions in these areas stood to him. This is a matter that should be dealt with by the Minister of State and I am sure he would have the backing of the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
In the interests of 3,000 Irish citizens who are entitled to an Irish passport, the Minister should ensure that this amendment is accepted so that the time limit is extended beyond what Deputy Keogh referred to as limbo. This bureaucratic and administrative hitch should be sorted out once and for all. The Minister should ensure that an announcement is made either by himself or his Department that the matter has been resolved through the political system, as a result of his direction or by co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs. We should ensure that this system works so that people receive their due entitlements.
To deal with Senator Sean Maloney's question first, honorary consuls receive £500 a year plus half the fees collected — any one fee should amount to not more than £100. The position of honorary consul is an honorary one. These people do excellent work; in many cases they do the work of ambassador.
It should be made clear that this is not their fault.
I very much sympathise with the objective of the proposed amendment. The number of people seeking citizenship is 4,000 rather than 3,000.
The number has risen.
That almost 4,000 people who validly applied for Irish citizenship more than six years ago are still being denied registration through no fault of their own is unacceptable and cannot be allowed continue. However, as Deputy Ferris and Deputy Kenny have said, this is a matter for the Minister for Justice. Deputy Kenny referred to the Dáil reply by that Minister on 25 March. The Minister for Justice is committed to introducing legislation to amend the Citizenship Acts as soon as possible.
She also said she would save Shannon.
As soon as possible.
She said she would legalise community television.
I would like to be able to deliver on this issue in my capacity as Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, but I have not the authority to do so. However, Deputies have my support. I accept Deputy O'Keeffe's motive in putting down this amendment, but unfortunately it is not technically appropriate to deal with the matter in this Bill. The legal position is that where fees are payable for a particular service the fact that an application submits a fee on a particular date has no bearing on the statutory time limits that apply in a particular case. This amendment could cause havoc with court procedures and court orders in circumstances where the party concerned would have no legal rights. It could also create serious difficulties where documents are not in order and may not be properly corrected by the party concerned. For example, if a document to be notarised contains error of fact and fees have been deposited with an official, the applicant may be encouraged to delay matters while legal steps are taken in Ireland. If this amendment is accepted the application would be entitled to put forward a changed document at a later date which would cause difficulties. We are talking about cases that may involve family matters such as the disposal of property under a will.
This Bill is a very broad one dealing with many issues. It amends the 1931 and 1939 Acts. I support Deputy O'Keeffe in his efforts, but it is not appropriate to incorporate the amendment in this Bill. As Deputies and Senators have suggested, I will certainly raise this matter with the Minister for Justice and will request her to make her best efforts to have the amending legislation presented very soon.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by members of the committee. It is appropriate that this issue has been aired so extensively here. I propose to write to the Minister with the full weight of this committee behind my suggestion that this matter be dealt with very quickly. As Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs I am aware of cases in the United States and South Africa that need to be dealt with. Some of these people have been waiting six years for their passports. This situation cannot be allowed continue. I have tried to outline the technical problems involved. One could do more harm than good by including this amendment in legislation. It is not the correct approach. The issue should more appropriately be addressed by the Minister for Justice.
I cannot accept the Minister of State's response for a number of reasons. I accept that he will do as he says and will write to the Minister for Justice with the full weight of the committee behind him seeking immediate action. The problem is that in spite of assurances given by her a long time ago that she would give the matter her immediate attention the Minister for Justice did not do so. This continuing saga has besmirched the good name of Ireland abroad.
The problem is worse than I thought. I understood the figure was 3,000 but the Minister has told me that it is actually 4,000; there are an extra 1,000 people on the list. It is not acceptable that people who have paid their fees and who are legitimately entitled to citizenship should have to endure such long delays merely because of bureaucracy. Senator Maloney said that consulars are badly paid. I want to make it clear that prior to the deadline there were queues around the block outside the Consulate General in New York and the Honorary Consultate in Johannesburg. This was not the fault of the consular staff in any way.
I did not say that. I said they should be better paid.
That is a separate issue. I want to make it clear that it was not their fault. These queues were a bit like the queues of people trying to lodge their applications before the closing date for the house improvement grants — there was a total chaos. The then Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, was locked out of his Department. He could not get in because of the crush.
The doorman did not recognise him.
In that case all the applications submitted before the deadline were dealt with subsequently. The situation is different in this case. These applicants acted in good faith, paid their fees, submitted their applications before the deadline and expected to have their applications processed within a reasonable time. Seven years is not a reasonable time; rather it is so unreasonable that action has to be taken now.
With regard to the Minister's remarks about the inappropriateness of including an amendment of this kind in this Bill, I wish to say that I tabled the amendment to this Bill for two reasons. There is no other Bill before the House to which I can table such an amendment. Many of these applicants live in America where it is quite normal to attach riders to all sorts of Bills if only to force the Government to take action. I do not agree with the Minister's point about the inappropriateness of including the amendment in this Bill. We are dealing with consular and diplomatic fees and the collection of those fees. Section 4 deals with the collection, disposal and recovery of these fees. All these applicants have paid fees. Therefore, the amendment slots neatly into this section.
I do not accept the Minister's point in regard to the legalities of this issue. As a lawyer, I believe these people may be entitled to bring a case before the High Court seeking a mandamus that their passports be issued to them. Those are the legalities as I see it. I cannot accept the Minister’s response. There have been too many “hands off” responses to this fiasco. There has been too much delay and too many promises made have not been kept. We have to bring the issue to a head.
The Irish Echo, the Irish-American newspaper with the largest circulation, published an article on the great passport fiasco eighteen months ago. The article states:
While the wheels of Government grind slowly, if at all, hundreds of Irish Americans await a significant breakthrough. Until then the dream of holding in the hand a link to an Irish past remains only that.
It is in our interests to complete that bond. Once these people get their passports they will come to Ireland immediately. We are constantly trying to encourage tourists to visit Ireland. Yet, because of a fault in the bureaucratic process, we are giving these Irish Americans the back of our hand, so to speak. This is not good enough and we in Fine Gael will not accept it. We demand that this injustice be put right. We believe that the amendment I have tabled is the appropriate way of remedying this injustice and clearing Ireland's name abroad. On that basis, I ask the committee to accept this amendment.
Deputy O'Keeffe and the other Members of the Opposition have made very valid points in favour of the acceptance of this amendment. However, one has to accept the position in which the Minister finds himself. It is clear from he has said that he does not have responsibility for this matter. This is borne out by the fact that questions on this issue were tabled for answer by the Minister for Justice. Clearly this is a matter for the Minister for Justice. The Minister of State has gone as far as he possibly can. He has offered, with the full weight of the committee behind him, to write to the Minister for Justice impressing on her the need for urgent action. While the debate has been worthwhile, I do not think the matter can be resolved here today.
It is said that the pen is mightier than the sword. The Minister of State has responded to this amendment by saying he will write to the Minister for Justice and that the letter will have the full weight of the committee behind it.
Open Government.
That is a useless exercise, and the Minister of State is well aware of it.
The Deputy is only denigrating his own position.
It is important for the Minister of State to have a copy of a letter outlining the views of the committee for his files. What can the committee do to help the Minister ensure that this matter is dealt with quickly and efficiently? First, the Minister of State should make a point of speaking to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dick Spring, the Leader of the Labour Party, who, in turn, should raise the matter at a Cabinet meeting to ensure that his colleague, the Minister for Justice, is made aware of the importance and urgency of it. Second, Deputy Keogh — I am sure I can speak for her — and I will raise the matter at the Whips meeting to ensure that the Government Whip is made aware of our intention to see this matter through. Third, the matter will be raised on the Order of Business under legislation promised by the Minister for Justice. If the Minister of State acts on my advice I will be prepared to waive the commitment given by the Taoiseach on 8 July that no legislation will be brought before the House unless it has been published for two weeks previously.
We are all aware of the technicalities involved in this matter. In her reply on 25 March the Minister for Justice promised to introduce amending legislation in this area. The Minister of State can go much further than merely writing a letter on behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Minister for Justice. He should ensure that his senior Minister, the Tánaiste, will raise the matter at Cabinet level in the presence of the Minister for Justice. As far as the members of this committee who have responsibility for the Whips' business and the ordering of business in the House are concerned, the Minister of State can be assured that he will have every assistance from us to ensure this matter is dealt with as quickly as possible. As I said at the outset, this is a matter of honour and trust and that trust has been betrayed in the eyes of approximately 4,000 people to date.
Deputy Kenny is a colleague Whip and he is obviously being helpful in his suggestions with regard to what has been agreed by all as a matter that must be addressed. As assistant Government Whip, I can confirm that a Cabinet sub-committee on the promised legislation is sitting at present. It involves the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Justice and the Department of Enterprise and Employment who have an input vis-�-vis work permits for non-nationals, aliens and others. Direct representations could be made to that sub-committee to include this amendment as a matter of priority that must be urgently addressed.
The Minister of State opened his remarks by saying that the pen was mightier than the sword. He stated that he considered the best weapon available to him was the pen. However, we can use the Whips "sword" also and this matter can be raised at their meetings. I agree that the matter must be addressed at the appropriate level, primarily with the Minister for Justice who made a promise in this House as a response to a Private Members' Bill on this subject. This represented a positive response by Government because it is aware that many people are unhappy with the way we treat aliens and non-nationals, a matter which is also being addressed in this legislation. Therefore, several avenues are open to us to deal with this problem. As a Labour Party member of this committee I will be communicating directly with the Minister for Foreign Affairs the concerns that have been expressed. Collectively, we can ensure that this matter is addressed as a matter of urgency. However, that must be done in the proper manner because further problems could be created of which we are unaware.
I commend Deputy O'Keeffe for highlighting an urgent problem that needs to be addressed. All members of the committee agree that action must be taken in this regard but we must also show responsibility in the way we address the problem and I will certainly take Deputy Kenny's suggestions on board.
I note the fact that this matter may well come under the ambit of another Minister's responsibility. I would remind the committee that since I became a Member of this House, countless items of legislation were identified as being the responsibility of another Minister and involved issues that required "immediate attention". However, one may find that five or ten years later the problem still exists and has never been addressed because nobody in the intervening period had the time or the opportunity to do so.
I am concerned that this matter would be left to one side at this stage and, notwithstanding the good intentions of the Minister of State, it would be referred to another Department. Reference has already been made to the fact that this matter could be raised with another Minister by way of Parliamentary Question Time or Private Members' Business. As we all know, that means little to Members of this House because one can table a question to a particular Minister only to find that it has been passed like a rugby ball to other Ministers to such an extent that one would never know which Minister had responsibility for the particular matter.
I am concerned about leaving this issue in the balance indefinitely. There must be a specific deadline by which this problem could be addressed because (a) it would restore our confidence in the ability of the system to operate effectively within this House and (b) it would restore the confidence of those people who made applications five or six years ago and who paid money in an attempt to achieve what they saw as their rights within the meaning of a particular Act at the time. This problem should be addressed forthwith by whichever Minister is responsible and not postponed indefinitely.
I have listened very carefully to the various responses from across the House and what is clear at this stage is that my amendment has struck a chord with all parties. It is fair to say there is all-party support for what I am trying to achieve in this amendment.
I know that promises have been made in the past and there has been criticism that they were not honoured, but taking into account the reactions of my colleagues on this committee, and bearing in mind that we will have a Report Stage, I am satisfied not to divide the committee on this issue at this stage. The Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, has given a very specific commitment, supported by other parties here, and on that basis I am prepared to accept that commitment for now. However, I will not drop this issue until it has been finally resolved. Therefore, I intend to table the amendment for Report Stage and I hope that further action will be taken other than a letter being sent to the Minister for Justice.
The Deputy should have a reply by then.
I would hope to have a reply by then and perhaps a Bill to deal with the issue. If the issue is not clarified during this session, I intend to raise it with the Taoiseach every week on the Order of Business. He was written to by Congressmen in New York but they received no reply from him. He is aware of the problem; he is the elected Leader of the Government and he must ensure that this fiasco is resolved quickly. On that basis only, I am prepared to withdraw amendment.
I wish to respond by thanking Deputy O'Keeffe for his very constructive approach. In the spirit of the co-operation of this committee I have made a number of points, one of which was that I would write to the Minister and I intend to do that. I have always been a great supporter of the committee system and this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss an issue of such importance in this form. It is also the first time I have had an opportunity of making this type of constructive suggestion.
To be fair to the Minister, and I want to put this on the record of the House, this matter has been ongoing under successive Ministers for Justice for the past seven years. The present Minister for Justice is relatively new in her position and she has many other items of legislation with which to deal. However, I have made my proposal and I am glad it has been accepted. I appreciate Deputy O'Keeffe's constructive response.
A point was raised in relation to the Tánaiste. I can assure the committee that the Tánaiste is very much concerned about this matter and has raised it with his ministerial colleague. A reference was made to passports being the problem with regard to this issue. These people are awaiting registration as citizens. Obviously passports would follow in most cases but it is important to point out that there is a difference.
I will not go back over the ground we have covered but merely thank Deputies and Senators for their contributions to a very useful debate. I appreciate the points made here, that this matter might be handed on to another Minister. Surely the purpose of a committee system, when all-party concern is voiced, is relevant to this debate. It was in that spirit I made the suggestion that I would write, which in some way formalises the feelings of this committee expressed on an all-party basis. I look forward to coming back to the committee for further discussions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 4 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
In view of the fact that there were no amendments made to the Bill here, I propose the following draft report: "That the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has considered the Bill and the Bill is reported to the Dáil".
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
May I suggest that we would not take the Report Stage in the Dáil for a couple of weeks until we shall have ascertained what kind of reaction the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, can obtain to the all-party approach on the issue I raised. Perhaps a couple of weeks would be a reasonable interval to allow him time to have it clarified.
That is all right.
It may appear in the Dail the week after next but that would be a matter for decision by the Whips. In view of the concern expressed by Deputy Enda Kenny that is not an unreasonable request.
That concludes our consideration of the Diplomatic And Consular Officers (Provision of Services) Bill, 1993.
The next meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs will be on Wednesday, 24 November 1993. The agenda and documentation will be issued in due course.
The Joint committee adjourned at 12.55 p.m.