I am glad the committee is becoming a joint Oireachtas committee. The scheme for investment-based naturalisation was originally proposed in 1986 by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy John Bruton, as a result of seeing a similar scheme in operation in the course of his travels. On foot of his suggestion, the scheme was introduced in 1988. It was not placed on a statutory basis and wrongly relied on the Irish associations clause and a liberal interpretation of what the 1956 Act permitted.
The scheme was operated under successive Governments. The list of who did what is slightly deceptive, in that some people were effectively granting naturalisations approved in principle by their predecessors. Between March 1987 and July 1989, my distinguished predecessor Mr. Gerry Collins approved eight primary investors and 23 dependent spouses and children for naturalisation. He was succeeded by Mr. Ray Burke who, between July 1989 and February 1992, approved 11 primary investors and eight spouses and children. Mr. Padraig Flynn held office from February 1992 to December 1992, and approved 11 primary investors and three spouses and children. He was succeeded by Mrs. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn who, between December 1992 and December 1994, approved 35 primary investors and five spouses and children. Between December 1994 and June 1997, Mrs. Nora Owen approved 30 primary investors and nine spouses and children. The Minster for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy John O'Donoghue, then came into office until June 2002, and approved 12 primary investors and 23 spouses and children. I was appointed to office in June 2002 and have never approved any primary investors, but I have approved five spouses and children in respect of primary investors proposed by previous office holders.
Shortly after Deputy O'Donoghue came into office, the Government abolished the investment-based naturalisation scheme on 28 April 1998. The Government decided the then Minister should initiate a review of the Act to see how it might facilitate investment. In the course of that review, information emerged warranting additional legislative measures. A review group was established in 1998, the chairman of which, Mr. Sean Aylward, is now the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The group included the expert senior counsel, Mr. Diarmuid McGuinness, and the eminent chartered accountant, Mr. Desmond Miller.
The group presented a report on the investment-based naturalisation scheme to the Minister in May 2000. That report has been published and is on the record of the Houses. It cited arguments for and against the scheme, and has been discussed and debated. It concluded it was not clear the link formed with a country by a person who complied with the rules of the scheme was sufficient to constitute Irish associations within the meaning of the 1956 Act. In paragraph 7.6 of the report, the group stated it was inappropriate and unnecessary to reintroduce an investment-based naturalisation scheme in terms of the economic position and outlook at that time. The majority of group members believed the Government should retain the option of introducing an investment-based scheme on a statutory basis in the event of a changed economic or employment situation. A minority of group members were simply opposed to investment-based naturalisation on principle for reasons set out in the report.
I was appointed Attorney General in July 1999, and expressed doubts about the Irish associations basis for this scheme. My successor also holds the view that there is a profound legal question mark over the vires of introducing the scheme on the basis of Irish associations. Although there is doubt as to whether the scheme was inter vires, it is not possible to simply cast it aside or seek a counsel’s opinion as to whether it was invalid. If one contemplates withdrawing citizenship from those who benefited from the scheme, irrespective of how citizenship was granted, court action is required. It would be strange that a state which had implemented a scheme on an all-party basis suddenly decided it had no right to do so in the first instance and moved to take back the passports. I shudder to think what the Four Courts would make of the Government saying it doubted whether the scheme was right in the first instance and wanted the passports returned. Some of the investors might ask for their money back.
As both an Opposition Deputy and an office holder I have always believed the Irish associations provision in the 1956 Act did not cover a scheme of this kind. I am not making party political points. The person mentioned has not been convicted of any offence but is accused of committing one by some newspapers. I have no doubt that in making the decision to grant him naturalisation, Mrs. Nora Owen acted in total good faith and would not have done anything that was in any way improper. In no sense did she turn a blind eye to the facts before her. I have looked at the file and there is nothing that would have alerted her to any problem with regard to that person. The manner in which certain citizenships were granted by a former Taoiseach has frequently been the subject of controversy. I was asked about this matter in the Dáil in October 2002. I carried out my own investigation of the file with regard to that transaction at the request of the present Taoiseach. My examination confirms, and I have told the Dáil, that the file discloses that the 11 passports on the naturalisations in question were granted in a manner which was, even by the lax standards that have frequently characterised the operation of the scheme in question, irregular and unusual. I went on to say that in short, it appears that the passports on naturalisations in question were effected in a manner which bypassed the usual formalities and which ignored the failure by the applicants to comply with elementary documentary requirements.
It appears that the passports in question were prepared in advance of the completion of the applications for naturalisation and it has been reported that they were handed over to the applicants by the then Taoiseach at a lunch hosted by them in a Dublin hotel. I went on to say, as I have pointed out to this House, no departmental file is likely to carry any explicit evidence of gross impropriety or corruption on the part of a member of Government. Nonetheless, in the light of what we now know of the proceedings and reports of intervening tribunals, it would be fair to say that serious questions concerning the role of the then Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, would be raised in the minds of anybody examining the file with the benefit of hindsight.
I am not in a position to supply any explanation from the contents of the file which I have examined for the then Taoiseach's apparent interest in having the case processed with unusual haste. These may be matters on which the Moriarty tribunal may be able to cast a useful light. The file shows that former Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, as Minister for Justice and in the context of ongoing controversy concerning the scheme and in the context of a parliamentary question concerning the 11 passports in question, was sufficiently concerned by its contents to commission a report by a senior departmental official. She drew her concerns to the attention of the then Tánaiste, Deputy Bertie Ahern. She and he resigned their positions shortly thereafter though it had nothing to do with this particular case. The report in question was furnished to the Minister for Justice, former Deputy Owen, during the period she held office.