Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Thursday, 18 Nov 2004

Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill 2004: Committee Stage (Resumed).

NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 10, before section 11, to insert the following new section:

11.—Section 16A (inserted by section 6 of the Act of 2001) of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):

‘(1) A period of residence in the State shall not be reckoned when calculating a period of residence for the purposes of granting a certificate of naturalisation if—

(a) it is in contravention of section 5(1) of the Act of 2004,

(b) it is in accordance with a permission given to a person under section 4 of the Act of 2004 for the purpose of enabling him or her to engage in a course of education or study in the State, or

(c) it consists of a period during which a person (other than a person who was, during that period, a national of a Member State, an EEA state or the Swiss Confederation) referred to in subsection (2) of section 9 (amended by section 7(c)(i) of the Act of 2003) of the Act of 1996 is entitled to remain in the State in accordance only with the said subsection.’.”.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure consistency in the way in which the 1956 Act addresses the reckonability of residence of non-nationals, including European Union, European economic area and Swiss nationals, for naturalisation purposes and for the purposes of entitling the children of such nationals to Irish citizenship under section 6A, which is to be inserted by this Bill. As a result of this amendment, the same reckonability rules expressed in the same way will apply to both calculations. The change in this amendment is in ease of the position where EU, EEA and Swiss nationals seeking naturalisation. Under the present text of section 16A, periods of residence for those nationals would count only if they were covered by a residence permit or document issued by me under the relevant European Communities aliens regulations. This amendment lifts that restriction and gives them the right to reckon their residence regardless of whether they had any formal permission from me to remain in the State.

That is an improvement for everyone.

If this amendment is not made, an EU, EEA or Swiss national would have to apply to me for a permit to remain in the State for the period of residence to qualify. As they have a right to be here with or without the permit, the problem is whether I should impose an additional obligation on a French person to ask me for a permit to be in the State.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 10, before section 11, to insert the following new section:

"11.—Section 17 of the Principal Act is amended by the deletion of subsection (2).".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 10, before section 11, to insert the following new section:

11.—Section 28 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection:

‘(3) The Minister may revoke a certificate of nationality if he or she is satisfied that the issue of the certificate was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation (including innocent misrepresentation) or failure to disclose material information.'.".

Does the Minister have any figures or information in his Department on this amendment revoking the certificate of nationality where there is fraud or misrepresentation? It has been a major issue recently.

Very few certificates of nationality are issued, but I expect that to happen from now on as a result of the passage of this Bill. The question arises most frequently in the context of debate on the now defunct investment-based naturalisation scheme. As a long-standing opponent of that scheme, it is not a possibility that escaped my attention in the context of the proposals in the Bill. The 1935 Act empowered the Minister to revoke a certificate of naturalisation where, within five years of its issue, the person to whom the certificate related was sentenced by any court to a fine of not less than £100, or to imprisonment for a term of not less than 12 months, or to penal servitude for any term.

In 1956, that provision of the 1935 Act was not re-enacted, since it was felt that, once a person had been admitted to Irish citizenship, he should be subject to the law generally applying to citizens and no more, that is, he should not lose his citizenship merely because he was convicted of an offence in such circumstances. The citizenship laws of the USA, Australia or the UK make no provision for the 1935 possibility. In 2002, the United Kingdom revoked an existing provision in its domestic law that provided for the deprivation of citizenship where the beneficiary, within the period of five years from the date of registration or naturalisation, had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in any country exceeding 12 months. Unlike the 1935 regime in Ireland, at one stage the UK had a law allowing it to revoke the citizenship of any person sentenced to a 12-month sentence anywhere in the world within five years of naturalisation.

The UK repealed the law because it felt that it was at odds with the European Convention on Nationality, which precludes such a possibility. It would be a mistake to assume that any such provision could be applied in respect of persons naturalised under the investment scheme. The quality of their citizenship, even if its origins are different, is the same as that of any other citizen once granted. I do not believe that I could revoke the citizenship of someone born in Ireland simply because the person had committed a serious offence.

The legal thinking in the Department is that my hands are tied regarding people to whom citizenship has been granted. It is not very easy to deprive them of their citizenship and revoke a certificate based on an event that would not have the same consequences for someone born in Ireland. It would create all kinds of precedents. For instance, in coming years I will be granting citizenship to many 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds. If any of them get in trouble with the courts, the idea that I would revoke their citizenship on top of whatever else they did seems a draconian power to give to anyone, even a court. In some cases, it could leave them stateless, since some people automatically lose their own citizenship when they take on Irish citizenship under the laws of their country of birth.

It is not easy, but that is not to say that it cannot be attempted. I remember on one occasion tabling an amendment in the form of a Private Members' Bill to bring the passports for sale matter before the Dáil. It was a very short Bill that revoked the citizenship of persons mentioned in the Schedule.

It must have been when the Minister was in Opposition.

It was a very short Bill which revoked the citizenship of persons mentioned in the Schedule and forced my predecessor on to the stage to defend the step.

The Minister is stealing Deputy O'Keeffe's thunder.

I am not able to share the stage on that issue.

It is important to set out my own view on the passports for investment scheme.

We have not come to that yet. I would like to finish Deputy Costello's point.

Deputy O'Keeffe raised a different issue. My point was that it does not seem to be difficult to separate the passports obtained on an investment basis, where money passed hands, from those issued by birthright or other means.

Is the Deputy referring to money passing hands fraudulently?

Not necessarily. It could be that. The Minister's amendment covers that but people who bought their passports may subsequently be involved in fraud, misrepresentation or crime. The amendment covers a limited category of people.

We may be talking at cross-purposes. This amendment deals with certificates of nationality which are not the instrument conferring naturalisation. That is a different matter.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 37:

In page 10, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:

11.—Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay a Report before the Houses of the Oireachtas detailing the propriety in the operation of the passports for sales schemes in the State.

There is broad agreement that we finished the passports for sale scheme and buried it decently. There is no question of it being reintroduced and I am happy to see a statutory provision bringing closure to the idea of the scheme. I want to know, however, what happened under the scheme between 1988 and its conclusion. The public is entitled to know. This amendment is intended to bring that to the surface and to find a device for getting a full report on the operation of the scheme. I took considerable interest in the scheme and the Government stonewalled me over many years and approximately 40 parliamentary questions. All the papers went to the Moriarty tribunal and the rest is silence but I do not know whether the tribunal is examining the issue or, if so, when that will happen.

This raises another issue about which I have considerable reservations in that I do not know what is happening at the Moriarty tribunal. We have seen no report from the tribunal since it was set up seven years ago. If ever we set up tribunals again let us insist that there be reports twice a year from the Chairman to the Oireachtas in order that we know what is happening.

I am concerned that this scheme was introduced in good faith. The former leader of my party, Deputy John Bruton, wrote to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce to say that on a visit to Hong Kong he had encountered the operation of such schemes which had led to considerable investment in different countries in the Far East, and to ask whether it would be wise to examine the possibility of introducing such a scheme here. It was subsequently introduced by the end of 1988, on an informal basis. There were no statutory or administrative guidelines but in so far as there were rules, these were considerably breached between 1988 and 1994. Approximately 143 naturalisations were granted, over 100 of those during the period up to 1994.

Many of these naturalisations were granted, and passports issued, at the very minimum for political reasons. If there were any other considerations the Oireachtas and the public are entitled to know. Even the conditions, if one can call them such, which the Cabinet established when introducing the scheme, were freely breached and there was no compliance with the law on several occasions. Someone applying today in good faith, and through the proper procedures, for naturalisation receives a letter stating that the application will be given due consideration after 24 months. The person is sent to the end of the queue. That is a separate issue but there was evidence that some of these applications were processed and cleared within 24 hours. In many instances there was no compliance with the residency requirements or declarations of fidelity to the nation and there are suspicions about other aspects but I will not go any further because I do not have proof of that.

Between 1988 and 1994 there was total freedom of approach to this scheme. At one stage a former colleague of the Minister's, the then Deputy Molloy, said in the Dáil that he had been told, having raised the possibility of naturalisation in a couple of cases, there was a standing procedure whereby these had to be referred directly to the then Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, Mr. Charles J. Haughey. I am not engaged in a witch hunt against anybody, I merely want to know the facts, and we are entitled to know them.

In the Second Stage debate on this Bill I said I was happy to see the scheme buried but I wanted to see a proper post-mortem and then we could give it a decent burial. My amendment seeks that. I want the Minister to lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas detailing the propriety in the operation of the passports for sale scheme in the State within three months of the passing of this Act.

In case I am seen to be raising red herrings, or possibly to get my retaliation in first, I am not questioning in any way the political judgment of any Minister who, having gone through due process, decided that such a passport should be issued or a naturalisation granted leading to the issuing of a passport. I am concerned about the operation of the scheme up to, on or about June 1994. That was not a coincidence with the takeover of the Government by the rainbow coalition Government. It arose from the appointment of former Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn to the position of Minister for Justice following a change within the then Government. She expressed her dismay and concern at what was happening in regard to the scheme. She arranged the introduction of administrative guidelines which had to be adhered to before naturalisation could be granted under the scheme — the first time this was done. One could argue as to whether it was proper to grant naturalisation under the scheme but, during the period in office of the former Minister, Mrs. Nora Owen, and the succeeding Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, a limited number were granted after due process. Issues might arise in regard to individuals such as the pirate of Prague but due process was followed in these cases. While I want a full report on the general operation of the scheme, my real concerns arise in regard to the naturalisations granted when it is clear due process was not followed. We cannot leave this issue without ensuring we have had a full report and know exactly what happened and why it happened. If it requires further action, let us take that action.

I appreciate that this might give rise to some questions or difficulties in regard to revocation. If an investment was made following the granting of a passport, there would a strong if not a legal obligation to ensure that the State's side of the bargain was kept by not obstructing the naturalisation that arose as a result of that investment. However, I tabled the amendment because the Oireachtas and public are entitled to know the facts.

The amendment is a good one and deals with a matter which has festered for a long time. There has been much concern over the years as to the propriety of the passports for sale scheme, as it was known, and how it operated in some circumstances. As Deputy O'Keeffe stated, the scheme was created with the best of intentions, namely, that investment would flow into the country when the economy was suffering in the 1980s and needed all the capital it could get. Given that wealthy people who were genuinely prepared to invest in Ireland wanted an Irish passport, which had good currency, to be able to move freely around the world, the intention was good and there did not seem to be anything particularly wrong with the scheme.

However, questions quickly arose in regard to some aspects of the scheme, including the manner in which the passports of certain clients were fast-tracked and the locations at which passports were delivered to certain clients in the most informal situations imaginable. Questions even arose in regard to the CIA using Irish passports for its clandestine activities; whether any of those passports had been validly obtained is a question that remains to be answered. The fact that the Minister for Justice in 1987 remained in that office when he was appointed to the Department of Communications, and held the combined ministries for the subsequent two years is a matter which also needs investigation.

The same applies to the activities of some of those who obtained passports since that time. Deputy O'Keeffe referred to the pirate of Prague, Mr. Kozeny, who is wanted around the world for fraud offences involving approximately €1 billion in the United States, Barbados, the Cayman Islands and his own country of the Czech Republic. My latest information is that he is still using his Irish passport to travel the world. If he arrived in the United States or returned home to the Czech Republic, he would be arrested, yet he has an Irish passport as his means of travel.

These are serious questions which greatly dilute the quality and currency of an Irish passport. The Minister has been at pains in recent days to point out to us that a form of loyalty and connection to the Irish State, nation and people is required for an Irish passport to be granted and retained. I have no problem with a revocation process that would deal specifically with this particular area. However, if passports were granted in a situation where money changed hands, if there was an improper reason for seeking the passport or if the passport was used by the holder to engage in criminal activities, we should be in a position to seek to revoke such passports. While we might find it difficult to achieve this result, if the word went out that the return of the Irish passport of a certain person was being sought by the Government, this would quickly put a stop to the use of the passport for any improper travel purpose.

The intention of Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment is that the Minister shall lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas detailing the propriety in the operation of the passports for sale schemes in the State. While I agree with the intention of amendment, I am concerned with the degree to which one would be able to throw light on the underlying matter that Deputy O'Keeffe wishes to investigate, namely, to discover precisely what was going on in the somewhat murky context of the granting of passports. Papers were sent to the Moriarty tribunal but we do not know what will happen in regard to any of the tribunals because their operation will be considerably curtailed following the recent motion put through the Houses. In that context, will it be possible to deal with this matter under the commission of investigations through the appointment of a judge with a specific remit to investigate this issue alone? Most of this could be done quickly and in private, which would assist the report which Deputy O'Keeffe seeks. It would be worthwhile to ensure that the fears and concerns of the country at large are allayed.

Some of the questions raised are more appropriate to the Dáil than to the Minister.

They have also been asked in the Dáil. This is the opportunity to get an answer.

Latitude has been given.

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.

Was the Tánaiste, Deputy Brian Lenihan rather than Deputy Bertie Ahern?

No, Deputy Bertie Ahern was Tánaiste for a brief period. I think he was. He was Minister for Finance. Perhaps I am wrong. That is what I said in the Dáil. It may be wrong. The point I am making is that all of these files have now gone to the Moriarty tribunal. I have examined the particular files with which Deputy O'Keeffe was most concerned. I have told the Dáil in explicit terms that I regard the circumstances in which those passports were granted as raising very serious questions. I cannot either procure the people to whom they were granted to demand an explanation for them or click my fingers and summon before me the persons involved in the granting of them. I can say from the departmental records that it was a highly unusual transaction which I categorised as irregular at the time. The papers have gone to the Moriarty tribunal.

Deputy O'Keeffe is asking that I prepare a report on this issue. In case Deputy O'Keeffe thinks the Moriarty tribunal has gone quiet, it asked us during the summer for more information on naturalisation. So far as I know it is not a dead issue with the tribunal. There is nothing I can usefully do. I have carried out an examination of the kind the Deputy has requested. I have looked at everything. I have given a fair and square opinion, which is one that would generally be shared in the House, if everyone looked at the file and arrived at my view. I cannot speculate further as to the motives of the people involved or the propriety or the consideration, if any, that was given for the transactions in question. I can speculate about that but I am not in a position to do so fairly. We must wait for the Moriarty tribunal, which has this material before it, to come up with its view. It is clearly relevant to the terms of its tribunal. All the records have been given to the tribunal. I cannot put the matter any further. There is nothing I can do at the moment except establish another tribunal of my own to parallel——

What about removing it from the tribunal and putting it into a commission of investigation?

I do not see why I should remove anything from the Moriarty tribunal. I have no reason to believe it is not undertaking a thorough investigation on the matter. That would not be appropriate. If the tribunal reported back that, for some reason, it could not investigate the matter thoroughly that would be a different matter, but I do not see how I can pull it back and put it into a different body at this stage. That sounds as if I am half-thinking of doing that, I am not. I am very confident that the Moriarty tribunal will thoroughly investigate this matter and will come to its own views on it.

Everyone has aired their views on this matter. As we are hoping to complete the Bill I ask members to be brief.

Clearly the Minister and I are ad idem on the scheme and had initial concerns about how it was set up and major concerns about the naturalisations granted under the scheme. If I had a clearer picture of what is happening at the Moriarty tribunal I would be happier. There are issues that are not resolved. I do not want closure on this issue by way of a statutory ending of this scheme without having a better picture of what happened under it. If I was satisfied that the Moriarty tribunal was dealing with it I would be substantially relieved. The difficulty is that I have not seen any public evidence of this. There does not appear to have been any hearings. We now know there is an effort to bring closure to the tribunals. I am not totally opposed to that provided it can be done on the basis that it can do its job. Initially I was told the tribunal would be finishing up within six months but that will be somewhat longer. It has not even started to look at this issue.

That is not fair to the tribunal. It has looked at the matter but it has not taken evidence in public.

I stand corrected. There has been no public manifestation of an investigation. I accept the papers have been with the tribunal since 1997 and, as mentioned by the Minister, I accept it has been in correspondence with the Department and so on. I am conscious of the Minister's concerns. I will press the issue to the extent of a voice vote and will come back to it on Report Stage. Is it possible that before Report Stage next Tuesday, the Minister will be in a position to give us some idea of what is happening at the Moriarty tribunal? I understand the delicacies.

I get enough stick in this world for interfering with other people, rightly or wrongly——

There is no need to do it by way of a front page article in The Irish Times.

Would anybody be happy if I had lifted the telephone and asked what was happening as Deputy O'Keeffe wants to know?

It is reasonable that the Oireachtas should know what is happening at a tribunal set up by the Oireachtas.

There is provision for regular reports.

Had any reporter——

There are a few candidates in Dublin South-East who would be happy because it would probably be a resignation matter.

Amendment put and declared lost.
SECTION 11.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 10, line 41, to delete ", a statutory declaration" and substitute the following:

"a declaration in such manner as may be prescribed".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 11, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

"(5) An application under section 28 in respect of a minor shall be made on his or her behalf by his or her parent or guardian, or by a person who is in loco parentis to him to her.”.

The purpose of the amendment is to provide that in the case of an application on behalf of a minor the required declaration under the new section 28A,(1) of the 1956 Act and any supporting documents sought from the declarant under the proposed new section 28A,(2) are to be furnished by the parent or the guardian or of a person acting in loco parentis to the minor. There would be a problem if some minors were to be required to document themselves. It would be a major legal problem. I will come back to the question of legal capacity, raised earlier by Deputy Costello, on Report Stage and I am likely to table an amendment at that point.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 11, before section 12, to insert the following new section:

12.—The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section:

‘29A.—A person who knowingly or recklessly makes—

(a) a declaration under this Act, or

(b) a statement for the purposes of any application under this Act,

that is false or misleading in any material respect shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or to both.'."

Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 12.

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 11, subsection (3), line 29, after "appoint" to insert the following:

"being not earlier than the 24th day of April, 2005".

I was hoping the Minister might accept this amendment. God loves a trier. The amendment refers to the ten months from the date on which the Bill for the referendum was signed by the President and makes provision for all the babies in the pipeline, so to speak, in that they would be afforded the rights that currently exist.

Very delicately put.

One would have to be happy that in looking forward to future births Deputy Costello at least has kept it within the nine month period and that he is not having an autumn sale, so to speak, on conceptions.

Will the Minister reflect on the matter between now and Report Stage?

I will reflect but I hope I can keep the smile off my face.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 12 agreed to.
Title agreed to.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending the meeting.

Top
Share