Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Apr 1994

Vol. 441 No. 1

Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill, 1994: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The sole purpose of this Bill is to regularise the citizenship righs of persons who made valid applications to have details of their births abroad entered in a foreign births entry book at an embassy or consulate abroad or in the Foreign Births Register, at the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin, in the transitional six month period, ending on 31 December 1986, provided for in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986, but who, through no fault of their own, were not registered by 31 December 1986.

The Bill does not propose any substantive changes in our citizenship laws. Its scope is limited. It will apply only to approximately 4,000 applicants who are seeking Irish citizenship by virtue of descent from an Irish born person and who applied for registration prior to 31 December 1986 but who were not registered by that date.

It is nevertheless an important Bill for those people affected by it. Many Deputies will have received representations from some of the people concerned. I believe that there is a consensus on both sides of the House that legislation should be enacted to deal with this issue. I can fully appreciate the sense of injustice that these applicants must have felt when they discovered that their applications had not been processed in time and I am confident that this Bill will resolve their problems.

Every person born in Ireland is automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. A person born outside the State to an Irish born parent is also automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. However, where the parent through whom a person born outside Ireland derives citizenship was also born outside Ireland then entitlement to Irish citizenship is dependent on the registration of that person's birth under section 27 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956. Section 27 of the 1956 Act provides for the registration of such births in a foreign births entry book kept in every Irish Embassy and Consulate abroad and in a Foreign Births Register kept in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin.

The law on citizenship by descent is perhaps more easily understandable if we deal with a concrete example. If a woman born in Ireland emigrates for example, to the United States she retains her Irish citizenship. Any children born to her in the United States are automatically entitled to Irish citizenship. However, the rights to Irish citizenship of her grandchildren depend on their births being registered and her great-grandchildren are entitled to Irish citizenship only if the births of the parents, that is the grandchildren of the original Irish emigrant, were registered before the great-grandchildren's births.

Grandchildren, that is third generation Irish, and any further descendants of an Irish emigrant acquire citizenship rights only by virtue of being descended from an Irish born person if their births are registered. Provided the births of the grandchildren and all subsequent descendants are registered under the 1956 Act then the right to Irish citizenship may be maintained indefinitely through the generations. However, if the birth of a grandchild or any subsequent descendant is not registered then the link is broken and subsequent generations will have no right to Irish citizenship by descent.

It must also be kept in mind that a third or subsequent generation applicant has to show that at least one parent was an Irish citizen on the date of birth of the applicant. It can be appreciated, therefore, that the date the parent acquired Irish citizenship is critical in determining whether or not his or her child has a right to acquire Irish citizenship by descent.

In the period 1956-86 this generally would not have posed any great difficulty for an applicant as citizenship deriving from registration was backdated to the date of birth or the coming into force of the 1956 Act, whichever was the later. If the applicant's parent had not registered under section 27 prior to the birth of the applicant, the parent could always register after the birth of the applicant and the citizenship of the parent would apply retrospectively so that the parent would be deemed to have been an Irish citizen at the date of the birth of the applicant. The applicant would, therefore, have been born to an Irish citizen and would be entitled to Irish citizenship which could be obtained by registration under section 27 of the 1956 Act in due course.

The law was changed by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986, which was drawn up in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and which provided that the citizenship of a person who, after the passing of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986, is registered under section 27 shall commence only as and from the date of such registration. This did away with the retrospective aspect of citizenship and gave much greater significance to the actual date of registration. Now if a person's citizenship depends on registration, then his or her children lose their entitlement to acquire Irish citizenship by descent if they are born before that person registers.

Before I continue I consider it appropriate to give some indication of the background to the changes introduced by the 1986 Act. To understand the situation we must go back to the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1935. Under section 2 (2) of the 1935 Act the birth of a person born outside the State to an Irish citizen also born outside the State had to be registered within two years of the birth or else that person lost the right to be a "natural-born citizen of Saorstat Éireann". The law was changed by the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956. The requirement to register a birth within a set period of time was not maintained but it was apparently the intention that a person would only acquire citizenship on and from the date of registration of the birth. However, in 1966 legal advice was provided to the effect that, for the purposes of derivation of citizenship under section 6 (2) of the 1956 Act, registration of the birth under section 27, as required by section 7 (2) of the 1956 Act, relates back to that person's birth or to the passing of the 1956 Act, whichever is the later.

The opportunity was taken in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1986, to restore the situation to that originally intended, that is, citizenship would not be backdated. As I have explained, the introduction of the 1986 Act meant that a person who in future registers under section 27 of the 1956 Act only acquires Irish citizenship from the date of registration. As a result children born to such a person prior to registration do not have a right to acquire citizenship by descent as their parent would not have been an Irish citizen at the date of their birth.

The 1986 Act was passed on 1 July 1986 but it included a transitional provision in section 8 which states that, "for the period of 6 months commencing on the passing of this Act, any person who but for this Act could become an Irish citizen may continue to do so". This six month period ended on 31 December 1986. During this six month period the number of applicants for registration received by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Embassies and Consulates abroad reached unprecedented levels. This was particularly so in the case of the Consulate General at New York in the USA, and the Consulate at Johannesburg in South Africa. Emergency measures were taken by the Department of Foreign Affairs to deal with this wave of applications, including employing more staff and sanctioning overtime. The result was that over 4,200 applications were processed in 1986. By comparison 925 were processed in 1983, 1,270 in 1984 and 1,650 in 1985. Of approximately 10,000 further applications received but not attended to by the end of 1986 approximately 6,000 were from third generation applicants, that is, they had a grandparent born in Ireland. They generally had no children and, therefore, were not adversely affected by the deadline. These applicants were registered in 1987 and 1988.

However, 3,773 valid applications were received in 1986 from third and fourth generation applicants which it was not possible to register in the time available. The majority of these outstanding applicants are from South Africa, 2,010, and the United States, 1,341, with smaller numbers from New Zealand and Canada. When the Department of Foreign Affairs realised that the backlog of applications could not all be dealt with by the deadline of 31 December 1986 legal advice was sought. That legal advice was to the effect that applicants could not benefit from the more favourable regime provided for in the transitional provision of the 1986 Act unless the applications were actually registered before 31 December 1986. The right to register many fourth generation applicants was dependent on registration of their parents being effected before 31 December 1986. This is the category of applicants most affected by the failure to register by 31 December 1986. It soon became evident that legislation was desirable to resolve the difficulties in the case of such applications and work on the processing of such applications was suspended on 1 January 1987. The purpose of this legislation is to deal with such cases.

I turn now to the provisions of the Bill which comprises three sections. Section 1 provides for definitions, section 3 provides for the short title, collective citation and construction and section 2 is the operative section. I propose to concentrate on section 2. The heading of the section is "Registration of births outside Ireland" and, as I have explained, this Bill is only concerned with applications for registration made during the transitional six month period provided for in the 1986 Act but which were not registered by the end of the six month period on 31 December 1986.

Section 2 (1) deals with two different circumstances. Section 2 (1) (a) deals with the outstanding 3,773 applications for registration which were made during the transitional period but which have never been registered. It specifically provides that all such valid applications may now be registered. This provision is necessary to cover those fourth generation applicants who but for this Bill would not be eligible to be registered. There were many family applications by parents who were third generation Irish and their children who would be fourth generation. The right of the fourth generation applicants to registration was directly dependent on their parents being registered prior to 31 December 1986.

Section 2 (1) (b) deals with persons who applied for registration during the transitional six month period but who were registered after 31 December 1986. It allows such persons to apply for re-registration if they so wish. Most of these persons are unlikely to apply for re-registration as there is no particular benefit for them. However, I understand that in a small number of cases where there were family applications by parents and their children, the parents on learning that they had not been registered by 31 December 1986 and that their existing children were, therefore, not eligible for registration insisted on their own registration proceeding. The result was that the parents were registered but the children could not be registered because the citizenship of their parents was not backdated. I can well understand the concern of such parents who decided to proceed with registration to ensure that any future children they might have would be entitled to Irish citizenship even if it meant that their existing children might lose out. Section 2 (1) (b) means such parents can remedy the situation by applying for re-registration so that the applications made during the transitional period for the registration of their existing children can then be processed.

Section 2 (2) provides that any person registered or re-registered by virtue of section 2 (1) shall be deemed to have been registered on 1 July 1986. In effect, that will allow every person who made a valid application for registration during the transitional period but who was not registered by 31 December 1986 to be put in the same position that they would have been in if they had been registered during the transitional period. In particular, it will allow the registration of the outstanding 3,773 applications to be completed.

Section (2) refers to 1 July 1986 as the date on which the relevant applications will be deemed to have been registered. The transitional period commenced on 1 July 1986 and ended on 31 December 1986. A date during that period had to be chosen for the purposes of the section and it was decided to choose the date which would be most favourable to applicants, that is the earliest date possible which is 1 July 1986.

This leads me on to subsection (3) of section 2. As we are providing that valid applications made during the transitional period but not registered by 31 December 1986 shall, under the Bill, be deemed to have been registered on 1 July 1986, it seems only consistent that applications actually registered during the transitional period should not be treated any less favourably. Subsection (3) provides, therefore, that such applications shall also be deemed to be registered on 1 July 1986.

In practice this should be of no significance. The only possible circumstance in which the date of registration during the transitional period would be of importance would be if, for example, a woman applied for registration during the transitional period but, after submitting her application and before it was registered, she then gave birth to a child and did not have an opportunity to submit a further application for the registration of that child before 31 December 1986. As far as I am aware no such case exists but to avoid any possibility of a grievance, the Bill provides that all relevant applications are deemed to have been registered on 1 July 1986.

As I have made clear from the outset this Bill has one purpose and one purpose only, that is to resolve the position of persons who made valid applications for registration during the transitional period 1 July 1986 to 31 December 1986 and who were not registered by 31 December 1986 through no fault of their own. The Bill does that and nothing else.

Before I conclude I want to say a few words about a related issue — legislation to provide a statutory framework for refugee and asylum seekers. Over the past few months I promised this legislation in the House. I will be keeping this promise. The Government recently approved a draft scheme of a Bill to deal with this important area of human rights for a disadvantaged body of people in the international community.

This Bill is being drafted at the moment and my aim is to have it published and through the Oireachtas before the summer recess. In advance of the Bill being approved by the Government. I am constrained by what I can say about it at this stage. I can say, however, that the recommendations which have been published of the interdepartmental committee set up to examine this area form the core of my legislative proposals to deal with refugees and asylum seekers. I am confident that when these provisions are enacted into law in the next few months our system for processing refugees and asylum seekers will be open, impartial, humane and will allay the fears of those who have expressed concerns about the present non-statutory system.

I do not want any Member to leave this House today with the mistaken impression that by bringing forward this Bill to deal with the outstanding applications arising out of the 1986 Act I have put the issue of refugees and asylum on the back burner. That is most definitely not the case. I expect to be back here with major reforming legislation in a matter of weeks which will ensure that our international obligations are maintained to the highest standards.

I commend this Bill to the House.

I welcome this Bill but that welcome must be tempered by the fact that this simple legislation should have been brought before the House as far back as 1987. The Minister stated that:

It soon became evident that legislation was desirable to resolve the difficulties in the case of such applications and work on the processing of such applications was suspended on 1 January 1987.

I must inform the Deputy that he is limited to 20 minutes.

I would like the Minister to tell the House if the backlog was the only reason for this delay and if there were not staffing difficulties which were self-inflicted? Perhaps the Minister would tell us the real reason.

It is little short of disgraceful that the thousands of people in many countries who applied for Irish citizenship as far back as October and November of 1986 found that their applications have been left in limbo until 1994. No steps were taken in the Department of Justice to deal with this problem until now.

Acting Chairman

I must interrupt the Deputy again to say that spokespersons have 30 minutes each; all other speakers have 20 minutes.

Thank you. Before the expiry of the statutory deadline at 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 nor, indeed, have the fees been refunded. I understand that over 4,000 applications are outstanding from people who live mainly in the United States or in South Africa. The Minister has given more up-to-date figures since I prepared these notes but they are not greatly at variance.

It is not difficult to envisage how much correspondence the failure of the Irish Government to deal with these applications has generated over the past seven years. Think of the total waste of time of civil servants both in our diplomatic and consular offices abroad and in the Department of Foreign Affairs in fending off inquiries from those thousands of people as to why their applications have not been processed.

I understand that meetings have been held with Ministers and that some time ago an approach was made to the Taoiseach and yet we must wait until now for this type of legislation to appear. As far back as October 1988 the Consul General in New York was telling people that 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 Consul General further pointed out, as regards the fees that had been paid, that while those remain lodged in the account of the Consul 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, yet no efforts were made to solve this relatively simple problem.

When the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, was passed there was a feeling that our citizenship would be extended to as broad a range of people as possible but it was mainly aimed at giving the great-grandchildren of our emigrants to the United States, mainly in The Famine years, and in the years following The Famine, an opportunity to regain the citizenship their ancestors had prior to emigration.

It is strange, having regard to the manner in which we have pursued the United States in relation to visas for Irish citizens, that we take this extraordinary lackadaisical approach to the problems of American descendants of Irish citizens who wish to regain Irish citizenship by virtue of the good graces of the Irish Government extended in the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956. This type of bureaucracy does not help our case in that regard. Our lackadaisical approach in dealing with applicants from the United States who wish to obtain Irish citizenship has not helped our case in seeking the waiver of the United States visitor's visa requirement for Irish citizens.

I strongly support the moves made by Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the US Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Matters and of Congressman Frank McCluskey who has now introduced a Bill to seek the removal of this visitor's visa scheme. We must do everything in our power to mobilise the full Irish network of political and diplomatic support at home and abroad to ensure that the US visitor's visa scheme is changed.

San Marino and Lichtenstein have closer relationships with the United States than has the Republic of Ireland. To any Irish American the answer is obvious, yet nationals of both of those countries do not have a visitor's visa requirement to enter the United States. The Republic of Ireland — but not Northern Ireland — Portugal and Greece are the only three European Union states which still have a United States visitor's visa requirement. It is very difficult to understand the reason for the continuance of this requirement. The representative of the United States Government resident in Ireland always has been given special consideration. Two treaties — the Economic Co-operation Agreement between Ireland and the United States of 1948 and the Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Agreement between Ireland and the United States of 1950 set out the special relationship between the two countries.

I am very pleased with the attitude of the current United States Ambassador here, Mrs. Jean Kennedy Smith, who replied to me on 7 January last following representations I had made to her before Christmas. She has assured me that the matter of how Ireland can be included in the visa waiver programme is one with which she has been seized since her arrival here. She has also assured me that the State Department is in active consultation with the United States Congress on this matter. Furthermore, the Ambassador has informed me that it is not the Administration that sets United States immigration policy but the US Congress. I am convinced that Ambassador Kennedy Smith is doing everything within her power, as is her brother, to expand the visa waiver programme to include Ireland. Senator Edward Kennedy has written to the US Secretary of State, Mr. Warren Christopher, proposing that countries that have made progress towards reaching the 2 per cent refusal rate requirement be given the benefit of the doubt and be granted visa waiver authority for at least a trial period of three years. Ireland's refusal rate for the United States fiscal year 1993 was 4.3 per cent. There is strong support for change from Ambassador Kennedy Smith, Senator Edward Kennedy, Congressman McCloskey and many other leading United States politicians and diplomats.

It is time for us here collectively to give a final heave so that this change can be effected without further delay. It would help our case were we to adopt a generous attitude to US applications for Irish nationality and citizenship under the provisions of this Bill, were we to ensure that those United States visitors who work and live here were given particularly friendly consideration whenever they call to the Garda Aliens Office which they are required to do from time to time. There is an opportunity for greater co-operation between both Governments. At no time has it been more possible to abolish the visitor's visa requirement to the United States. We should do everything possible to effect that change now.

I will be supporting this Bill. I have placed my criticisms and reservations about the delay on the record. This Bill is necessary for the reasons set out by the Minister. Since this question of nationality and citizenship is before the House I would suggest that we examine the overall question of the relationship between our ancestors in the United States and those who remained at home. There are many people in the United States very proud to hold Irish and United States passports, the value of an Irish passport being that it gives right of travel throughout the European Union, a very valuable document to possess. Nonetheless we have been very remiss in not mobilising the vast American-Irish population in support of our case in seeking the removal of this nonsense visa requirement. I cannot understand how it ever developed. A former eminent editor of one newspaper suggested recently that it might well have been related to our neutrality in the Second World War. I do not know the reason but I do know it does not apply in the case of Switzerland, New Zealand, Lichtenstein, San Marino or Northern Ireland, yet none of those countries has given the United Staes as many Presidents as has this country, something of the order of 12 if I recall correctly.

It is remiss of us not to use that contact to ensure the abolition of this visa requirement. It is absurd that nationals of all of those countries I have mentioned, including Northern Ireland and Great Britain, can come and go to the United States without a visitor's visa requirement. Some people might say it is because we have such a serious unemployment problem; there is an even greater unemployment problem in Spain yet there is no such requirement of their nationals. There are very few countries worldwide that locate the United States Ambasador in the same park as their President, a singular act of great friendship and I have referred to the 1950 Friendship, Commerce and Navigation Agreement between Ireland and the United States.

I am very glad to note that Ambassador Kennedy Smith has made genuine great efforts, as I am sure did her predecessor in this regard. We collectively in this House should back up those efforts so that if the Congressman McCloskey Bill is not passed at least the measures proposed by Senator Kennedy — which will affect not merely the Republic of Ireland but Portugal and Greece — will be passed in the United States so that this overall penalty on Irish people travelling to the United States can be abolished and have our nationals visiting the United States treated in the same manner as are United States nationals visiting the Republic of Ireland.

Fine Gael will be facilitating the easy passage of this Bill.

The Progressive Democrats support and welcome this Bill despite the long delay in its introduction and whose provisions will allow the processing of those applications submitted too late.

Deputy Gay Mitchell's comments about bureaucracy would be endorsed by everybody who has had any involvement with agents of the State when it comes to any issue about alien status, a matter frequently mentioned in this House. When such representations were made to me I experienced the greatest difficulty dealing with those inquiries. I came up against a wall of bureaucracy, secrecy, sometimes xenophobia. When somebody wants to enter this State they may come up against a wall of non-co-operation at State level. It would be my hope that such difficulties and delays would be minimised within the term of office of the present Minister and that there would be a more sympathetic attitude adopted by the Department in their meetings with the general public and public representatives.

It is my understanding that most of the applications submitted emanate from the United States and South Africa. The forthcoming elections in South Africa may have prompted people there with family connections in this country to seek Irish citizenship. Since they may have been prompted by a fear that turmoil in South Africa could result in a mass exodus from that country, we may receive greater numbers of applications from people in South Africa who might wish to leave the new state there.

It is also interesting to compare the Minister's remark about the refugee Bill since, with the very serious position obtaining in Bosnia Herzegovina, undoubtedly we will receive a greater number of applications for refugee status. Therefore, I was pleased to hear the Minister give a firm commitment that a Bill will be introduced within the next couple of weeks to redress the position here which, to our shame, has been left in abeyance far too long.

There was disappointment on this side of the House that a more generous response was not given to Deputy Shatter's Private Members' Bill. Deputy Shatter is an expert in that field. I recall there were crowds in the Gallery. On that issue there was widespread support from civil rights groups for that Bill. I am delighted the Minister is taking on board the need for that legislation and look forward to debating it in the House.

When we debated the Private Members' Bill it was obvious from research carried out by Deputies that very few applications for refugee status in Ireland are made and that the structures are not in place to facilitate such applications. We have a shameful record in our dealings generally with refugees. I am sorry to say that refugees seeking asylum from countries such as Iran and non-white countries have had a very difficult time here. When we debated the Bill in the House I was disappointed to hear some Deputies on the other side make what I would consider xenophobic remarks and indicate that if we improved our structures and administrative systems for the processing of refugee applications we might have a flood of such people coming into the country. This was seen to be a bad thing. I dispute that. There is a very small number of applications for refugee status.

In general those who come to our shores seeking refugee status are miserable and abject people. In the past they have been badly treated; they were bundled by the Garda into cars at Shannon Airport and bundled back onto planes. They had no rights and often were put into prison for long periods. My colleague, Deputy Harney, tried to help a genuine refugee who spent 11 months in Mountjoy in terrible conditions. I understand that eventually he was freed by the courts. It was shameful that we got involved in that type of oppression against people seeking refugee status.

We have Bosnian refugees here who, I believe, are happy and settled. I look forward to more of their relations being granted refugee status if they so wish, given the terrible situation that exists in Bosnia. The conflict there will create hundreds of thousands of refugees towards whom the international community, and this State in particular, should adopt a compassionate and welcoming role as a member of the European Union.

Under this Bill we are facilitating citizenship for the children of fourth generation Irish people who went to the United States or South Africa. It is anomalous that we should do that without giving voting rights to our citizens who have gone to the United States in the past five or ten years. All of us have family members living abroad who would be delighted to have a vote in our elections. In the context of citizenship I urge the Minister to raise with her Cabinet colleagues this serious issue which is gaining public support in the United States.

I had a meeting with a very able and lucid young lawyer, a member of a group of young Irish emigrants in New York and the campaign to give them the right to vote and have a say in what goes on in Ireland is gathering momentum. That is their constitutional right. There are constitutional problems involved as well as practical problems as to whether a voting lobby in the United States could influence the outcome of a general election in various constituencies. It would be interesting to see how that would work out and it would be worthwhile for the Government to examine the issue. My party supports the idea of emigrants having voting rights. Almost every door I knocked at while canvassing in Dublin South had five names on the voting register when there were only three people living there; the two talented and well educated young people had gone to work in the United States and were doing well but their parents say they want to vote in Ireland although they may not come back because there is no work here for them. The unanimous wish was that our young educated and patriotic young people wished to have a say and to be involved. I hope the Minister will consider that. I welcome this legislation. There is nothing controversial in it and I look forward to its speedy passage through the House.

I thank both Opposition spokespersons for their generous comments in relation to the Bill and I will deal with a number of the issues they raised. I will not speak about the delay in introducing the Bill. It does not behove me to comment on my predecessors, including some from Deputy Mitchell's party. I do not know what Jim Kirby told him but he must have told him something.

The Minister will have to go before the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

I apologise to Jim Kirby for any comments which may be misunderstood. I am sure my predecessors would agree that if you want to get legislation on the Statute Book you must be ruthless within the Department, and particularly the law division, in setting out your priorities. Every Minister has different priorities. In the last 14 months ten pieces of legislation have been either published and enacted or published and are in the process of being enacted so I do not think there has been any delay. In the middle of many other important priorities. I am glad it was possible to bring this legislation forward. While it may not seem very significant outside this House, it has a tremendous importance for the 3,773 people who are immediately affected.

It is not for me to comment on another Administration's rules and regulations in relation to emigrants but as somebody who represents a constituency from which comes a high percentage of Irish emigrants in the United States, I would have the same concerns as Deputy Mitchell regarding our being the only EU country which has these requirements.

I thank the US Ambassador, Mrs. Jean Kennedy Smith, who has taken a personal interest in this issue and is pushing it very strongly with the active support of the friends from Ireland who are working on Capitol Hill. I would like to be associated with the words of thanks for the work they are doing and we look forward to a resolution of this problem.

In relation to the Refugees and Asylum Bill, I am glad both Deputies are as eager as I to see that legislation enacted. When I became Minister for Justice most of the complaints I received from Members through parliamentary questions, Matters on the Adjourment, letters, etc., were in relation to refugees and asylum. At that time I undertook to examine that division of the Department because much blame, unnecessarily and wrongly, was put on civil servants who were working in difficult circumstances in that division. We have made a number of substantial changes in that division which are to the benefit of the public and the staff who work in that division. I thank them for doing what is a difficult and thankless job. I hope to introduce that Bill in the next few weeks. I am glad to hear it will get a speedy passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas.

I am all in favour of votes for emigrants. I have more constituents living in Boston than any other Member of this House, other than my colleagues in the constituency. I visit Boston every year. It would suit me very well, electorally, if they all had votes. As Deputy O'Donnell said, it could have a huge impact on certain constituencies and I am all for that because it would have a positive impact on mine. I thank Deputies for their contributions and look forward to the Committee Stage debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 13 April 1994.
Barr
Roinn