Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Nov 2004

Vol. 593 No. 5

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

Debate resumed on amendment No. 30:

In page 11, between lines 29 and 30, 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 passports for sale schemes in the State.

— (Deputy J. O'Keeffe).

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Amendment No. 30, which proposes that "the Minister shall lay a Report before the Houses of the Oireachtas detailing the propriety in the operation of passports for sale schemes in the State", attempts to ensure we do not bring an end to the passports for sale schemes without compiling a proper report on them. Such a report may detail the impropriety of their operation. The amendment seeks to inform the public of what happened under their terms before they are consigned to history.

The Minister mentioned in his earlier response that he had reported to the Taoiseach after he had conducted an investigation into the matter. He said the report referred, in particular, to one of the most notorious applications, made in the early days of the scheme, when Ray Burke was Minister for Justice and Charles J. Haughey was Taoiseach. The unsigned citizenship applications lodged by Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz and ten others, which arrived in the Department of Justice on 6 December 1990, were returned to the applicants that day to be signed by them the following day. Although the applicants were abroad at the time, the applications were returned to the Department the following day, allegedly having been signed by the applicants. The entire process was marked by such a slipshod approach. While the applications did not comply with the terms of any scheme, the political connivance which marked the applications process was even worse. The passports were issued before the naturalisation papers had been signed.

Everybody knows about the matters to which I have referred, but certain similar issues have not been highlighted. In his reply earlier the Minister did not refer to the three Irish citizens who had provided character references for Sheikh Mahfouz and his associates. I understand it was required at the time that every application be accompanied by three character references from Irish citizens, but details of the referees have not emerged in this instance. Perhaps that was another aspect of the applications process which was not properly upheld. Such information needs to be disclosed.

I would like to raise another aspect of the Sheikh Mahfouz case in which I am interested. The certificates of naturalisation and passports were handed over on 8 December 1990, two days after the initial application had been made. The original applications were returned to the applicants on the evening they were made, 6 December 1990, and delivered to the Department the following day. A funny thing happened after the certificates of naturalisation and passports had been given to the people in question by the then Taoiseach, Charles J. Haughey, and the then Minister for Justice, Ray Burke, at a function in the Shelbourne Hotel on 8 December 1990. It was required at the time that the granting of naturalisation and the issuing of passports had to be recorded in Iris Oifigiúil. By some strange coincidence or otherwise, the notice of the granting of the hurriedly arranged passports to Sheikh Mahfouz did not appear in Iris Oifigiúil until two years later, on 4 September 1992.

Such issues have not been teased out or considered. Who was responsible for the delay? Who arranged the publication of the notice in question? This case is just one of a series in which passports were issued in dubious circumstances. It is obvious that all the rules, regulations and guidelines were not upheld. It is probable that the laws of the time were broken. I am in favour of the section of this Bill which brings the scheme to an end, but it is not right that it is being done without a proper explanation of what happened in this and other cases in which passports were issued under the scheme. I refer, in particular, to cases in the early days of the scheme, when activity of the kind I have mentioned was common.

I do not question the judgment of later Ministers who granted passports. The administrative procedures introduced by Máire Geoghegan-Quinn when Minister for Justice were properly followed thereafter. Ministers used their judgment in later years when deciding whether to grant passports, based on whether it was in the interests of the State. I am not interested in such cases.

I have given the reasons for my amendment. The Minister accepts he has the same interest in unearthing the facts and that there should not be a whitewash. He agrees there was considerable impropriety, if not clear illegality, in the granting of some passports. Therefore, I hope he is prepared to agree to the sprit of my amendment, if not its wording. Does he accept there should be a proper examination of such activities and that a report should be produced? I will be delighted if Judge Moriarty succeeds in producing such a report, but I am worried that he may not be able to do so, particularly as a timeframe for the completion of the tribunal's deliberations has been discussed with him, if not imposed on him. It would not be in the interests of our democratic system to bring this scheme to an end without producing a full and complete report on it. I will pursue my amendment on that basis.

Mr. Costello

We have teased out this important matter well. I fully support Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment, which proposes that a report be produced on the passports for sale scheme, which involved the granting of naturalisation in return for investment. The Minister has taken the first step in that regard by putting the relevant file in the possession of the Moriarty tribunal, which I hope will be able to deal with the question of propriety or impropriety. Perhaps there is no other way of dealing with the serious matters which have to be resolved. Do we know how many passports went missing, for example? We know the CIA was in possession of Irish passports and that they were used to travel the world at a particular time under a particular Administration. We do not know how they got their hands on Irish passports. What of those travelling the world on Irish passports obtained through the investment-based naturalisation scheme who have besmirched the good name of this country and are sought in a number of countries for fraud and other criminal activities? The person most mentioned is Mr. Kozeny, the Czech born businessman wanted in the United States and in Czechoslovakia for multi-million pound fraud. We understand from them he would be in prison if he could be caught. Mr. Kozeny intended to stand in the European elections on the basis of his Irish citizenship.

One cannot leave all this hanging in limbo and say that everything is hunky-dory because we have put an end to this process. We should take whatever steps are needed to ensure this does not happen again. I suggest that as well as investigating those who obtained such passports, the Minister should investigate those who gave the passports to them. We know that corners were cut in processing those passports but we need to know by whom they were processed and if any impropriety took place.

Will the Minister assure this House that if the Moriarty tribunal is not in a position to deal with this matter because of strictures on its time and operations, he will put in place another mechanism to do so either through his Department or by way of commission of investigation under the legislation enacted last year?

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell)

The person to whom Deputy Costello referred was, to the best of the Department's knowledge, never convicted of any crime.

Mr. Costello

He has been sought.

Mr. McDowell

Yes, but being sought is one thing and being convicted is another.

Mr. Costello

He has avoided being caught because he has an Irish passport.

Mr. McDowell

It should be noted that passport was issued in good faith by former Deputy Nora Owen. The question of revoking that passport is complex. The mere fact that one is being sought in connection with an investigation is not a ground for revocation of a passport. The only ground on which there can be revocation of citizenship granted on foot of a certificate is where the person subsequently obtains citizenship of another country. That is an issue which I will examine in light of matters referred to by the Deputy.

Deputy O'Keeffe must remember that he was a member of the Government in which the then Minister for Justice had on her desk, for a number of years a report dealing with the issues now being raised yet nothing was done about it. It now becomes imperative in his mind that I, many years later when the Moriarty tribunal is dealing with the same issue, conduct a parallel and independent investigation. The question that has to be asked is what was it between 1994 and 1997 that produced total paralysis on this issue when no political connection of those involved held office at the time. I will not add to that except to say that it is easy in retrospect to develop moral fervour and indignation on a subject, strangely absent at a more proximate time.

I have put, as fairly and concisely as I can, my doubt as to whether the 11 passports to which the Deputies referred were issued appropriately and with propriety. I have put on the record of this House, the other House and to committees of the Houses my grave misgivings on this subject. The notion that I should somehow within three months produce a report which will resolve the issues with which the Moriarty tribunal is currently dealing is far-fetched. I have done my level best in this area. No Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been as forthright as I in these matters, has brought the system to an end as quickly as the opportunity presented itself or has dealt as fairly or as squarely with the inadequacies of what happened at a time before he or she was Minister. I ask myself why it is that Deputy O'Keeffe can now demand of me something he never demanded of his party colleague when in my position. I am mystified by that question. We spoke earlier of curiosity and partisanship. I will be a very happy man when it is explained to me precisely why demands are made of me that were not made of Deputy O'Keeffe's colleagues.

Acting Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I have the focal deireanach.

Acting Chairman

Tá dhá noiméad agat.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I have unlimited time to reply but I will not be too long. I wish to make a couple of points. Strangely enough in this case, I am not pointing the finger directly at the current Minister for his stewardship on this issue.

Mr. McDowell

That is a relief. I was not in the Shelbourne that day.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I have so much other ammunition to fire at him that I do not need to include this issue. The Minister said he shared my misgivings but being party to the burial of the scheme without producing the type of report to which I referred does not add up. I accept the Minister has misgivings on this subject.

Mr. McDowell

The Deputy did not exhume the corpse from the grave when he had the shovel in his hands.

Acting Chairman

I have been lenient with Deputy O'Keeffe in allowing him to speak in the first instance but he must conclude now.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The Chair was overly lenient in the first instance and should not have allowed me to carry on but I am, at this stage, under the rules of the House, allowed to speak for an hour and a half if I so wish. However, I will conclude given the Chair co-operated with me in the first instance. I will deal with the matter in less than an hour and a half.

Mr. McDowell

From where did the Deputy get the idea he has unlimited time to reply?

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I was not Minister for Justice during 1994-97 and was not in a position to personally investigate this matter. That is a matter of fact. However, I have raised questions on this issue on numerous occasions before the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform took office. I do so again from the point of public interest. I do not believe it is in the interests of this State, which is founded and based on the rule of law, that practices should take place outside the rule of that law. Such practices were condoned and in many instances instigated by leading politicians in this State — I am not pointing the finger at you but at members of his partners in Government, the Fianna Fáil Party.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should make his remarks through the Chair.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I appreciate I should address my remarks through the Chair. Clearly practices were engaged in that were not just unethical but illegal. As a parliamentarian, I say it is not proper that we should pass from this spot without putting in place some mechanism to ensure the issue is properly aired, investigated and dealt with. I have the greatest faith in the Moriarty tribunal to do so, if it has the time. I agree the tribunals need to be put on the track of completion. However, I am concerned that in adopting such an approach, the Moriarty tribunal may not have the time to finish this job. That is why I tabled the amendment.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform points his figure at me when saying he does not want to spend the next three months solely addressing this issue. If he did, he would not have the time for his three times a day press conferences or the other issues that engage him. While I understand his position, I do not expect him to do the groundwork on such a report. Two options are available to us. My proposal which would put an onus on the Minister to ensure the issues were fully aired and dealt with can be accepted. Alternatively, we can go the other way, closing the book. If we do this, there is the danger that these issues will be buried with the scheme and the public will not get the information to which it is entitled. I indicated I was agreeable to a longer period or a different format, if the Minister wished it. However, I cannot accept burying all the improprieties and illegalities under the passports for sale scheme. That is the wrong approach.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 48.

Tá

• Boyle, Dan.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Costello, Joe.
• Cuffe, Ciarán.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Gogarty, Paul.
• Harkin, Marian.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• McCormack, Padraic.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Finian.
• Morgan, Arthur.
• Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
• Murphy, Gerard.
• Neville, Dan.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O’Dowd, Fergus.
• O’Keeffe, Jim.
• O’Shea, Brian.
• O’Sullivan, Jan.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Perry, John.
• Quinn, Ruairi.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Twomey, Liam.

Níl

• Ahern, Noel.
• Blaney, Niall.
• Brady, Johnny.
• Callanan, Joe.
• Carey, Pat.
• Carty, John.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cregan, John.
• Curran, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Dempsey, Tony.
• Dennehy, John.
• Devins, Jimmy.
• Ellis, John.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
• Glennon, Jim.
• Grealish, Noel.
• Hanafin, Mary.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kelly, Peter.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Michael.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McGuinness, John.
• Moloney, John.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghail, Seán.
• O’Connor, Charlie.
• O’Dea, Willie.
• O’Donovan, Denis.
• O’Flynn, Noel.
• Power, Seán.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wilkinson, Ollie.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wright, G.V.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kehoe and Stagg; Níl, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher.

Amendment declared lost.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendmentNo. 31:

In page 11, lines 35 to 37, to delete all words from and including "if---" in line 35 down to and including "2004," in line 37 and substitute the following:

"if it is in contravention of section 5(1) of the Act of 2004. However, exceptions may be made under circumstances whereby it can be demonstrated that a person's legal status in the State has lapsed temporarily through no fault of the person themselves, and is subsequently regularised. The Minister shall take such circumstances into account.".

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I move amendmentNo. 32:

In page 11, to delete lines 38 to 41.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 33 not moved.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 33a:

In page 12, line 12, after "information" to insert the following:

"or if, following the issue of the certificate, the person is sentenced, on conviction in the State or elsewhere, for a criminal offence, to a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years".

We touched on this amendment during the earlier debate on passports for sale. The issue is slightly different here in that the Minister tabled an amendment on Committee Stage to allow the holder of his office to revoke a certificate of nationality if he or she is satisfied the certificate was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, including innocent misrepresentation, or failure to disclose material information.

My amendment seeks to provide for additional powers of revocation where, following the issue of the certificate, a person is sentenced on conviction in the State or elsewhere for a criminal offence to a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years. While I acknowledge the reluctance of the Minister to revoke a passport if something happens subsequent to its issue, those obtained under the passports for sale scheme have given rise to many questions and much suspicion about the manner and propriety of granting them in some instances. Where a person obtains an Irish passport and is convicted in the State or elsewhere of a criminal offence attracting a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years, the passport should be revoked.

As the Minister knows, it is not possible to revoke the passport of an Irish-born citizen. My amendment refers to the investment-based naturalisation process. It seeks to address a future event where a person who innocently obtained a passport issued in good faith, as many were, violates the conditions on which it was issued. Such passports were issued on condition that the persons being granted them would be loyal to the country and faithful to its good name and would maintain a firm, strong connection with the State. The Minister has often referred to this last condition. If, having bought a passport by investing here, someone undermines his or her connection to the country by committing a crime of fraud or robbery, he or she should not be entitled to retain the document.

We should look into cases where passports have been obtained by people who are fugitives from justice. In regard to the number of passports granted, does the Minister know whether there have been convictions of the people who have got them? We must put a value on our passport and our citizenship. When somebody comes here and effectively purchases a passport from the country, the very least we should do is ensure he or she does not abuse or misuse it for fraudulent or criminal purposes. We should endeavour to keep tabs on passports and revoke them if they are abused or misused.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

The revocation of citizenship and, therefore, the withdrawal of a passport is a very serious matter and one that should not be entered into lightly. I had hoped, in the context of my earlier amendment, that we would have had the full report based on which we could come to decisions for further investigations that might lead to revocation of citizenship of some of the individuals involved. We will not have that now but we must hope that the Moriarty tribunal may have the time and the opportunity to furnish a report to this House on the operation of the scheme.

There is a provision which gives the State, in certain circumstances, the entitlement to withdraw citizenship and a passport. A volume of evidence is available that at least suggests a proper investigation can be carried out as to whether such proceedings should be started in some circumstances. Dealing with this issue from the outside, as I have always done, I cannot go further than that. I appreciate that the difficulty of gathering the evidence may be considerable. In some instances there may have been no convictions. In others it may be difficult to prove the existence of convictions.

There is considerable evidence that some of the people concerned have been involved in various scams throughout the world. Some of them were involved in the major BCII bank scam involving billions of dollars. In that instance, I understand there were proceedings in the United States which led to a cash settlement of $225 million, following which certain charges were dropped on some type of plea bargain basis. Another instance involved a character to whom we granted citizenship during that period where there was a conviction in the United States and a process regarding fitness to practise as a doctor. There were other such instances on which some evidence was available but that evidence would need to be gathered. From the early 1990s there is some evidence of a recipient being involved in a $5 million tax scam in Chicago. I am quoting from earlier research I had done into this area but I accept that may not amount to sufficient evidence. Hard evidence would be needed to bring the necessary proceedings for revocation.

This goes back to the basic point that we should not have ended this scheme without at least making an effort to secure such evidence. My attitude to this amendment is the same as my attitude to the last one. This is one of the issues that remains outstanding following the ending of the scheme and one that we should not leave hanging. If evidence exists, we should pursue it and if it does not, we have to leave matters lie.

Mr. McDowell

There seems to be a misunderstanding, and it is a fundamental one, as to what we are talking about. There are two forms of certificates provided for under the 1956 Act. One is a certificate of naturalisation and the other is a certificate of nationality. The Deputies will be aware that under section 19 of the 1956 Act, provision is made for the revocation of certificates of naturalisation. The circumstances in which a certificate of naturalisation can be revoked are as follows: first, that the issue of the certificate was procured by fraud, misrepresentation — whether innocent or fraudulent — or concealment of material facts or circumstances; second, that the person to whom it was granted has, by any overt act, shown himself or herself to have failed in his or her duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State; third, except in the case of a certificate of naturalisation granted to a person of Irish decent or associations, the person to whom it has been granted has been ordinarily resident outside the State in certain circumstances for a continuous period of seven years without reasonable excuse and has not, during that period, registered themselves annually in a prescribed manner; fourth, that the person to whom it is granted is also under the law of a country at war with the State; or, fifth, that the person to whom it is granted has by any voluntary act other than marriage acquired another citizenship. That last ground may be of relevance to the "bouncing Czech" case we heard about earlier.

Before revocation of a certificate of naturalisation, the Minister shall give such notice as is prescribed to the person to whom the certificate was granted of his intention to revoke the certificate, giving the grounds and the right of that person to apply to the Minister for an inquiry as to the reasons for the revocation. On application being made in the prescribed manner for an inquiry, the Minister shall refer the matter to a committee of inquiry appointed by the Minister consisting of a chairman having judicial experience and such other persons as the Minister may think fit, and the committee shall report its findings to the Minister. Where there is entered in a certificate of naturalisation granted to a person under the 1935 Act the name of the child of that person, such entry shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a certificate of naturalisation under the Act of 1935. Finally, a certificate of naturalisation granted or deemed under section 4 to have been granted under the Act of 1935 may be revoked in accordance with the provisions of this section and upon such revocation, that person shall cease to be an Irish citizen. Notice of the revocation of a certificate of naturalisation shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil. Those are the procedures for people who have been granted a certificate of naturalisation. Due process is granted to them and they cannot have their certificate taken from them except in the circumstances I have outlined.

Unfortunately, the draftsman of Deputy Costello's amendment conflated certificates of naturalisation with certificates of nationality. Certificates of nationality are a totally different form of certificate. They are issued to a different category of persons as follows: any person who claims to be an Irish citizen — this part is very important — other than a naturalised Irish citizen may apply to the Minister or, if resident outside the island of Ireland, to any Irish diplomatic officer or consular officer for a certificate of nationality stating that the applicant is, at the date of the certificate, an Irish citizen and the Minister or officer, if satisfied (a) that the person is an Irish citizen and (b) that the issue of the certificate is necessary in all the circumstances of the case, may issue a certificate of nationality to him or her accordingly.

Under section 28, we are dealing with an entirely different creature from a certificate of naturalisation. This is available to somebody who has not been naturalised by a ministerial certificate or who has never applied to the Minister. Anybody who has applied such as those who availed of the passports for investment scheme cannot apply for a certificate under this section. They are entitled to a certificate of nationality, if necessary. My amendment allows the Minister to revoke the latter certificate if procured through misrepresentation or fraud. However, it does not have the effects about which the Deputies are canvassing. In particular, Mr. Koseni or anybody else naturalised under the passports for investment scheme could not avail of such a certificate, nor could the Minister revoke it. The certificate of naturalisation is revocable following due process under section 19 of the 1956 Act while the certificate of nationality is a totally different animal. It is evidence that one is an Irish citizen. It is available to persons who are not naturalised Irish citizens to prove their nationality which derives from a different basis.

Deputy Costello is barking up the wrong tree. While the points he made are interesting, he should have tabled an amendment to section 19 of the 1956 Act. His amendment is misplaced because nobody granted citizenship by a Minister would be caught in any circumstance. The point has been missed. The term "certificate of nationality" has been confused with the term "certificate of naturalisation". They are two different animals and revoking one would have no effect on the other. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Costello

The Minister is correct that there is confusion. Following due process, can a certificate of naturalisation be revoked by the Minister in certain circumstances? If somebody acquires a passport through an investment based process and has besmirched the good name of the passport through criminal activity, can he or she be deprived of it?

Mr. McDowell

If the Deputy wanted to provide for an additional ground relating to a person convicted of an offence carrying a ten year sentence in a court anywhere in the world, he should have tabled an amendment to section 19(1) of the 1956 Act. Whether it would be proper to do so is a separate question because under international conventions there is a prohibition on divesting people of their citizenship if they commit a serious offence. If an Irish person is convicted, say, of rape in France and given a 12 year sentence, that does not empower the Minister to suddenly revoke his or her citizenship. Under international law, I am not entitled to make a radically different decision about somebody who was naturalised, say, at the age of two years and deprive him or her of his or her citizenship because he or she has been convicted of a serious offence in Ireland or elsewhere.

It could have serious consequences if the Minister were to do so in Ireland. I refer, for example, to a child naturalised under our law who commits an offence carrying a ten year sentence in our courts. Would it be right that the day after he is sent to Mountjoy Prison to commence his sentence, I should suddenly revoke his citizenship and deprive him of his nationality? Why would that be just or fair? The fact that somebody was naturalised at the age of 21 or 22 years and was convicted of an offence carrying a ten year sentence in an Irish or foreign court at the age of 55 or 60 years would not permit such a draconian act to be committed in respect of them.

When the person to whom Deputy O'Keeffe referred was naturalised in 1995 by the former Minister for Justice, Nora Owen, evidence was supplied by both the United States and the Czech Republic that he had no criminal record. The only basis — it may be substantial — on which that person could be deprived of his citizenship would be under section 19(1)(e), whereby the person to whom citizenship was granted had by a voluntary act acquired another citizenship after he or she had been granted Irish citizenship.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

On the question of naturalisation, I would like an assurance that the issues raised will be examined and, in so far as evidence is available or collectible regarding passports issued in dubious circumstances, action taken in accord with due process taking into account all the circumstances to revoke them.

The Minister has aroused my interest regarding certificates of nationality but we learn something new every day. I was not aware that the provision of such certificates was enshrined in statute. How many certificates are applied for and issued every year? Is there a procedure for doing so? How much does it cost? How long does it take? Is this section of our citizenship Acts as little known to others as it is to me?

Mr. Costello

Is this yellow-pack citizenship?

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Are we wiping the dust off the section now? I am interested in whatever information the Minister has on it.

Mr. McDowell

The circumstances in which Irish citizens seek certificates of nationality, which happens three or four times a year, are rare. One recent example was an application by an Irish-born woman who wanted to get married in Bosnia. The Bosnian authorities insisted on a certificate of nationality, despite the fact that she was a holder of an Irish passport. It is likely that this requirement arises because of the widespread use of forged passports in the modern era. Another Irish-born citizen recently required such a certificate for the purpose of having his third level qualifications recognised in Italy. His passport would not suffice for the authorities there.

There are circumstances in which an Irish citizen who holds an Irish passport may require a certificate. When the Bill is enacted, certain children born in Northern Ireland to non-EEA national parents who have reckonable residence in that jurisdiction will be required to apply for a certificate of nationality prior to the acquisition of an Irish passport. The reason for this is essentially administrative. British immigration stamps show evidence of residence in the United Kingdom, but do not show evidence of residence in Northern Ireland as such. The child's cousin, born to its parents in similar circumstances but resident in the State, will not require a certificate of nationality prior to the acquisition of an Irish passport because Irish immigration stamps constitute evidence of residence in the State.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Is there a fee payable?

Mr. McDowell

I do not think there is.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I do not want to give the Minister any bad ideas.

Mr. McDowell

If there is, it will not pay for the additional lighting if we keep this debate going.

Mr. Costello

Is there any way we can revoke the passport of any of the people who got passports under the investment-based naturalisation scheme?

Mr. McDowell

We can on the basis they have fraudulently acquired Irish citizenship or if they fulfil any of the grounds of section 81.

Mr. Costello

They have already obtained Irish citizenship, so there is no way we can do it.

Mr. McDowell

There is.

Mr. Costello

There is not.

An Ceann Comhairle

I remind Deputies that this is Report Stage of the Bill, not Committee Stage.

Mr. Costello

There is an interesting word play here on what is in the Constitution where Irish citizenship and Irish nationality have always been interpreted as one and the same. Must a person be an Irish citizen before he or she can get a certificate of nationality? This is an interesting concept. I was not aware of the existence of certificates of Irish nationality or that they are sent around the world and are stronger than having an Irish passport.

Mr. McDowell

People can get one or other certificate, the naturalisation certificate if a person becomes an Irish citizen and the other if they were always an Irish citizen.

Mr. Costello

To return to square one, to the revocation of the passport of somebody who has committed a crime, if the amendment was submitted in the right place, would the Minister have accepted it? Would he have enshrined in the legislation the concept that the passport of somebody who bought their passport and subsequently abused the trust granted them and committed crimes should be revoked? Would the Minister take on board a provision that would allow for its revocation?

Mr. McDowell

No.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 33b not moved.

Mr. McDowell

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 12, after line 44, to insert the following:

"(6) An application under section 28 in respect of a person who is suffering from a mental incapacity shall be made on his or her behalf by a person duly authorised to act on his or her behalf.".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. McDowell

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 13, line 3, after "makes" to insert the following:

"(whether in the State or outside the State)".

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that the offence provided for in section 15 of the Bill can arise whether the act or constitutional offence is carried out inside or outside the State. This is particularly relevant where an applicant makes a declaration in the prescribed manner to an Irish consul or diplomatic officer abroad. I consider that the legislation should be quite specific on this point as regards territoriality, particularly having regard to the likelihood that many applications relating to citizenship issues will be made at Irish diplomatic and consular offices abroad. Effectively I am saying there should be an extra territorial dimension to the offence provided for in section 15 of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Costello

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 13, line 21, after "appoint" to insert the following:

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

I discussed this briefly on Committee Stage and the Minister was to reflect upon the merits of the idea relating to when the Bill would come into law. Perhaps the Minister has had time to consider what he is going to do. It is a complex issue.

Mr. McDowell

I have had time to consider it. However, the more I considered it the more resolute I became that I would not accept it. I oppose this amendment because it seeks to prevent the coming into effect of the new law on Irish citizenship by birth on the island of Ireland until a period of ten months has elapsed since the power to make the new law was signed into our Constitution.

Ten months is a considerable period and is exactly one month longer than another notable period. I had to ask myself what possible good would be served by such a restriction. Is it the case that the Labour Party wishes to accommodate those who heard about the proposed change in Irish citizenship and set about begetting a child as quickly as possible so as to avail themselves of the old rules before the new ones came into effect? Is there some suggestion that those who did so had a legitimate expectation at the time that they started the process that the new rules would not apply to them?

I cannot accept that there should be any moratorium imposed on the date of coming into effect of the new rules. Were it possible for the new arrangements to come into effect straight away without further ado, there would be no commencement order provision in this Bill. However, that is not the case. There will have to be subsidiary legislation to set out the forms of declaration to be made, particularly with regard to Northern Ireland matters, to specify the types of documentation needed to be produced for such declarations and the like, in particular in the limited number of cases where entitlement to Irish citizenship will depend in whole or in part on reckonable residence in the North. Although preliminary work is under way on those regulations, there will be a minimum delay in preparing them and in commencing the new legislation.

What Deputy Costello is essentially saying is that although the Irish people spoke 80:20 in a referendum, there should be one month in which those who saw this decisive step on Irish citizenship should have one last throw of the dice — I cannot put it more aptly — to beget an Irish child and that they should have ten months in which to produce the Irish child. The answer must be "No".

Mr. Costello

The Minister has a very unromantic view of the whole process.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

It is a Progressive Democrats view.

Mr. Costello

Is it the new wonderful combination of practicality, decency and generosity?

Mr. McDowell

That is the touchy-feely aspect of the Government that I am not at.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

Do not get too graphic.

Mr. Costello

Citizenship by birth continues until this Bill is enacted, yet the perception here and abroad has been that once the referendum was passed the birthright of citizenship ceased. There is not a phalanx of people out there who decided that because the legislation had not gone through this was an opportunity for them to beget an Irish child. People did not know it had not gone through. Probably less than 5% of the population know that the situation remains the same until the legislation is signed into law by the President. They all thought it changed totally and irrevocably once the referendum was passed and that it did not need legislation to empower it.

I do not agree with the Minister's analysis. What I am concerned about is the child in the womb. I am concerned about the child who could be born before or after Christmas and its status. I do not know whether there is a legal question in regard to that. Has the Minister considered whether he should deal with that? The amendment deals with the children in the pipeline. I wanted to raise the issue and to get the Minister's response. I also wanted to discover whether there is a legal aspect that should be considered.

Mr. McDowell

I am grateful to the Deputy for raising the issue. Birthright, with which we are dealing in the Constitution, means that a birth takes place. In order to have a birthright one has to be born. Therefore, the concept of citizenship based on birth does not apply to children, wherever conceived. If that were the case, can one imagine the confusion internationally as parents argued that this particular child started here rather than there and that they well remember the day or night that all these events took place? We have to deal with the straightforward issue of where one is born, not where one came into existence pre-birth.

Mr. Costello

When one became a child.

Mr. McDowell

I remind the Deputy, in case he thinks this is an academic point, that 50% of new asylum seeking females of child bearing age are pregnant according to their own declarations at the time they seek asylum. How are we to sort this out? Most children who were born in Ireland and who availed and will avail of the IBC thing were not conceived on the island of Ireland. Let us cop ourselves on in regard to this issue. One has to be born to avail of a birthright.

Mr. Costello

Will the Minister give an indication of when he expects the legislation to be signed into law?

Mr. McDowell

There is another House in the Oireachtas which has to look at this legislation. I will then have to put the regulations in place. The Deputy will be disappointed to hear I intend to do so as quickly as possible. I will do it soon.

Mr. Costello

The Minister might as well have agreed to the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.

Question put: "That the Bill do now pass."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 27.

Tá

• Ahern, Noel.
• Blaney, Niall.
• Brady, Johnny.
• Breen, James.
• Callanan, Joe.
• Carey, Pat.
• Carty, John.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cregan, John.
• Curran, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Dempsey, Tony.
• Dennehy, John.
• Devins, Jimmy.
• Ellis, John.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
• Glennon, Jim.
• Grealish, Noel.
• Hanafin, Mary.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kelly, Peter.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Michael.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McGuinness, John.
• Moloney, John.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Ó Cuív, Éamon.
• Ó Fearghail, Seán.
• O’Connor, Charlie.
• O’Dea, Willie.
• O’Donovan, Denis.
• O’Flynn, Noel.
• Power, Seán.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wilkinson, Ollie.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wright, G. V.

Níl

• Boyle, Dan.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Costello, Joe.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Cuffe, Ciarán.
• Ferris, Martin.
• Gogarty, Paul.
• Harkin, Marian.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Higgins, Joe.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• McGrath, Finian.
• Morgan, Arthur.
• Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
• O’Shea, Brian.
• O’Sullivan, Jan.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Stagg and Ó Snodaigh.

Question declared carried.