Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will do so. The section seeks to amend the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 to provide that any period of time spent in the State where persons are exempt from immigration controls, as workers in embassies are, is not reckonable for residency in the context of a naturalisation application. The rights of embassy workers are important and should not be undermined or interfered with in any way. On Second Stage I said I did not understand why this provision was being included in the Bill. Is it to do with immigration controls, checks and so on? It proposes to take away the rights of a category of persons without any explanation as to why it is being done. I still do not understand the purpose of excluding in this way what is likely to be a very a small group of workers which will probably comprise no more than 20 or 30 persons.

Following the Second Stage debate, nobody from the Department contacted me to provide the information I had requested and the section remains the same. That is bad form. It is seldom we have legislation passing through the House these days but normally the Minister or the Minister of State who sums up the debate will reply to questions raised by Members in the course of the debate. That was not done in this instance. I acknowledge that it was the Minister's predecessor who took the debate, but it is still unacceptable. On Second Stage I asked the previous Minister to explain why these workers should be treated differently from others and indicate how many people had applied for naturalisation or citizenship in this way in recent years. I pointed out that having this important information would help to explain the inclusion of this provision. I questioned why this change was being made at this time and asked the Minister to outline the policy goal it reflected, but none of my questions was answered. Does the Minister agree that they deserve some response?

On Second Stage I indicated my intention to raise this matter again on Committee Stage unless my questions were answered in a satisfactory manner. Bizarrely, I was told my amendment had been ruled out of order because the retention of the current provision might involve a cost to the Exchequer. Apparently, under the existing provision, people might potentially be eligible for citizenship at an earlier date, as a consequence of which additional costs might arise. That is my understanding of the reason the change is being made. That is an unacceptable usage of Standing Order 179(3), in respect of which there is no appeal mechanism. When I queried why it cost an applicant €950 to apply for Irish citizenship, I was told that the charge was necessary to cover the cost of the administration work involved in processing the application and reflective of the high value in which Irish citizenship was held. If applicants are paying for their own application process, how can more applications be considered to be a charge on Revenue, or do citizenship applications cost the State money?

I am seeking clarity from the Minister on these legitimate questions. I am unable to push the amendment to a vote, but the Minister can do so on Report Stage. If he does not, I will be voting against the Bill, something I do not want to do. I have no other objections to what is a largely technical Bill. When an Oireachtas Member asks legitimate questions, he or she should be given answers. I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak to the section. It is worth spending a few minutes to discuss the matter