Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for all of their contributions across a variety of issues. At the outset, I have some issues to address. We discussed this last week in terms of the miscellaneous Bill. Throughout the year we have all collectively across the House worked on different Bills and pieces of legislation. Naturally, the way a miscellaneous Bill comes together is that, even with all of the legislation we are passing, certain changes are required that do not naturally fit into other legislation, or they happen at a time when they need to be implemented quickly. As I said before, this is the third miscellaneous Bill I have had in three or four years. They are not frequent but they tend to come at the end of the term when all of these individual requirements come together. I appreciate the timing of it is not always ideal but at the same time, so much of what is in this legislation is really important. Therefore, it is important that we get this passed before the summer recess. We have to respond to the Damache ruling or other court rulings that have taken place more recently. We have to make sure that those who voluntarily want to retire at 62 or 61, and do not have the benefit of time with them, can do so as quickly as possible. The other laws referenced here also need to be changed. We can debate this for as long as we want this evening. That time has been given. I appreciate that Deputies might not like the fact that different elements come together. However, my experience in this Department is that it is a matter of the way the timing has worked out. I appreciate colleagues' engagement on all of these matters.

In regard to the particular amendments that Deputy Howlin has placed down, I want to say very clearly that this is being done in response to a Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court said very clearly that the law we currently have, which has been in place since the 1950s, needs to be reformed and improved to make sure there are proper safeguards in place. I do not for a second trivialise what we are talking about here. When I said we are simply rectifying and reinstating a provision that already existed for the Minister, I do not for a second minimise the fact that revoking anybody's citizenship is a grave thing to do for that person and in general. However, I point to the fact that it has happened eight times since this law was put in place in the 1950s. It is something that is used very sparingly and only in the most serious of cases.

The amendments will ensure, to the last Deputy's point, that where a Minister makes a decision a committee can be then appointed. That committee can then make a recommendation but the Minister can set that aside. The court has clearly found that this does not allow for an independent process on what is an extremely important issue here. The measures that are being put in place through this and these amendments will ensure that if an appeal is made to that independent committee following on from a decision by the Minister, that ruling is binding. The Minister will have to take on board the recommendation by the committee - an independent committee - with regard to the information that is being provided or that the Minister can give to the particular individual whose citizenship is obviously in question here.

It is important that there is an ability, if there is a national security risk, for certain information to not be provided directly. What is important in this is that if the committee itself seeks the information from the Minister, it can look at that information and then decide itself if that information should be provided to the individual, so there is a second layer there. It is not just the Minister who decides, based on information that he or she has been given, that this is a security risk or a matter where information should not be provided to the individual. The committee itself can then seek that information if it has not been provided by the Minister, and then determine as well whether that should be made public or not. There are layers and safeguards put in place here to make sure that the ruling we have had with Damache is responded to effectively. It is really important, given that this ruling took place a number of years ago, that we move and make these changes. I am very conscious that these changes are actually making sure that the safeguards to which the Deputy is referring are put in place.

Speaking specifically to the amendments, I want to suggest and highlight that this addresses the Damache judgment, which struck out subsections (2) and (3) of the section; therefore, an amendment to subsection (1) is outside the scope of these amendments. Moreover, having carefully considered the Deputy's proposal, I do not think the amendment is necessary for the reasons I have outlined. The proposed legislation creates numerous new safeguards, opportunities to be heard and new powers for the committee of inquiry. It is clear to me that neither I nor any future Minister could revoke a certificate of naturalisation without a serious breach of one of the grounds mentioned or outlined. As the Deputy said himself, if someone were to obtain it fraudulently, while that may not be as clear-cut with regard to giving the reason or outlining if somebody had false documents proclaiming to be somebody else or other ways in which it was obtained fraudulently, that might be more clear-cut. It is really important that with regard to naturalisation, it has to be a serious breach on one of the grounds outlined. While there may be many cases where certain information needs to be withheld from the person subject to the revocation proposal on national security grounds, again it is clear this information would have to be provided, as I have mentioned, to the committee in order for it to perform its functions. It would then have the opportunity to consider whether this should be released as part of the information of the overall procedure.

With regard to amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 3, which proposes clarifications regarding national security, in a new subsection (10A), I wish to stress that it is already proposed to be the case that subsection (10) is applicable where the provision of information may be contrary to the interests of national security. Even though the Act itself may be overt, if information that contributes to identifying this or becoming aware of this cannot be provided because of grounds of national security, the reasons I have outlined in the early amendment stand. However, any decision to withhold information on national security grounds is, again, not taken lightly, and I can assure the Deputy that the facts will be fully considered by the Minister or the committee as the case may be.

Regarding those who may not have citizenship elsewhere or may have had it revoked elsewhere, I will stress that as a point of policy, this will be taken into account as well. A decision to revoke someone's citizenship, which would leave them stateless, is not a decision that would be taken by the Minister. Taking into account all of the other considerations, as a matter of policy, this is not a decision that would be taken or has been taken. I am very conscious of the obligations we have that Deputy Howlin has outlined.

Finally, with regard amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 3, the spirit of the text and the proposed insertion of subsection (1Q) already forms the basis for any proposal to revoke the certificate of naturalisation. The substance of this proposal is provided for throughout the checks and balances that are articulated in my proposed amendments to section 19(2) and section 19(3). I assure the Deputies again that the revocation of Irish citizenship is only undertaken in the most serious of circumstances.

With regard to the other issue, I know the amendment was not accepted, and I think we have a chance later to discuss it on amendment No. 30. I mentioned at the outset that there are individuals - be it working as prison officers in our prisons, An Garda Síochána, across the Defence Forces and others - who are coming to the stage where they will be forced to retire and they do not want to. They want to continue to work and to contribute in the job they are doing. They feel they have a lot more to give and that they can do that but, at the moment, they are prohibited from working beyond the age of 60. These changes will not force any individual in those organisations to work beyond 60. It would be voluntary. If we were to change the mandatory retirement age, that would have to be done with the support of these Houses and would have to be passed. I am stating very clearly that this is not forcing any individual to work past the age of 60. The reason that 62 was chosen acknowledges that these roles can be challenging. Whether it is working in the Prison Service or as a member of An Garda Síochána, it acknowledges that these are challenging roles. There is a lot of shift work and night work that takes it toll on individuals. People are living longer and healthier lives as well, and we want to take that into consideration.

The reference to the accelerated pension - I know this has come up quite a lot in conversations - does not remove that right. If persons voluntarily decide to work beyond the age of 60 to 62, they will not continue to have that accelerated pension but it does not preclude that from applying to the years before that. If individuals start working at the age of 20, they still have their 20 years plus the final ten accelerated. That does not change. This is to stress that all of this voluntary. Nobody is forced to retire at 60; nobody is forced to retire at 62, or before it. It is optional for the individuals involved here but the reason I am bringing forward these proposals is that I know there are people who want to work longer and have the ability to work longer but they cannot now because of the law, which precludes it.

See this speech in context