Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

As I said, this is a hotchpotch of a Bill because it deals with everything from broadcasting, to the Department of public expenditure with regard to pensions, to revocation of citizenship under the 1956 Act. Some things are proper to an end-of-term miscellaneous provisions discussion, things that we all agree should be done, and there will not be any suitable vehicle coming through.

However, in truth, dealing with a Supreme Court decision - as Deputy Pringle has rightly said - that occurred in October 2020 by way of an amendment that was published a matter of days ago to a vehicle that has to be recommitted to Committee Stage, is really not a proper way of doing legislation.

In my time here, legislation was taken carefully. I disagree with some Deputies who have said there is always a rush at Christmas and in July. There are things but it is unusual for something new and fundamental to be introduced in legislation at this late stage. In this case, it is something that external bodies such as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and others have strong views on, but they are not allowed to be heard. In normal circumstances, this should be a stand-alone proposal. Anybody who wanted to make submissions to us should have been heard in committee. There should have been pre-legislative scrutiny.

There is obviously no urgency about this because it has not been done for almost four years, so the notion that it has to be done tonight is fanciful, to be honest. I do not think anybody could disagree with that. The Department wanted to do something. I do not know whether there is a political imperative such that the Department felt it should do something about revoking people's citizenship and that it would make it look good in the context of a different political environment and a growing view of certain classes of citizens. I think that might explain it. I hope not but I am struggling to find a reason that something as fundamental as this would appear as an amendment at this late stage of a generalised round-up Bill, which does certain things that we normally all agree should be done in a miscellaneous provisions Bill. This is a general vehicle that enables such things to be done, but this measure does not fall into that category. That is why I disagree with Deputy O'Callaghan when he says there is now an imperative for us to do this because we must respond to the Supreme Court. We are very late in the day in getting a sense of responding urgently to the Supreme Court on this matter. I fear that we are not doing it well. I would have liked to have the time to think it through.

In essence, the proposal that the Minister is now suggesting to meet the constitutional requirement required of us by the Supreme Court is that she will make the initial decision, then she will establish an inquiry committee which will consist of a former judge and two other people who she deems appropriate, all of whom will be selected by her, and then they will make the determination. In other words, the Minister will select the review group to determine the merits or demerits of her decision. We would all like to be able to select our own review committees for our decisions. I am not sure that quite meets the requirements in this case. We do not have a chance to deal with that. The Minister's argument is that the review group's decision will be binding on her. The obviously unacceptable position whereby she makes a decision, appoints the review committee and can reject the review committee, meaning there is no point in having a review committee, was struck down by the Supreme Court. There is now a different process where the Minister makes the decision, appoints the review committee and then is bound by its decision. I would like more time to hear the merits and demerits of that. Can we put a better situation in place?

The other amendments are basically to safeguard the fundamental right to citizenship. The Minister might make reference in her next intervention to our obligations under the UN convention to prevent statelessness. The notion that we would create stateless people in the current world is a grave punishment. We need to think carefully about these matters. We should all be mindful when we make laws like this to give serious powers to the Executive, in this case the Minister for Justice, we are doing that on an enduring basis. We are looking at what is happening in our own European Union, where we are concerned about rule-of-law issues and about laws being enacted which are basically categorising citizens and raising to a different level this notion of fidelity to the state. They state that if you are not our kind of person, you are not really a citizen or loyal to the state.

We had a debate today about the European Council. The chair of the European Council is Hungary. A number of ministers from a variety of EU countries are not going to Council meetings in Hungary because of their deep concern about rule-of-law issues. I am not suggesting at all that this is the motivation of the Minister, Deputy McEntee, but there is a slight tinge of that about this proposal. It is as if she is giving herself powers and flying the flag now regarding anybody who comes to this country and is given the privilege of citizenship if they are not loyal to the state or if they have, to use the phrase, "failed in [their] duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State". That is a nebulous thing to define. It will not just be the Minister defining it but her successors. That causes us deep concern. I hope the Minister might reconsider. I join others in asking that this particular amendment, No. 3, be withdrawn and resubmitted as either a stand-alone measure in order that we can do pre-legislative scrutiny and so on in September when we come back, and thereby deal with it in a much more informed way that we can all be satisfied with, or failing that, that the Minister would at least accept the amendments I suggest, which I believe would strengthen the rights of individuals to know what they are being charged with. The Minister talks about national security. There is another point made by Deputy O'Callaghan. Under the provisions, only an overt act can be considered. An overt act is known, by definition. That is what "overt" means. How can the reasons for the Minister's decision not be public? There could not be secret reasons she is making a decision on an overt act. If it was a covert act, with spies or something, that would be a different kettle of fish, but that is not what the provisions are suggesting.

I ask that the Minister genuinely consider withdrawing amendment No. 3 and recommitting it in stand-alone legislation in September, or alternatively, at least accept the amendments I am suggesting to strengthen the rights of individuals. The notion that there have only been eight since the 1956 Act was passed is neither here nor there. There could be two dozen next year; we do not know. If you are one of the people whose citizenship has been revoked, it is a very serious measure indeed. It is probably more serious than a term of imprisonment and certainly more than a serious fine.

See this speech in context