Fiona O'Malley (Dún Laoghaire, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The overwhelming result in the June referendum on citizenship highlights the need for order and clarity in this area. Although the citizenship provision in the Good Friday Agreement existed for a short period, it still had an impact on the country. I find it objectionable that it is described as a loophole. Those with entitlements under our laws should not be described as having the benefit of or utilising a loophole. If the provision exists, it is then a citizen's entitlement and should be described as such. However, the provision should be subject to some degree of change. Like every citizen, citizenship matters to me. I welcome the Bill as it deals with an area where clarity did not previously prevail. The Bill also ties in with our asylum laws. There were difficulties arising from claims that people were engaged in citizenship tourism. It is an unfortunate term but the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform had to act on it. Undeniably there was a certain pull for people to this country because of the existing constitutional provision.

It is important that our citizenship laws are regulated because what it means to be a citizen of Ireland matters. It is not just about having a cover on a passport. It is a complex set of responsibilities and obligations to which an individual who is granted citizenship is subject. It also demonstrates a certain obligation on the part of people who hold common nationality. We should not be shy about requesting a certain gradation in our citizenship, as is proposed in the Bill, whereby people must demonstrate that they have a certain connection to this country through their very welcome involvement in society at whatever level rather than just acquiring it by virtue of the fact that they were born here.

During the debate which took place prior to the referendum, Paul Cullen had a rather good article in The Irish Times about this. He outlined the case of a Lebanese man who had experienced certain difficulties in the Lebanon. The one thing that sustained him was that his son had an Irish passport. When this man and his wife discovered the Irish citizenship rules his family prolonged their stay so their son would become an Irish citizen. There is nothing wrong with that. They did what was in the interests of their child, as all parents do. They wanted to give him the best possible start in life and they believed that Irish citizenship, and thereby EU citizenship, would be of benefit to their son. Is it right that we do not require people to demonstrate a commitment or loyalty to the country? I believe we should grade our citizenship in the manner proposed.

There are different levels of Irish citizenship. Not every citizen is entitled to vote, one has to be a certain age, and there are certain restrictions on our ability to participate in our country. Why should that not be the same here as it is in most other countries? Why should we not bring ourselves into line with other European countries?

The Minister stated that Governments have a duty to safeguard the institution of citizenship so as to ensure it continues to fulfil the requirement of its role as a manifestation of a nation where membership of that nation has an intrinsic value, not just a price. That brings me to section 11 which proposes to cease the connection between investment and citizenship. That was a disgraceful practice and I very much welcome its abolition. Excuses were made at the time it was introduced that we needed to encourage investment into the country. Selling off one's citizenship is not the answer to encouraging people to invest in and bring prosperity to a country. That is an extremely important part of the Bill which I very much welcome.

I have a concern regarding section 6 and seek clarification on cases where a child is born to parents who do not fulfil the period of residence criteria of three out of four years preceding the birth. In such cases, his or her citizenship is the same as that of his or her parents. If in a year or two a sibling is born, the second child will automatically become an Irish citizen as the parents would have subsequently fulfilled the criteria. I would like to think it possible that the non-Irish citizen sibling would have the ability to acquire citizenship, but I am not sure if provisions in the Bill effect that. I see the Minister's officials nodding. I welcome that fact in terms of family unity.

By and large, this is not the end of the debate on our citizenship — I hope it is the beginning. As a country, Ireland has changed so much from what it was like in the 1980s. We are now a destination country for immigrants and we need to be more confident about who we are and what are our rules and regulations, and that these are enforced. People get apoplectic at the idea of having clear definitions about the status of people living here, as to whether they are seeking asylum or work. The Minister often comes in for a great deal of criticism whenever the definitions are adhered to, which is unwarranted. If we are to have systems, we must make sure they work. In that way, our systems will be respected and honoured and they will mean something. The question of citizenship should be part of a wider debate about immigration policy. I welcome the Bill as the first part of a response to the recent referendum and I look forward to a cool, calm and informed debate on immigration policy in the near future.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a contribution on the Bill, which is not an earth shattering one in terms of its scope. Other legislation in the area of immigration and citizenship matters will undoubtedly come downstream.

In essence, the Bill is the legislative response to the referendum and I wish to make a few general points in regard to that because the previous speaker, Deputy Fiona O'Malley, made some interesting comments. She said citizenship matters. Yes, citizenship matters, but I profoundly disagree with her when she said there was no clarity on this matter in advance of the referendum. Of course there was clarity. Irish citizens were people born on the island of Ireland and people born on the island of Ireland were Irish citizens. That was clear. She correctly stated that we now have degrees of Irish citizenship, depending on length of stay and the legal basis of one's parents' period of residence here. No doubt a range of anomalies will arise in future. She is wrong to say we moved from a position of lack of clarity to clarity. We have not, but I do not intend rehashing the debate as that would be unproductive and unhelpful. The people have spoken decisively on this matter and as a democrat I respect their judgment although I do not agree with it and I do not expect anybody to assume I should have changed my view on it.

I wish to make a couple of general observations on the debate. After the people spoke and after a very divisive debate, I thought it very unwelcome to have the type of Second Stage contribution we had from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell. I listened to his speech and I read it subsequently. I regard it as self-congratulatory, smug and ungenerous. I also regard it as, in part, inaccurate. People hold strong views on an issue like this. Some have made mistakes in terms of the presentation of arguments and, in the past, Members of this House have been racist or quasi-racist in their comments on these matters.

The Minister for equality in particular has responsibility not to be ambivalent in any way in regard to these matters. I do not suggest he is personally ambivalent, but to ascribe all the inaccuracies to one side of the debate, as he did in his Second Stage contribution, does not calm but aggravates the situation and frustrates people who have strong, carefully thought-out and well held beliefs. People on that side of the argument make mistakes occasionally. Does that mean they should be vilified as the Minister wants to dismiss them, in a self-satisfied, smug way, although dealing with people's lives? I regret that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform chose that line and I am glad he is in the House to hear my comments.

In my judgment, the timing of the referendum was based on a calculation that it could act as a useful backdrop for the Government in the local and European elections. It was a particularly inept judgment because while it swelled the voting numbers, people voted in favour of the Government's proposals but ironically against the Government candidates for various other reasons. I regret the Minister's contribution because he is capable of better. He said it was a pleasure to make a case for the referendum proposals calmly and reflectively in the other House, in contrast to this one. My only wish is that he will have many opportunities in the future to address the other House rather than this.

Several issues have arisen since the referendum was passed that this legislation does not address. I hope the Minister will listen calmly to what I have to say on these matters. He may be rather bored by them because I have rehearsed some of the cases in an Adjournment debate. Since the response to that was prepared in advance and was entirely unrelated to the case I made I hope the Minister has had a chance to reflect more fully on some of the residual matters. The word "residual" is not intended to diminish or understate their importance because they are matters of great importance. It is interesting the Minister in his Second Stage contribution said: "The changes we make to citizenship law must show that there is a continuing céad míle fáilte for those who migrate legitimately to Ireland with a view to establishing a substantial connection with the State by creating new livelihoods for themselves." Most people in this House would strongly support that thought but it is no more than an utterance because it is not matched by reality.

We are very ungenerous in the way we treat the relatives of those whom we not only allow to come here but invite, and on whom we depend. I have discussed directly with the Minister the case of a senior physician in Wexford General Hospital who wanted his aunt to visit him last summer. We would not grant a visa for his aunt to visit him although she had a valid visa to visit the United Kingdom. The man has been here for seven years, for five of which he has been a senior, vital member of staff in Wexford General Hospital. His colleagues and staff provided a range of supporting observations for that application. If we ask senior medical people to come to work and maintain our medical system but do not allow their relatives to visit them temporarily, we do not offer a céad míle fáilte to those who migrate here or who work here legitimately. We invited Filipino nurses to work and provide and maintain an essential service here, yet it took great effort to ensure that their spouses could come and work or even reside here. We have a long way to go before the céad míle fáilte to which the Minister referred becomes a reality. It is no more than a glib throwaway phrase.

There are three cases with which I am dealing in my constituency and which I will continue to raise. The general issue concerns the families of Irish-born children who have been here for up to five years, who have deep roots here, whose children remember no other country, who in many cases have received an Irish education for three, four or five years and whom the Minister wishes to deport. That is nothing short of an absolute scandal. Once this Bill is enacted, will the Minister please rectify this situation because nothing less than torture faces these families? When I mentioned them on an Adjournment debate the Minister said they were among 11,000 and that the Government had underestimated the numbers for its own political reasons. These are not idle numbers, they are real families with friends, school mates and colleagues in my constituency, and I want to put their cases directly to the Minister tonight. I hope that having heard them yet again he will pay particular attention to them and that he will rescind the deportation orders he has signed in two of the cases. It would be a cruelty beyond my understanding to go ahead and deport these people. I speak with whatever passion I can command.

The first is a Bulgarian family, Kamen and Ivalina Kaltchev who live in my home town, Wexford. They have resided there for five years, have an Irish-born child and their son aged 11 has received his primary education from second to sixth class in Wexford. He is as Irish as any child in that school, good at hurling, speaks English with a Wexford accent and has only a vague recollection of Bulgaria and Bulgarian. They are rooted in Wexford. Out of the blue they received a deportation notice. The Minister is reflecting on this again in light of the information submitted in my parliamentary question.

The principal of the CBS wrote to me stating:

I am writing in relation to the family of one of my pupils and respectfully request your assistance. Stefan Kaltchev enrolled in second class in our school five years ago and is now in sixth class. Stefan and his mother Ivalina and his father Keman arrived in Ireland from Bulgaria. They have successfully become part of the school community and the wider community of Wexford. Seventeen months ago Ivalina and Keman's daughter was born in Wexford General Hospital. [This was written in October of this year]. The Kaltchev family have just received notification that they face deportation. I feel very strongly that a case should be made on humanitarian grounds to allow this family to continue to stay.

The principal goes through how the school has responded to the boy and how entirely he is involved in the school community. The rest of my file contains correspondence from other supporting organisations in Wexford regarding this case.

The second case concerns Alexander, Svetlana, Julia and Alina Lishenko. This couple and their family have resided in Ireland for five years. Their two Ukrainian-born children speak perfect English, with Wexford accents. The younger of the two Ukrainian-born children has little or no memory of life in the Ukraine, having left at the age of five. The older daughter, Julia, is the mother of an Irish-born child and is totally integrated into Wexford society, with a Wexford partner. They have set up home together. All those people face deportation out of the blue. The eldest daughter's partner asked me whether he should look for custody of their child as well. It would be cruelty to do that. I ask the Minister to review that situation. There is much supporting documentation, which I can give to the Minister, referring to the fact that they have established themselves in Ireland.

The third case is that of a mother of a child, a Nigerian national whose name is Oluwadolapo Adebiyi. What concerned me about this case is that this woman was arrested and incarcerated. I will read the Minister's own declaration to me:

On 22 September 2004, she attended the Garda National Immigration Bureau to make enquiries about her social welfare payments which had been suspended because of an earlier evasion. She was arrested on the same date and lodged in the Dochas centre in Mountjoy while arrangements were made to remove her to Nigeria. The provisions of section 12 of the Childcare Act 1991 were invoked by the gardaí and the child was taken into the care of the South Western Area Health Board and placed with foster parents.

This woman, in a foreign land, was put into Mountjoy jail and her son was put into foster care in the Midlands for three weeks. In response to my parliamentary question, the Minister concluded that the facts of the case were clear and he was satisfied that this person had been treated in a fair and humane manner in all respects. The Minister's judgment is as the Minister's judgment is, and others can judge as they judge. I just simply say that if an Irish citizen, a young mother with a child, had been put in jail in Romania, Bulgaria or Nigeria, and her child taken into care, then we in this House would have something to say.

The Minister has an extremely difficult job and I will not gainsay any of that. He has many people to deal with and there are many who want to abuse our law. I simply return to two essential issues. First, there are a number of people with deep roots in our society right now and I have instanced three of them, two of whom I know particularly well; the Ukrainian and Bulgarian examples. I ask the Minister to reflect on these cases, take the people involved out of their dreadful misery and grant them the right of permanent residence in Ireland. What happens with all new applicants will happen on the basis of a new law that we have now enacted.

When I was spokesman on justice in my party more than four years ago, I published a document called "Ending the Chaos". It was not a comprehensive document but it had three strands to it. The first strand was that we would have the resources to deal effectively and efficiently with asylum applications. The second strand was that we would separate asylum seekers from economic migrants and have a green card system to deal with those who are real economic migrants. This would entail a quota system so that such migrants would not be forced into the asylum stream. We have been promised many things. We have been promised a reform of the work permit system that will take the work permit away from the employer and give it to the successful employee so that we do not have bonded servitude as we had in one or two instances. However, we have none of these reforms and I ask the Minister to do something about these matters.

The third strand in my proposal was to have a properly funded and structured integration system for migrants in this country that goes well beyond the inadequate anti-racism measures undertaken by the Minister's Department to date. We need to have a much better system to prepare for the type of multi-culturalism that is happening apace in our country. We certainly have not resourced or structured that in a satisfactory way.

I want to return to the comments made by Deputy Fiona O'Malley on general policy. Some of her comments are extremely worrying if they represent the thinking of the Progressive Democrats. For the first time, she has suggested a notion of graded citizenship. I do not know what she means by that but I want to signal my gravest concern at the notion of it. It is probably motivated by the concept in the UK where an old imperial power, torn between loyalty to its former colonial citizens but afraid to allow them citizenship rights, created tiers of citizenship. If we go down that route it will be a disaster and I counsel the Minister against it. Deputy O'Malley also spoke about a declaration of loyalty to the State. That will be an interesting one. Maybe we could have our very own "Patriot Act", so that we can measure loyalty. In 20 years in this House, it is my experience that those who consider themselves most loyal to the concept of the Republic have been the most destructive in the building of the real Republic in Ireland over the past 30 years. Our history indicates that.

This is a Bill that is consequent on the vote of the people. I do not agree with it but I have to accept the decisive democratic decision taken by the people on the day of the referendum. I regret the tone of the Minister's contribution and I invite him to have a different tone in his summation. It would be much better received on this side of the House. We have not entirely written off the Minister yet.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should look at section 15 of the Act which requires people to make a declaration of loyalty to the State as a condition of naturalisation. That is in our law at the moment.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is very interesting in our law. I am sure the Minister will make all these points in his Second Stage conclusion.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are required to do it before a judge of the District Court.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is something that also causes me some concern about the way we deal with citizenship rights. The Minister will have ample opportunity in his Second Stage retort. The Minister is clearly not in listening mode. He is much more content——

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am listening and I am amazed at what I hear.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is much more content to seek conflict with this side of the House than engage with real issues and real families and real people which is the kernel of what I am trying to put to him this evening. I am sure the Minister will put on his best lawyer's hat and he——

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not a lawyer's hat. It is a fact that one has to make a declaration of loyalty before becoming an Irish citizen.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should conclude.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are those who are entitled to Irish citizenship under existing law by virtue of having an Irish grandparent. It is interesting that when it comes to affinity or connection to the State, people can live here for many years and not be deemed to have such an affinity or tie. Yet someone from South Africa or New Zealand who happens to have an Irish grandparent and who may never have set foot here or know anything about its history, is entitled to citizenship. We have not changed that provision.

I hope the Minister will be generous in evaluating the position I have put, particularly to those families who are now caught in the aftermath of this situation, where they have a long established tie in this State and where the Minister has signed deportation orders. I beg him to reconsider.

Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this important Bill. I am interested in the Minister's speech and how he claimed he did not want to go back into history. He then spent time doing that and questioned the right of Opposition colleagues to make any comments or raise any questions. The only issue my party raised was the timing of the referendum and we do not apologise for that. There is no need to criticise my party in raising issues. In general, we went along with it because we saw that there were problems. The Bill provides a legislative framework for the decision of the people of Ireland in last June's referendum. That is what it is all about.

The Minister suggested in his speech that if Fine Gael was working with others to provide leadership, it would not have handled the situation well. It seems the Minister thinks there are no problems because he is so brilliant. I would like him to say that to a lady who lives 500 yards from the hospital in Monaghan town. Is he prepared to suggest that her rights as an Irish citizen were looked after by this supposedly competent Government? No ambulance was available to go 500 yards up the road. We have to deal with competency rather than criticise everybody for the sake of criticising them. I feel very sore that the Minister has suggested that nobody other than members of his party and possibly the other Government party can do anything.

I recall that Deputies representing the main Government party were elected to the House after they tried to raise the heat on foreigners, or non-nationals, living in Cork and similar places. It was unreal, especially when one considers that thousands of Irish people went abroad in the past. We have all worked to try to improve this country. We should thank God that rather than have to leave in such large numbers, people are keen to come to Ireland. We should not forget the millions of Irish people who live abroad because their only choice was to leave. I have visited the places where they went in Canada, the US, England and elsewhere after they left this country. They were given the opportunity to work in such places, albeit in difficult circumstances, but at least they were allowed to do that. Many of those who did well abroad returned to Ireland to say how well they got on, but many others never reached the shores of the places to which they were going because they died on the way, or lived in absolute poverty in other countries. We cannot forget such things very easily.

As I said at the outset, Fine Gael generally supports the Minister's ideas in this regard. It accepts the need to ensure that the potential for the abuse of our citizenship laws is dealt with in a sensitive way. It is convinced that the Minister is introducing the Bill for all the right reasons. He can be assured of the support of Fine Gael Members. It would have been logical, however, to have brought this proposal before an all-party committee to try to reach consensus on the best possible policy. The House establishes internal committees, rather than external quangos, to deal with such matters. I was informed today that the Minister for Health and Children spent €30 million on external quangos to deal with matters which should have been considered by the House.

Fine Gael's only source of opposition to the Bill relates to the time limit provisions, but I would like to discuss a number of other issues. There is no coherent policy to deal with people coming into this country. As somebody who represents a constituency in which many low-paid jobs are filled by non-nationals, I constantly have to deal with delicate family problems. Unlike the previous speaker, I will not speak about individual cases. I have to deal with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to get work permits and with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on matters relating to family members. One sometimes does not know where one is going because it is very difficult to get direct telephone lines to Departments. My colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, has asked for direct telephone lines, similar to those available to Deputies when dealing with social welfare and other matters, to help us to get concise answers for those who contact us on behalf of their families.

A foreigner came to see me in my office yesterday. It can be difficult at times to understand their language. One can spend over an hour dealing with a family's needs. If I encounter great difficulties in getting answers at departmental level, what difficulties must be faced by those who try to address such matters themselves? The lady in question has been given great service in the medical field. If we are to bring people in to give services to them, we must ensure that they are looked after properly. If one wishes to ensure that nobody is sent out of this country without having enjoyed due process, it can be complex because one may have to deal with the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Foreign Affairs, the authorities dealing with residency issues and the Garda Síochána. I would like a structure to be put in place to give Members of the Oireachtas, or the public, the right to access their entitlements.

I am aware of the Minister's attitude to children who were born in Ireland before the legal case and the referendum. We have to be somewhat reasonable in this regard. People may have come to this country for the wrong reasons, but many others were advised to come here. They may have paid money because they believed the only way to solve their problems was to come to this country. We are in the process of closing off the relevant legal loophole.

I am sure the Minister has been contacted by church leaders and others to discuss this issue, just as I have been. There is a need for understanding and leniency in that regard. The new circumstances which will be in place after this Bill has been passed, as I believe it will be, will have to be publicised and people will have to abide by them. Certain arrangements will have to be made for those who are caught in the interim. That we are still looking for people to come to this country to fill the jobs which are vacant gives us an opportunity in that regard. Some people would say that the relevant number is 9,000, while others would say that it is 11,000, but it is finite at this stage. Surely we can try to cope with that as best we can.

Many people continue to come to this country following the enlargement of the EU. We were freely taking people from Africa and other places before 1 May, but such people now face great difficulties when they try to extend or renew their work permits. I recently encountered the case of a person from Bulgaria, which hopes to join the EU soon. The person in question, who has waited for months for her situation to be clarified, has not been given any indication of when her case will be dealt with. She has been a good citizen, in the real sense of the word, because she has worked and paid taxes in this country, but she is finding it hard to get answers.

I know of a company which has employed many drivers from South Africa and east European countries such as Lithuania. The South African drivers can speak the English language and can drive on the same side of the road as us. When they end up in Belfast or London, they know exactly what they are doing. We all know that many accidents have been caused by drivers with a lack of knowledge of the roads. Some Lithuanians create problems in that regard. We need to show some common sense if we want to keep our country moving. Lorry drivers in the constituency I represent, Cavan-Monaghan, have a different context from their colleagues in Dublin, who may encounter trains and trams. The Minister might not appreciate that this is such an important matter. His party leader did not think there was any need for jobs in County Monaghan, but that is another day's work. We hope that her replacement as Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment will show us some sympathy.

I wish to touch on the issue of children born outside the country who are Irish citizens. I return to my first comment concerning Monaghan General Hospital. We have a major problem in that a good few children are born on the road between Clones and Wattlebridge in County Cavan. It is quite difficult to designate exactly what country they have been born in, the South or the North. From that point of view, I certainly welcome that we have an all-Ireland passport. At least they are sure of having one of them. It is rather funny for those of us not involved in the situation, but not for the poor parents.

The Bill closes off the issue of passports for sale. As one who knew of companies which benefited from the scheme, I must say that it served a purpose in difficult times. Unfortunately, like many initiatives of that nature, it was very much abused. In closing off a loophole, we should not close off the idea that we continue to investigate those who abused the system. People should not be let off with such abuse. A company in my county not far from the Louth border provided an extra ten years' good employment for many people as a result of that structure. Another company in Monaghan got off the ground, is now run by another firm, provides 70 jobs and will certainly expand. The scheme served a purpose, but it has outlived it, and I welcome its being closed off.

That brings me to another area of citizenship whereby people can spend only half the year outside the country and retain all the tax benefits of an exile. In recent weeks we have seen this type of behaviour with abuse of the tax code. We need to tie up that element of abuse as well. If someone wishes to retain Irish citizenship, he or she should pay tax.

Those are the main issues that I wished to raise on this Bill. As I said, in principle, we have no problems with its outline and purpose, but it is important that those who find themselves in limbo are sorted out in an amicable and reasonable way without undue pressure being brought to bear on them. Above all, someone who is willing to work should be allowed to do so. There is a group of people in the country, perhaps a great deal smaller than previously, who are on the dole or some sort of benefit because they simply do not want to work. I heard of a case not long ago of someone who did very good service at a fairly senior level in a meat company, but because her permit ran out, she had to decide to go into one of the encampments to wait and see how her legal situation would develop. That is wrong. That girl was willing to work, provide a badly needed service to the company, pay her taxes and abide by whatever decisions were ultimately made. However, if she had to go back, it would be with a very poor review. Since her permit ran out, she had to enter one of those encampments with people who did not share her ideas and might not necessarily wish to work in the same way. Then others in social welfare accuse her of haemorrhaging money from the State. She does not want to abuse the State but to get out to work. I support the Bill.

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Boyle.

There is one section of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill 2004 with which I can agree, namely, the removal of the provision enabling citizenship to be conferred on individuals because they have bags of money, allegedly to invest in useful ventures in this country — so-called investment-based naturalisation. It invited corruption and there is at least circumstantial evidence that points in the direction of corruption in the administration of the scheme. The Minister, in proposing the revocation of the measure, should launch an investigation into citizenship granted under the provision. It is quite clear that some buccaneers and venture capitalists of dubious ethics availed of the scheme and disgraced the very concept of an Irish passport where they were active. The Minister should not only investigate but revoke passports granted to such people.

The Bill flows from the Government's initiative in holding the referendum on citizenship rights alongside the local and European elections last June. I invite the Minister to take the opportunity in the Dáil to answer serious questions that have come into my mind in the last 24 hours regarding assertions that he made in arguing for the necessity of the referendum. The Minister quoted senior authorities from the maternity hospitals that they were under severe pressure — bursting at the seams — because of alleged citizenship tourism. On several occasions, the Minister drew a line under those grounds, but now the National Maternity Hospital in Holles Street says that it must limit the number of deliveries that it is prepared to carry out or supervise next summer because of pressure.

That begs the question why, if the situation was as the Minister outlined and the referendum was the solution, the maternity hospitals are now apparently under even more pressure. If that alleged problem was resolved, surely there would be much less pressure on the maternity hospitals and therefore an ability to cope with the deliveries of those who are not alleged citizenship tourists or whatever is the appropriate term applied by those favouring the referendum. I hope that the Minister will address that contradiction.

The referendum was of course seen as an opportunity by individuals to use immigrants and immigration as an attempt to gain a base of support for themselves by appealing to very backward instincts which exist only among a minority of people on this island. I do not go along with the claim sometimes glibly made that all Irish people are racists. Nevertheless we had an indication of how some people see the situation and the Minister's proposal of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Bill 2004. A Government backbencher disgracefully and disgustingly exploited immigrants and immigration in Cork a few years ago for base political motives. Last week he rushed into the Dáil waving the Minister's Bill and claiming he had been vindicated.

In the penultimate paragraph of his address to the Dáil when moving Second Stage, the Minister said that he was satisfied that the proposals in the Bill will result in a fair and sensible citizenship law, one which will acknowledge the stake that non-nationals established in Ireland have in Irish society by ensuring that their children born in Ireland are entitled to Irish citizenship. The Minister says we are not concerned with their skin colour, the language they speak or their appearance, but that what matters is that they have a substantial connection with Irish society and that accordingly their children will be part of the Irish nation by operation of law.

The Minister should use his summing up of the Second Stage phase of this debate to outline his thinking on that cohort of immigrants who have been left in the limbo outlined by many people following the various Supreme Court judgments and the citizenship referendum. The Minister knows from the briefs he has received that many people who were progressing asylum requests were advised by weighty lawyers that they did not need to proceed along those lines on the grounds that while they were in Ireland, with asylum requests pending, they had children born as Irish citizens and the parents could therefore hope to be granted residence in Ireland. Such a cohort exists of people who have been in Ireland for many years and whose children know no other country but Ireland, and who are often well integrated in their local communities, befriended and loved by people there. Their children too are similarly treated by local children. The parents are in an appalling nightmare of uncertainty, never knowing when there will be a knock on the door.

It would be greatly appreciated if the Government gave these people the right to remain in Ireland and their children the right to continue their education and be fully integrated as citizens. Many of these people already contribute well to their communities. I know such people and would be happy to have them as neighbours or fellow workers.

The Minister featured prominently in the print media today urging an end to workplace racism and racism generally, a sentiment with which we agree and an end towards which we have constantly worked. However, other aspects of Government policy, in particular the scarcity in housing and the difficulties in health, provide a material basis for certain people to be wrongly resentful of immigrants in our community. While we should counter head-on any tendency by any individual or minority towards racism, getting rid of the bottlenecks in our society, confronting the scarcity of social and affordable housing and solving the health care problems will also make a crucial contribution towards ensuring that we have an island where everyone, immigrant or native born, can have a reasonable expectation of access to good services.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It cannot be denied that in the recent referendum, the people spoke. The beauty of living in a democracy is that the decision of the people is sacrosanct. That is not to deny that collectively the people can be wrong, or subsequently proved to be wrong. We are democrats, abiding by the decisions democratically taken, and we try to legislate accordingly. Nevertheless, the reservations many of us had in opposing the referendum were not only with regard to the content and wording of the referendum but the rush to judgment and the standard of the debate that accompanied it. The nature of this Bill, in its narrow focus, is justification for the arguments that we made then and still make now.

Irish citizenship is in need of a wide-ranging debate about what it is, can be and should be. Unfortunately the referendum we had and the Bill presented to us by the Government only skirt around the issue. Despite what has been said, the referendum was taken by many voters to be about issues other than the referendum itself. It taps seams in too many people which are ugly in terms of a national psyche. One hopes that can be overcome in time and that people's motivations will not be questioned as we learn to live with our new and emergent society. It is fairly obvious that for some of the people who voted, the referendum related to whether the Government was dealing with the wider issue of immigration. Even though we had this debate in the Chamber, we still have no coherent immigration policy.

The Minister's office will be aware that in terms of my constituency workload, one of the areas in which I most write representations — though not my busiest area — is with regard to immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees. I do so because many of them cannot vote. Certainly, none of them can vote for me, but as a Member of this House, anyone who seeks to make contact, phones me or visits my constituency office is entitled to receive whatever help can be offered. I see in many of these people not the motivation ascribed by some elements of the wider debating society and even some elements of the media, namely a need to abuse the system, I see people whose main motivation is a better life. That has been the motivation of generations of Irish people, and I speak as the child of an immigrant. I speak as someone who has birthright citizenship of another country. Today of all days it is particularly ironic that an election is taking place which will have ramifications for a policy that will affect many countries and citizens for generations to come. The people voting in that election are doing so on the basis of birthright citizenship. The Minister and the Government seek to undermine the future contribution of many thousands of Irish citizens who will be placed in a legal limbo as a result of this Bill's enactment.

I would have hoped that if more consideration had been afforded to this matter, the debate we would have had — in the proper time and context — would have looked at every aspect of citizenship. Not only would we have considered matters such as asylum seeking, refugees and immigration but also those of residency and the Minister's overweening power to decide who can or cannot be a citizen. The latter is much too great a power and it should have been contemplated by the debate and addressed in the legislation.

We could also have discussed the fact that being a citizen does not revolve around oaths of loyalty such as those which exist in the current legislation. The rights and responsibilities of Irish citizenship are not codified anywhere in legislation. On the question of an oath of loyalty, the Minister is finally tackling, by way of some type of red herring, the question of citizenship granted through investment. How many of the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people who were granted citizenship in this spurious way swore oaths of loyalty before a District Court judge? The Minister has access to all the relevant files and I am sure that few, if any, of the individuals to whom I refer have sworn such oaths. If that is the case, why not, as Deputy Joe Higgins stated, revoke the citizenship of those who received it in this manner?

We must also debate the value of Irish citizenship, particularly when it is seen as being of assistance to people in distressing situations. I refer here to the unfortunate Kenneth Bigley and to Margaret Hassan. As a result of our perceived status of ourselves in the world, it is believed that Irish citizenship can somehow extricate individuals from awkward situations. However, I recall a time when an Irish passport was abused by the American Government. I refer here to the use of a false Irish passport by Colonel Oliver North of the US Army to sell American arms into Iran, which did not recognise the American Government at the time. I do not know what moves the then Irish Government made to make its American counterpart aware of the fact that the use of an Irish passport in that way was utterly inappropriate.

As a result of situations such as those to which I refer and the way in which we deal internationally with other issues, questions must be asked about the value of Irish citizenship and whether it is perceived as highly as we would like to believe to be the case. By putting in place unnecessary restrictions of a sort which, ironically, do not exist in the United States, are we further diminishing and devaluing the concept of Irish citizenship? I would like to believe that the kind of economic theory to which the Minister subscribes involves an open borders approach and greater integration. With its many flaws, the United States can at least be said to be a good economic melting pot. The latter has proven to be to that country's advantage.

I often find it difficult to understand the arguments put forward by the Minister and his party, particularly in respect of economic liberalism and the fact that it is supposed to be a social and liberal party. In reality, both of the party's policies in these areas are divergent. Those policies are not about economic liberalism but about closing off opportunities; they do not involve social liberalism but rather revolve around narrow and confined ways to define what it is to be Irish. That is not a vision I share of being Irish. I am concerned that, in the future, the many thousands of citizens with backgrounds similar to mine who were born outside the country will be viewed as less valued citizens.

The alternative will be for the Minister to come forward at the earliest opportunity with a wide-ranging citizenship Bill which will cover the various areas to which I have referred. This legislation must, on a deep level, try to rationalise and identify the nature of Irish citizenship. Ultimately, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to divest himself of a power which is too wide-ranging and which should allow people — who would do so in other jurisdictions — to receive citizenship automatically. In light, however, of the Minister's contribution and the fact that the tenor and tone thereof were backed up by Deputy O'Flynn, I am afraid that we will not obtain the balanced debate and the future legislation to which I refer. The Bill before us is nothing less than a missed opportunity. Through it, the Irish people are being cheated of a real chance to discuss what Irish citizenship is and what it should be.

Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill, which is the natural legislative follow-up to the referendum on citizenship which was held in June. Fine Gael took a responsible and constructive approach to the proposal to amend the Constitution and will adopt the same approach to the Bill.

It was not until the referendum in June that we discovered the number of racist people in this country. I supported the referendum and when I was in the count centre in Wexford, I could not believe some of the things that had been written on ballot papers. Some people are very narrow-minded and do not remember what happened to Irish people who were obliged to emigrate to England, America and other far away fields and who were made quite welcome. I accept that we must defend Ireland and Irish citizenship. People should be very proud to be Irish citizens.

This is a sensitive issue. We must welcome people who come to Ireland to work as nurses, doctors or whatever because they bring with them expertise in their fields. I thank these people for coming here and helping out, particularly those who have come into the health services in which there is a staff deficit.

I wish to refer to work visas. Many illegal immigrants and refugees enter the country who may remain on social welfare payments for two to three years. This has provided a perfect opportunity for ordinary Irish citizens to become racists. The Minister is in a position to take action in respect of this matter. When a person enters the country — at Dublin, Rosslare or wherever — if he or she is dealt with as soon as possible — or even if a technical hitch arises — he or she should not need to draw social welfare payments or rely on the State for a long period. If these people want to work, they should be allowed to do so as long as they can fend for themselves. Irish people are being given the chance to become racists under the current system and they ask why these individuals are being allowed to sponge off the State. I ask the Minister to give consideration to this matter. I am not a racist but there are those who have, perhaps, obtained votes by making statements similar to those to which I refer in this House.

I do not want to rehearse what Deputy Howlin stated. I am aware of the case of a Filipino nurse in my constituency who came here to work in a nursing home for two years. She came to Ireland without her children and husband. Her husband wanted to visit her but I encountered significant red tape in securing a visa for him to visit. He only sought a holiday visa for two to three months. It was a genuine case and he has returned home while his wife has continued nursing in Wexford. I could not understand what was going on because she was recruited to work in the nursing home by an agency recognised by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. As Deputy Jim O'Keeffe stated in his contribution, Ireland has a mish-mash asylum system which gives rise to total confusion. It was not until my colleagues and I were discussing the Bill at a parliamentary party meeting that I heard of other cases similar to the one I encountered. My colleagues experienced the red tape involved. One must ring various Departments but no official will provide an answer. Cases usually involve calling the Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Foreign Affairs.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe proposed the establishment of an Oireachtas helpline and I ask the Minster to examine this proposal as soon as possible because it would reduce the workload for Departments. All Members want is a little help and guidance regarding which direction they should take in such cases. It would be simpler if a helpline were in place.

Deputy Howlin spoke passionately earlier about the case of the Kaltchev family — Kamen, Ivalina, Stefan and Diana — and I feel the same. Children born in Ireland before the referendum should be allowed to remain in Ireland together with their families. The Kaltchev family is in this position. I thank the Minister for his help in the case to date. I rarely make representations on behalf of such people but this is a genuine case.

I refer to an article published in my local newspaper, The Wexford People, on 14 October, which contained a letter written by an 11 year old attending the Christian Brothers primary school in Wexford. The article stated:

The best friend of an 11-year-old Bulgarian boy who is due to be deported this week after spending half his life in Wexford, has written a personal letter to the Minister for Justice, asking that he be allowed to stay.

'He is my best friend. Please could you let him stay in Ireland,' pleaded Conor Hanton of 19 Tuskar View to Minister Michael McDowell about his friend, Stefan Kalcheva of Goodtide Harbour.

Stefan who is also 11, arrived here with his parents, Kamen and Ivalina Kaltcheva five years ago and started his primary school education in the CBS where he is now in sixth class.

'Despite his lack of English, he was very keen to learn. He is a bright lad and very well-behaved. He is now fluent in English and doing very well. I think it would be terrible for him if he was deported,' said the Principal, Joss Furlong.

The family visited my clinic on a number of occasions. When he first spoke I thought Stefan had been born and reared in the middle of Wexford town because I could not believe his Wexford twang. It is extremely saddening that this family will be deported.

I received a letter recently about Stefan from Joss Furlong, the principal in the CBS. He stated:

When Stefan arrived in our school I was struck by his enthusiasm for learning, in spite of the fact that he could not speak English. We organised extra tuition for him in English. As a result of this, the work of a variety of class teachers over the years and Stefan's own internal motivation, he has made fantastic progress. He is now fluent in English, his work is of a very high standard, his application is excellent and his behaviour impeccable. To deport him and his family, having become so settled, would be extremely unfair and in my opinion very damaging, especially for Stefan.

I ask the Minister to taken into account the humane aspect of his story because I was touched by it.

I refer to the kernel of the asylum problem. Twelve members of the Garda national bureau of immigration based in Cherbourg were recalled in June. I am not sure if the Minister remembers that eight Turkish nationals were found dead in a trailer in Rosslare in December 2001. Five of their countrymen survived and some are still living in Wexford town. I will never forget the day I visited the harbour where these people were found. It was saddening and it took me a long time to get over it. The gardaí based in Cherbourg searched boats and lorries and checked passports and visas. Many asylum seekers and stowaways were prevented from entering Ireland on boats and lorries as a result.

Two weeks ago two Iraqi Kurds were found in the back of a container in Rosslare. We could have faced the same scenario as in 2001. Fortunately, the men were in a curtain side lorry in which air was circulating, but they were dehydrated. Following this incident, my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe stated Ireland would become known as a soft touch for refugees as more and more refugees try to escape to Ireland in the back of lorries and vans. These men survived unlike the Turkish nationals in 2001. I implore the Minister to examine this issue. If he thinks the 12 gardaí based at Cherbourg will make up the numbers for the promised additional gardaí, it is a sad reflection on him and his Department.

I hope the Minister acknowledges the human element to this issue. I spoke about this on local radio last Friday and I met other people who could not believe the gardaí based at Cherbourg had been redeployed. The Garda can deploy as many members as it wants in Rosslare but, once refugees arrive in Rosslare, they must be looked after. Gardaí must be based at the points of departure of ships and so on. I ask the Minister to re-examine this issue.

Last week in The Irish Times, a report by Kitty Holland outlined the number of asylum seekers who have gone missing from care in the past year. I was amazed at the number of young people aged eight, 13 and 16, teenagers and children, who have gone missing. I would be interested to hear the Minister's explanation of this. I hope the Minister will take some of my points on board and perhaps act on them accordingly. I ask him to inquire into the matter of gardaí based in Cherbourg as a matter of urgency.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take this opportunity to raise with the Minister an individual case which is highly relevant to the content of the Bill and to the circumstances which gave rise to the legislation before the House. The individual case concerns a six year old Romanian child. I raised this case in the House last Thursday by way of a written question to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I will quote the question and the reply since both are short.

To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if a visa will be granted to a person (details supplied) on whose behalf an application has been made to be reunited with their parents and four year old twin brothers due to the fact that the parents have legal status in Ireland since 2001 [that both parents are in employment, that one of their children has a disability, that the stated reason now for the refusal is different to the initial reason and that it is inhumane to continue to refuse this application].

The reply I received — I will deal with the details in a moment — was as follows:

Parents of the person in question have permission to reside in Ireland based on their parentage of an Irish-born child. The visa application in question relates to their daughter who wishes to join them in the State. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of L & O, the separate procedure which then existed to enable persons to apply to reside in the State on the sole basis of parentage of an Irish-born child, ended on 19 February 2003. The Government also decided that the general policy of allowing such parents to be joined in the State by other family members would no longer apply. Accordingly, the immigration division of my Department does not generally approve visas in respect of such visa applications.

I do not propose to name the applicants because they wish to keep their identity confidential. I intend to explain to the Minister the circumstances of this case and I take the opportunity of this debate to do so. I appreciate that the Minister may not be familiar with each individual case which is dealt with in his Department or which may be the subject of a parliamentary question or of representations.

The parents are a Romanian couple who came here in 1998. Twin children were born to them in 2000. One of the children suffers from cerebral palsy. Based on the birth of the twins, the parents qualified for the right to remain in Ireland. Their position was regularised some time in 2001. They received their green card and they are both now working in the State. He drives a bus for Dublin Bus and she works as a sales assistant in a department store. They rent an apartment privately, which they pay for themselves. There is no question of a rent allowance. This is a couple who are working in the State, paying their taxes and not drawing benefits of any kind.

They have an older child who is now aged six. The child was four months old when the parents left Romania. When I met the parents recently, I asked them the reason they left their four month old child when they embarked on their journey. They explained to me that when they embarked on their journey to Ireland, they did not wish to expose a four month old baby to the dangers of the journey. They travelled largely overland and they considered the journey too dangerous for the child. In any event they did not expect that they would have been separated from the child for as long as six years.

Following the regularisation of their position in Ireland and the receipt of a green card, they applied through a solicitor to have the six year old rejoin them in this country. Their solicitor wrote on 10 September 2002 to the Department stating that the enclosed application was for their only other child who is resident in Romania in the care of her grandmother. They stated: "Our clients desperately seek to have their daughter ... united with them and now are applying for family reunification of their only daughter to complete their family unit."

The application for the visa was refused on 28 February 2003. The reason given for the refusal was that the solicitor had not enclosed the child's birth certificate with the application. The solicitor had apparently enclosed the passport, photographs, fee and application form but did not submit the birth certificate. The solicitor then appealed the decision to the appeals office. The appeal was submitted on 8 April and the birth certificate was enclosed with the appeal. I have a copy of the birth certificate in the file which the parents gave to me.

On 20 May 2003, the visa office of the Department refused the appeal. The solicitor then wrote for an explanation as to why the appeal was refused. The letter is dated 22 May 2003 and points out, not unreasonably I suppose, that the reason which was given initially for the refusal was that the birth certificate was not enclosed. The solicitor was now enclosing the birth certificate and asked what was causing the difficulty. Based on telephone inquiries made by the solicitor, there is a further letter dated 24 June 2003 in which the solicitor refers to what appears to be some new policy decision which had been made and under which the child was now being refused a visa.

A more substantial reply was received from the Department on 23 July 2003. I wish to put this reply on the record of the House. It is addressed to the solicitor.

I am directed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to refer to your letters dated 24th June and 21st July 2003.

I would like to point out that the application was refused initially because there was no birth certificate enclosed with the application. This has now been rectified but the underlying issue is now the Minister's policy in relation to individuals who have been granted residency on the basis of parentage of an Irish born child. As you can appreciate since the L and O judgement case in January, we are awaiting definite guidelines from the Minister.

If the Minister grants permission to remain to this particular family on the basis of parentage of their Irish born child, I will gladly reconsider [the visa] application to join her family here.

There was a further letter on 4 September, obviously on the basis of further representations made by the solicitor. The reply states:

The visa application in question refers to a dependant of a person who has been granted permission to remain in the State based on the parentage of an Irish born child. This type of visa application is not currently being processed by this Department, pending a decision by the Minister on the general policy to be adopted with this and related Irish born child issues.

That was in September 2003. I became aware of this case in my constituency work about two weeks ago. The six year old child is still in Romania. Her two parents are here. They are working and paying tax. The six year old has two brothers living here with whom she has never had contact. The child is being cared for by her grandmother. The parents have been back to Romania to see the child on a number of occasions, most recently last summer, and they described to me in very disturbing detail the nature of that visit and the circumstances of their separation from the child. It is simply cruel to keep this child separated from her parents and brothers. It is clear from the correspondence that this problem is not an administrative one. It is a policy one for which the Minister is responsible, as is stated in the correspondence. I am aware the Bill we are addressing deals with this whole issue in general terms but I ask the Minister to go back to his Department and have this case addressed and resolved.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will do that.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and appreciate his assurance on that. I am quite happy to conclude on that assurance from the Minister.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to have the opportunity to make some comments on the Nationality and Citizenship Bill. Over the weekend, the statements emanating from Holles Street hospital in regard to women who expect to deliver a baby in that hospital gives the lie to what the Minister's referendum was about. We were told, in a series of highly declamatory and colourful interviews and statements by the Minister in the run-up to the referendum, that the referendum was a response to the abuse of citizenship tourism. One would have thought that since the referendum has removed the apparent pull factor in regard to tourists for birth purposes in our maternity hospitals, this Government might at least have got its act together in respect of the maternity hospitals. Instead, we hear that since the referendum was passed overwhelmingly by the population, on foot of the Government's scare-mongering, the situation in our maternity hospitals has become infinitely worse. Will we be told shortly that it is because children from Wexford are being born in Dublin that maternity hospitals in Dublin are in crisis, and they are going to expel everybody from Wexford?

This Government has to get a grip. The position in maternity hospitals is a disgrace. It is a shame, in terms of the policy enunciated by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that since the passage of this unwise referendum the crisis in the maternity hospitals has worsened to the point where the position is now worse than it was 100 years ago when hospitals like the Rotunda were set up primarily to cater for poor women who were at risk of dying in childbirth. Instead, we have returned, at the height of the prosperity of the Celtic tiger, to a position where throughout Dublin — the Minister may laugh but it is not a laughing matter — if somebody is expecting a baby——

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Deputy seriously saying we are worse off now than we were 100 years ago?

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——they can legitimately expect, as a taxpayer, to be able to use the services of one of the major maternity hospitals in Dublin but unless they get a number they cannot even enter the system and be guaranteed that they will receive attention and deliver their baby in the hospital of their choice. That may be fine for women who are sufficiently well off to give birth to their children in Mount Carmel Hospital but it is not good enough for the many Dubliners and others from throughout the country who give birth in Holles Street hospital and who expect to be able to use the hospital they pay for from their taxes. It is a shame on the Government that this crisis in our maternity hospitals has become even worse since the passage of the referendum which, apparently, was about sorting out the crisis in the maternity hospitals.

Like all of us, I believe the Minister is capable of taking a humane interest in the welfare of other people. What does he propose to do to sort out the current shambles regarding people applying for visas to visit relatives here for legitimate family reasons? I have spoken to the Minister about this issue on a number of occasions and I believe he is well-intentioned but he does not appear to be able to put anything in place which would offer people a reasonable expectation that if their relatives wish to come here on a visit, they will not be treated in the way many applicants currently are being treated.

I draw the Minister's attention to three typical cases on my files and in his office for months and years. I want to highlight, first, the case of two Nigerian doctors working in our health service, and I understand our health service is delighted to have them. They are working in two of the major hospitals in Dublin city. They are well-regarded doctors. They are active members of their local church and are highly regarded citizens in the community in which they live. They have four boys but, unfortunately, their third child has spina bifida. From time to time that child is under the care and attention of the Central Remedial Clinic in Clontarf, and it has been suggested that the child should get the support of continuous home care.

The family has a direct blood aunt in Lagos, Nigeria, who is willing to come here either by arrangement of a visitor's visa or by way of a work permit. The aunt is a civil servant in her late 40s or early 50s and she is willing to give up her job to mind her sister's special needs child while that child is very young and in need of care and attention. That would allow both parents continue their important job of working as doctors in the Irish health system. What is difficult about that? The doctors want to go through all the correct mechanisms yet there does not appear to be a way to address what is a reasonable request in the context of the humanitarian needs of a particular family who are important employees in the Irish health system.

The second case I want to bring to the Minister's attention is that of a doctor from Pakistan who is married to an Irish nursing sister in one of our maternity hospitals. He has received awards for entrepreneurship from the Government. Recently he and his wife happily had a second child. As is perfectly reasonable, particularly for someone from the Indian sub-continent, the doctor wants his mother to spend about a month here on a family visit with the newborn child. He has worked in the health service, is an Irish citizen and has been given an award for entrepreneurship by the Government, while his wife is Irish born, of Irish parentage and works as a sister in one of our maternity hospitals. Despite repeated requests to the Department, it is impossible to arrange for the mother to make a short visit.

As I told the Minister on previous occasions, we could introduce a guarantee system or points system whereby persons who have been here for a period and perhaps made contributions, as is the case with the couple to whom I have referred who work in the health service, would take out an insurance bond. Such systems are in place in other countries. Why should the State deny such people ordinary family visits?

The Minster made a very good speech yesterday on anti-racism measures in the workplace. Will he explain the reason for the policy of blanket refusal of applications on behalf of family members living outside the European Union who wish to make short visits following the birth of a child? I understand the Minister's officials are terrified that we will be burdened by people overstaying and abusing visits. While this may be a legitimate concern, it is a measure of the Minister's performance that he should address the reasonable needs of multicultural families living here.

Is there a Member who does not have a member of the family, whether a child, niece or nephew, married to somebody from another country, probably outside the European Union? I have nieces and nephews married to people from the Indian sub-continent and the Chinese community. It is part of life. Our young people travel around the world on their gap year, in the year after college or to work for a couple of years. It is unbelievable that we expect that a percentage of them will not marry people from far away. Some of them will make their homes here, in which case their in-laws will legitimately wish to visit. It is a measure of the Minister's ingenuity that he should be able to address this need because, as he is aware, the system causes considerable grief to families and is unfair.

Celebrations normally attend the birth of a child, whether in the form of a christening, blessing or other ceremony, in all the various communities. There is not a community on earth which does not celebrate the birth of a child and not a grandparent on the planet who does not wish to see a grandchild. It is one of the bases of human celebration, yet the Department, unfortunately, appears to have a policy of blanket refusal with regard to reasonable applications from foreign residents to allow family members to visit on special occasions. If the Minister fears the system will be abused, there are examples around the world of schemes established to eliminate abuse.

I will give a third example from my case file. It concerns a married couple from the Ukraine who have lived and worked in Dublin for a long time. They have a right to stay and will, in due course, become citizens. Happily, the woman, who is in her early 40s, has become pregnant for a second time with a much longed for child. Her mother still lives in the Ukraine. Is it unreasonable that in a late pregnancy the woman should have the comfort of a visit from her mother? What part of the Department's system would collapse if a mother from the Ukraine visited her expectant daughter?

The Department issued several refusals, the last of which included a nasty comment that only one appeal would be permitted. In other words, the couple should not bother the Department again. As a result, the expectant mother was forced to ask her mother to get a visa for Germany, which is relatively easy, and travel there to visit her. If Germany, part of the European Union, did not have a problem with the mother visiting and her daughter meeting her there, why is the Department terrified that a visit by a Ukrainian grandmother with a job, a house and a family to which she wants to return will undermine its entire foundations? If the Minister were on the Opposition benches, he would chortle at the policy his officials are imposing. I pay him the compliment of assuming he does not have the opportunity to see most files of this nature.

Another important issue is the time required to process legitimate citizenship applications from people working here. Processing is taking longer and longer. I believe there is a room in the Department filled to the ceiling with files, from which an official occasionally selects a bunch. This room is getting increasingly stuffed with applications but nothing is happening. The Minister is responsible for giving guidance to his Department. I recall that he talked about providing a one-stop shop to facilitate the different queries that arise in a society with so many people born elsewhere. Where is the one-stop shop? Despite all the money spent on the Department, the position seems to be getting progressively worse. I am not the only Member who must try to explain to people the reason the immigration system appears to be in such chaos.

The Minister spoke yesterday of this being a country of immigration. He discussed the need for people in the workplace to behave properly and not to discriminate against people from other countries working here. Why does he not apply these precepts in his Department? Why do his officials, when dealing with visa applications, not show some modicum of efficiency and humanity or explain the rules?

I listened to my colleague, Deputy Gilmore. Unlike many others, I am aware from experience that complicated residence applications must be accompanied by original documents or certified copies thereof. I compliment the Irish Refugee Council on providing an excellent service to those seeking information but not all applicants are aware of the service. The system the Minister has allowed to fester in his Department is shameful given our history and experience.