Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

A grave and substantial reason means that it cannot be, in effect: "There is an Irish citizen over there. The child's two parents are foreigners. Out." It is not to say as a matter of policy that we do not like that child being in Ireland and so out it must go. It must be a grave reason. There has to be a reason why a citizen child of Ireland should be excluded. One of the matters stated in the L and O case as a ground which the Minister could take into account was whether such a decision would, in fact, be warranted having regard to the necessity to maintain the integrity of Irish immigration laws. It does not mean that anybody who occupies my position as Minister can start signing deportation orders without any consideration as to what the implications are for an Irish citizen child — as to whether it is a reasonable decision. It is not enough for the Minister to say decisions are always made "along these lines" and that his or her mind cannot be changed now. I want to make that point clear.

One grave and substantial reason is the necessity to prevent our immigration laws from being trampled down and to maintain their integrity. It does not mean that it is a matter of automatic policy that the Minister simply dismisses from Ireland all children who are Irish citizens and who are entitled to have their cases looked at because of the L and O case.

A point which the House might have less sympathy for is also significant. There are approximately 640 public servants working in the immigration area of my Department. By any standard this is a sizeable cohort of the public service. Approximately 420 of them are people devoted to the asylum seeking process. It is immensely labour intensive, even to come to a decision based on the L and O principles as to whether somebody should or should not go. I would like Senators to come to my office some day to see the enormous files that arrive in for decision and to look at the amount of work already going into this penultimate stage as to whether I, as Minister, should be advised that a person should be sent home. This is not a matter where computers spit out deportation orders because somebody presses a button and a load of files fall into a legislative meat mincer from where results come out. Every single case is fat, larger than a telephone directory, with documents piled into it, submissions this way and that, considerations of the original evidence and advice to the Minister. That is the way the decisions are made.

A point which has been lost continuously in the flak which has gone on so far in this debate is that the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness means nobody will be left without a state. Therefore, every child born in Ireland, who is not otherwise entitled to be a citizen by descent of his or her parent's state, will be given Irish citizenship. If one turns that coin over it means that the only people to be affected by the Government's proposals will be those who already have one citizenship available to them and whose parents have a small or tenuous connection with this State — they were here during the child's birth and nothing more. They are asking the State to accept that while the baby is entitled to citizenship of their country, by descent, they want to give him or her, in addition, the right to choose Irish and EU citizenship as well. It is only that category of people, who already have one citizenship, so to speak, in the bag and who ask to be given second and third citizenships — Irish and EU — on the basis of a fleeting connection with Ireland who will be adversely affected by this move.

Take any country one likes, for example, Sri Lanka. If a couple comes here and their child is born in Ireland and will not get Sri Lankan citizenship as a matter of entitlement, he or she will be entitled to Irish citizenship. Otherwise, the child would be stateless. If the child, however, is entitled to Sri Lankan citizenship, what we are saying is Irish and EU citizenship may not be claimed in addition to that entitlement if there is not a substantial connection to the island of Ireland, other than a fleeting visit or the happenstance that one was born here for whatever reason. That is all. When one looks at it in that light it is not a major step and neither is it a dramatic change. It is not an injustice because the child already has one citizenship, that of his or her parents. What the child is actually seeking is a second citizenship of another state, and also citizenship of the European Union, in addition to what he or she is already entitled to by reference to the parents' nationality.

I have not heard that point made. I tried to make it in one article, which was published in The Irish Times. I have not heard anyone who is opposed to the referendum comment on it. The reason they have not commented on it is that, when it is looked at in the round, our position is so reasonable and defensible that it is not an area which any opponent of this referendum would like contemplated by the public at large. It sounds a slightly subtle point and it will be difficult to get it across in the course of the referendum debate. Most people do not want to hear about conventions against statelessness and do not want to think through the logic as I have just explained it. The only people who would be denied citizenship here are those who have some other option available but are attempting to opt instead for Irish citizenship. If that sinks home with the public I believe a large number of whatever fraction of the population is doubtful about this referendum would accept the proposal as reasonable.

Cuireadh an leasú agus faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis diúltú dó.