Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach leis an Bhille Náisiúntachta agus Saoránachta Éireann a phlé, Bille tábhachtach. As Senator Cummins observed, the people have spoken. In many respects, today's discussion is a reflection of the debate that took place in the House, prior to the referendum, on the draft legislation. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent the abuse of the jus soli entitlement to citizenship of any person born in Ireland. The previous debate revealed elements of contention, some not clearly articulated and some others concerned with timing in that the referendum was to be held in conjunction with the local and European elections. At that stage, there were pessimistic comments and fears regarding the possibility of racist or xenophobic influences.

However, many also felt that these fears were unfounded and that it was opportune to hold the referendum at the same time as the elections. Moreover, the Minister was strongly convinced that such an approach would ensure a far more representative decision. The turnout for the elections bore out this conviction and represents a lesson for the future. If the referendum had been held on its own, there is every probability a much lower turnout would have been secured and, therefore, a less representative pronouncement of the will of the people.

We should also acknowledge that the ensuing debate during the referendum campaign was calm and mature. It served to address the issues well and avoid any of the racist tendencies that some felt would arise. The outcome of the referendum, whereby some 79% voted in favour, represented a strong endorsement by the people. Moreover, it was an endorsement of the Bill now before us because the Minister had prudently set out the draft legislation prior to the referendum. This ensured that people were well aware when voting in the referendum of the content and provisions of the associated legislation. In considering the people's decision, we are reminded of the value of our Constitution, now 67 years in operation. The thoroughness of the civil servants and politicians of 1937 in constructing it laid the foundations for a democratic operation of the apparatus of the State. The will of the people is sought even in instances where decisions are made by Parliament in other EU member states. This is something I value as a citizen of the Republic.

I commend the Minister for his statement on the record that "migration may be a phenomenon but, in fact, migrants are people, flesh and blood, and must be dealt with accordingly". In that regard, I welcome his comments to the effect that the Government is now committed to the development of a comprehensive immigration and residency Bill. This will serve to marry the interests and concerns of our citizens with the needs of immigrants. I am minded of my school history lessons in which we learned that in the last great influx of immigrants in 1169, the Normans, became "more Irish than the Irish themselves." Many of us are successors of those early immigrants. It is important in preparing the legislation, including this Bill and that which the Minister now proposes to introduce to deal more comprehensively with residency and so on, to provide both the circumstances and the framework in which the situation of the Norman immigrants can be repeated. In decades to come, those who have come to Ireland in recent times and will do so in the future, including Lithuanians, Poles and so on, should be able to claim that they have become "more Irish than the Irish themselves."

The Bill deals with the naturalisation entitlement which, as the Minister has observed, currently applies to those who have resided in the country for five years. This is among the most liberal provisions in this regard in the EU. Hitherto, universal entitlement to Irish citizenship was available to those born here. We should be mindful that this entitlement also secured EU rights of residency, which is part of the reason we were obligated to bring forward the referendum. The Minister has pointed out that the provisions of the Bill compare favourably to those of other EU partners.

A cursory glance at the situation that pertains in other EU member states underlines this point. A child born in Britain on or after 1 January 1983, for example, is entitled to British citizenship if either parent is a British citizen or is legally entitled to reside in that country. If neither parents satisfies one of these conditions, the child is not a British citizen at birth. A child born in France to foreign parents automatically becomes a French national at age 18. In Germany, if one parent has been a legal resident for at least eight years and possesses a permanent residency permit, a child born to that parent in Germany acquires citizenship at the parent's request. Children born to non-Danish citizens do not receive Danish citizenship at birth. Since 1999, young foreigners aged 18 to 23 years with a minimum of ten years' residency in Denmark are entitled to apply for naturalisation. In Sweden, a child born to non-Swedish parents does not acquire nationality at birth. It is accessible, however, by making a declaration when such a child is between 21 and 23 years old. Spain does not grant citizenship to children born to non-Spanish parents. Such children gain citizenship during the ages of 18 to 20 years by declaration. Likewise, Greece provides no entitlement to nationality at birth. Instead, a child can apply for naturalisation when he or she reaches 18 years of age. With continuous residency since birth, a child can apply for Italian citizenship at the age of 21.

These examples illustrate that the change we have made compares more than favourably to the provisions of our European partners. Here, a child will attain citizenship if at least one parent has been legally resident for three of the preceding four years. The Minister has also pointed to the entitlement to Irish citizenship of people born in Northern Ireland. This is consequential on the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and was part of the Constitution prior to that. The Bill removes the three-year restriction for children born to British citizens and there is no restriction for those entitled to reside in Northern Ireland. This creates an anomaly, which I am aware is underwritten by the Good Friday Agreement, between the sovereign states of Britain and the Republic, whereby people entitled to reside in Britain automatically qualify for Irish citizenship. In this, we are conferring preferential status on certain nationalities not because of any relationship with this State, but because of their relationship with Britain. That is now a fait accompli but it is important that we do not arrogate the decision on Irish citizenship to another State.

Consequent on this Bill, any changes in the British system which would confer preferential status on nationalities which may have a historic relationship with Britain would also automatically qualify those nationalities for citizenship here. This anomaly should be recognised and rectified at some stage. There are many facets to the Good Friday Agreement and one does not wish to unravel it. Nevertheless, anomalies in the Agreement should be recognised and dealt with.

The Minister has pointed out that the Bill does not affect anyone who has an entitlement to Irish citizenship at present. That is important and the people of Ireland would not want that entitlement to be removed. In the manner he constructed the referendum, the Minister ensured that would not happen. The Bill also reflects the State's commitment against statelessness. Only those born to short-stay parents who hold citizenship elsewhere will be affected by it.

I welcome the Minister's comments on the changes in the investment-based naturalisation scheme. As the Minister said, the scheme was a product of another time and was abused. On the other hand, it is acknowledged that it helped companies. Fóir Teoranta was the bank of last resort when the economic climate was very poor and when the jobs outlook and future prospects led many people to emigrate. This Bill is concerned with immigration. Despite the abuses, much good was done by the scheme to secure jobs which otherwise would not have been secured. Times and circumstances have changed and our economic health has altered dramatically for the better. This is to be welcomed. Such a scheme would now be incongruous and I am sure all Members of the House support its removal.

In recent debates in the House on this issue comments were made regarding the effect of changes on a child who was entitled to citizenship on the basis of a parent who had died before the child was born. The Minister has dealt with this possibility sensibly by making provision for such a child to qualify for citizenship and for the period between the death of the parent and the birth of the child to be included in the period needed for qualification. This provision is welcome.

The immigration laws and practices within Northern Ireland differ from those in this State. The Minister alluded to this difference in his speech and it is his intention to deal with it by regulation, which is sensible. The difference between procedures and regulations in the two jurisdictions presents difficulty in establishing a residency period in Northern Ireland as distinct from other parts of the United Kingdom. As this arises under the Good Friday Agreement, will there be scope at some stage for harmonising the regulations and practices in Northern Ireland with those in the Republic of Ireland, which might assist or facilitate the effective implementation of this arrangement? In the past we have been inclined to follow British practice. There is a historic reason for that as much Irish legislation has its genesis in the period before independence. Nevertheless, we should try to move in the other direction where it is in our interest to do so.

The Bill is another step in providing the legislative framework to deal with changing circumstances as we move towards a multi-cultural Ireland. Making that move in a coherent and sensible fashion will provide the foundation for achieving the integrated and socially inclusive society to which we aspire. I am sure the Minister will have the full support of the House in pursuing that objective. I commend him for introducing the Bill.