Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I opposed the same amendment in the other House. I record my long-held opposition to the principle which informed the passports for investment scheme and my serious misgivings as to its legal propriety, even if the highest standards of procedural nicety were observed in every case. With the exception of my immediate predecessor, every Minister to hold my office since 1989 gave a wide latitude of interpretation to the term "Irish associations", which enabled acceptance of new applications under the scheme. In addition, the departmental files for a significant number of cases in the 1988 to 1994 period do not evidence compliance with all the rules of the scheme in what was then known as the statement of intent.

I am able to speculate on the conclusions to which I have just referred because, if I were to make a report, I would state those matters to this House. Shortly after becoming Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I published the report of a review group on the investment-based naturalisation scheme. The report is currently available to Members in the Oireachtas Library and on the Department's website.

Some of the cases in which the decisions made gave rise to considerable controversy were already the subject of a report. In one particular case, passports were apparently given to 11 applicants at a lunch in the Shelbourne Hotel, although the exact location is just hearsay, in circumstances where the passports were physically put in place before the application forms had been generated. I stated in the Dáil and reiterate that the circumstances in which this happened raise serious questions. That file went to and is with the Moriarty tribunal and I await the investigation and report of that tribunal in respect of that transaction.

Unlike Mr. Justice Moriarty, I do not have statutory powers to compel witnesses or produce documents from other sources — I can only outline what was in the Department's possession. I examined the files in the Department's possession and, to make sure I was considering the same material the tribunal had in its possession, had returned to me from the Moriarty tribunal the file which had been sent there. I returned the file to the tribunal when that process was completed.

My examination of the files, carried out at the request of the Taoiseach, confirmed that the 11 passports and naturalisations in question were granted in a manner which was, even by the lax standards which had frequently characterised the operation of the scheme in question, irregular and unusual. In short, the passports and naturalisations in question appeared to be effected in a manner which bypassed usual formalities and ignored failures by applicants to comply with elementary documentary requirements. It appears the passports in question were prepared in advance of the completion of the applications for naturalisation and it has been reported that they were handed over to the applicants by the then Taoiseach at a lunch hosted by them in a Dublin hotel.

As I stated in the Dáil, no departmental file is likely to carry any explicit evidence of gross impropriety or corruption on the part of any member of Government. Nonetheless, in the light of what we now know from the proceedings and reports of intervening tribunals, it would be fair to say that serious questions concerning the role of the then Taoiseach would be raised in the minds of anybody examining the file with the benefit of hindsight. I am not in a position to supply any explanation from the contents of the file, which I have examined, for the then Taoiseach's apparent interest in having the case processed with remarkable haste. These may be matters on which the Moriarty tribunal may be able to shed useful light.

Former Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, as Minister for Justice, in the context of ongoing controversy surrounding the scheme and in the context of parliamentary questions on the 11 passports in question, was sufficiently concerned by the contents of the file to commission a report by a senior departmental official. She left office before the report was completed and it was made available to her successor as Minister, former Deputy, Nora Owen. The former Minister, Deputy Owen, received the report during her term of office and most of it was published after coming in mysterious circumstances into the possession of The Irish Times in September 1997, after the Government had changed again.

There is no cover-up in this regard. All of the material which I could put into the public domain has been put there, as I understand it, and all of it is with the Moriarty tribunal. Therefore, there is nothing I could do by way of a report on it except to reiterate that serious questions arise in the mind of any reasonable reader who considers the file as to the particular circumstances in question. It is a matter for the Moriarty tribunal, which has far greater powers and resources than I in this regard, to concentrate on this issue and to investigate whether there is evidence of gross impropriety or corruption arising from that particular transaction. That is a matter for the Moriarty tribunal. I appreciate that Members of this House would like me to express my view on the matter but my view would not be as good as that of Mr. Justice Moriarty because he at least has the opportunity to get third parties to supply him with information on these matters. I have no such powers. I can only tell what I saw when I looked into the file, which was the same as the former Deputies Máire Geoghegan-Quinn and Nora Owen saw when they looked into the file with the benefit of a report.

When Deputy Jim O'Keeffe tabled the amendment in the Dáil, it was seeking me to detail the propriety of the operation of the passports for sale scheme by the State. I think what he actually wanted me to detail was the impropriety of the scheme. I would be a long time dealing with the proprieties and could cast no greater light on the improprieties than I have done in this Chamber today.

Controversy has arisen in the media in recent times regarding a Czech national who was granted Irish citizenship in total good faith by my predecessor, the former Deputy Nora Owen. The individual produced evidence at the time from the Czech Republic and the United States to show he was of good character. No criminal convictions have since been recorded against him despite media speculation. That file is also with the Moriarty tribunal.

People have asked me if I could revoke the man's citizenship in view of the allegations of financial impropriety against him. From a legal point of view that would be very problematical. To revoke the citizenship on the basis of the current criteria seems unlikely, with perhaps one exception. If the national in question subsequently applied for nationality of another state, there is a basis in statute law for the revocation of the passport. I am considering that matter.