Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I would like to speak briefly about this section. I accept fully that our amendment is out of order. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, to the House. We would argue that this Bill is technical in nature. It makes clear citizenship and immigration rules for diplomatic staff and consular staff and their private staff by amending the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 and the Immigration Act 2004. However, while we supported the Bill on Second Stage in the Dáil, Deputy Crowe had one major concern that he wanted addressed on Committee Stage, namely, section 9, page six, lines 28 to 32. We submitted an amendment in the Dáil but it was disallowed on the grounds that it was a possible charge on revenue in accordance with Standing Orders.

I will run through our concerns. Section 9 seeks to amend the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 to provide that any period of time spent in this State, while exempt from immigration controls as workers in embassies are, is not reckonable for residency in the context of naturalisation. We believe this is an important right that should not be undermined or interfered with in any way. We are also concerned that the section states that children born to diplomats and associated persons who are exempt from immigration controls do not, except in certain circumstances, qualify for Irish citizenship by birth. We cannot understand the purpose of excluding what would be a very small group of people in this way and to write that exclusion into the legislation. The section does not seem necessary or proportional. The Minister for Justice and Equality was asked to explain why it is included and why these workers should be treated differently from other workers. He was asked to provide details on how many people have applied for naturalisation or citizenship in this way in recent years. The information is important and might explain the inclusion of the provision.We question why this is something that must be changed now. What is the policy goal of such a change? None of these questions has been answered. This section is very concerning to me and it requires more detailed discussion. Sinn Féin said that unless such clarification was forthcoming, we would have to vote against the Bill. We do not want to do this as the Bill has many positive aspects.

I am disappointed that our amendment was ruled out of order on the basis that it seeks to retain the provision that any period of time spent in the State while exempt from immigration controls pursuant to section 2(1) or 2(1A) of the Immigration Act 2004 is reckonable for naturalisation purposes. Apparently, this will potentially make people eligible for citizenship at an earlier date and additional costs may arise due to this earlier date of citizenship. The amendment must therefore be considered to be out of order on the grounds that it causes a charge on the Exchequer in accordance with Standing Orders. I find this a ridiculous use of Standing Orders especially when one considers that it costs an applicant €950 to apply for Irish citizenship. When we queried why it is so high, we were told it was to pay for the administrative work and reflects the high value in which Irish citizenship is held. If applicants are paying for their own application process, how can more applications be considered a charge on the Exchequer, or is it the case that citizenship applications cost the State money? Will the Minister of State please clarify this?

I cannot push this amendment so Sinn Féin reluctantly is opposing section 9.