Ciarán Cannon (Galway East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge that several Senators have raised questions on section 9. Senator Ó Clochartaigh raised it last week on Second Stage, as did Deputy Seán Crowe in the Dáil. On several occasions during the Bill's passage through the Houses, detailed explanations were provided on the rationale behind this provision. I am aware that the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, MRCI, has signalled its disagreement with the provision. MRCI is an excellent organisation that does very valuable work and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a very good working relationship with it. It has made a valuable contribution to the introduction of procedures in 2014 for the protection of domestic workers in diplomatic missions and households. It has also worked with the Department to resolve individual cases from time to time. As part of that valued working relationship, the Department consulted MRCI as part of the consultation on the general scheme of the Bill and changes were made on foot of its valuable recommendations.

That notwithstanding, I consider section 9(d) to be an important part of the Bill and I am not convinced there is any merit in leaving it out. It would be reversing a very long-standing policy of the State. It may be the case that we will simply have to disagree on the inclusion of this provision. One thing I want to make very clear is that the Government will remain as committed as ever to protecting vulnerable individuals. I reiterate that there have been exceptional cases where former staff of diplomatic missions or households have been granted permission to remain in the State on a humanitarian basis. Such applications, which are very rare, will continue to be viewed sympathetically if they arise. Once a person is within the mainstream immigration system, under permission to remain, they will be on a path to citizenship and typically will be eligible for naturalisation after a number of years. It is not at all the case that we wish to deny citizenship to vulnerable people but we feel it is appropriate to exclude time spent working for a diplomatic mission as reckonable residence in line with international practice, and in the spirit of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.