Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The amendments in this grouping are amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 and Seanad amendment No. 1.

Amendment No. 1 provides for a change to the Long Title to reflect the fact that the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 is to be amended by the Bill.

Amendment No. 3 provides for changes to the Bill’s commencement provisions owing to the insertion of amendments on Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann.

Amendment No. 4 is a Government amendment, inserted on Committee Stage in the Dáil. It inserts a new section 4A in the 1956 Act and amends sections 19(2) and 19(3) of that Act. I am proposing the insertion of section 4A to allow for the electronic service of notices under the 1956 Act. This is in line with my Department’s modernisation goal of moving towards a more efficient delivery of service. The amendment mirrors similar amendments that were introduced last year to the International Protection Act 2015 and the Immigration Act 2004 by way of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act to allow for electronic services of notice. As with other Acts, notices may only be served electronically where the person has provided his or her consent to that.

The amendment of sections 19(2) and 19(3) of the 1956 Act restores the power of the Minister for Justice to revoke certificates of naturalisation under that Act following the Supreme Court judgment in Damache v. Minister for Justice. This amendment provides those going through the revocation process with higher standards of protections and safeguards, thereby ensuring the new procedure is robust and fair. It must be noted that the circumstances in which certificates can be revoked under section 19(1) remain unchanged. This power is used extremely sparingly – fewer than ten times since 1956 – and the revocation of Irish citizenship is only undertaken in the most serious of circumstances. The loss of citizenship has serious consequences and each case is considered carefully. I assure Senators that, to date, this power has only been used in serious instances primarily related to the fraudulent acquisition of citizenship and, in some cases, terrorist activity. My Department has engaged extensively with the Attorney General’s office to develop a new procedure that is line with the Supreme Court’s findings on fair procedures.

I will outline how the process worked previously. Where a person was informed of the Minister’s intention to revoke his or her certification of naturalisation, he or she had a right to request a committee of inquiry to examine the Minister’s decision. The committee then reported its findings to the Minister. Crucially, though, the Minister was not obliged to accept the committee’s findings.

I will outline how the new procedure provides more robust safeguards, which is important. The Minister will first write to the person concerned where the Minister is considering the revocation of a certificate of naturalisation or citizenship. The Minister will provide the reason for the proposal, subject to national security limitations. I will revert to this point in a second. The person concerned will have 28 days to make representations to the Minister on foot of the notice. At this point, the Minister will make a decision on the revocation, taking into consideration the representations made, if any. The Minister will write to the person outlining the decision and the reason for it, subject to the same national security restrictions.

Where the Minister's decision is to revoke the certificate, the person will be entitled to request that the committee of inquiry examine the decision. The person will have 14 days to request that the committee be formed from the date on which the notice is deemed delivered. I wish to make clear why there is a shorter notice period. The person concerned only has to request that the committee be established at this point. The person does not have to provide reasons or representations at this stage.

The committee will be chaired by a retired judge of the Circuit Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court and will have two ordinary members whom the Minister deems to have appropriate qualifications. The committee will operate independently of the Minister and will have the option of affirming or setting aside the decision of the Minister. In coming to this decision, the committee will hear from the Minister and the person concerned and may have regard to any other matters it deems relevant. The committee will notify the person and the Minister of its decision and provide the reasons for same, with similar restrictions in respect of national security concerns.

I am satisfied this new procedure meets the high standards of natural justice mandated by the Damache judgment. It provides more opportunities to be heard and ensures the committee's decision is binding on the Minister unlike the process that previously existed, under which a recommendation could be made to the Minister and the Minister could still decide to revoke a certificate even if the recommendation was to not do so.

I assure Senators that any decision to withhold information on national security grounds is not taken lightly. All facts will be fully considered by the Minister or the committee where national security considerations may apply. It is clear from the legislation that the Minister will have to provide the person in question with the grounds for revocation under section 19(1) and as much information as reasonably possible while working within the constraints of needing to protect national security. The committee of inquiry must have sufficient evidence before it to justify a decision to revoke citizenship. If there is information related to national security, the committee will be provided with that to allow it to make its decision. It will be in possession of all the relevant facts. There may be cases where certain information needs to be withheld from the person subject to the revocation proposal on national security grounds, but it is clear this information would have to be provided to the committee for it to perform its functions and make an informed decision.The committee would then have another opportunity to consider the release of this information. Even if the Minister decided not to, the committee, on looking at the information, could make the decision to release that information as part of the procedure.

In taking into consideration the protection of the sources of information, it is important to balance the right to information with the need to maintain the security of the public and to prevent loss of life and other serious harms arising from terrorism.

I will briefly touch on the issues of statelessness also, which was raised in the debate in the Dáil. I want to be really clear that we have no intention of rendering people stateless. It is a matter of Government policy that people are not made stateless and that statelessness should be reduced. It is very rare full stop, not just in Ireland, but globally. We are a party to, and are very aware of our obligations under, the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, and also the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. I am very aware of the convention to which we are a party and, as a matter of policy, we do not make individuals stateless. Again, these are very rare circumstances. It has not happened to date in the very few cases have come forward. If a person were potentially to be rendered stateless, it could apply in terms of the decision here. In some instances, the reason for revocation of citizenship is to remove the person from the State if they pose a risk. If that is not possible in cases where there is nowhere for them to go, then they would not be removed from the State. All these issues have to be taken into consideration, but it is something we take very seriously under our obligations under the conventions of 1954 and 1961, which I mentioned.