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

I thank the Senators for their points. It is clear this is not a new law that, de facto, will suddenly create a two-tier system or different system. This is a law that has existed since 1956. It is already there and has been used sparingly. As we have heard, it has been used eight times. It is not thrown about willy-nilly.

It was challenged and we know the Damache outcome. It was clear from that decision that the Supreme Court did not challenge the availability of this law to a Minister, nor did it challenge the criteria or reasons for a person's citizenship being revoked. It said we needed to put in place greater safeguards for the individuals at the heart of it. It set out clearly there was no issue with the process but was about making sure there are more safeguards in place for the individuals in question. That is exactly what is being done here. The committee at the moment can make a recommendation and the Minister does not have to take that on board. We are saying in this that the committee, having all the facts available to it - I remind Senator Ruane that this would include security information - could decide if it would provide that information to the individual. Provision has to be made for the fact that providing information to a person who might be a security risk could put other people at risk or alert other individuals in a similar situation. We cannot have that scenario so the committee will have the information and can decide whether to provide that to the individual. Those measures have to be there.

It was suggested that a judge, whether a former High Court judge, a Circuit Court judge or president of a court, would not be independent. We have just passed a Bill to ensure any judge who is appointed is appointed by an independent process. The Minister has the support of the Judicial Appointments Commission and the committee to make sure our judges continue to be independent. Any person appointed to work with the people on the committee will, I have no doubt, uphold and take this role extremely seriously, as they would be required to do.

Electronic means is only by consent. Senator Ruane made a point about someone of no fixed abode who had a phone. Most people have phones and that is the way they would be able to receive information. It is only if a person consents to receiving information electronically that it can be provided to them. As a matter of policy, something as serious as this would not be done via e-mail alone. There would be further engagement, whether a letter or in person. If a person asks for electronic communication, it is important we can provide it.

There was a suggestion this is like a kangaroo court or Guantanamo Bay. We are talking about judges and a system where there is an opportunity for somebody to appeal through judicial review. The fact the Damache case was taken on foot of judicial review shows how our system works in upholding the rule of law and protecting individual rights because the outcome of that case is that we need to strengthen the rights of individuals here. The Constitution provides for the loss of citizenship to be governed by law. Article 9.1.2° provides that: "The future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be determined in accordance with law." The Constitution also states:

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

I appreciate that is older language. At citizenship ceremonies where people declare fidelity to the State and loyalty to the nation, this is something conferred on an individual. It is not a right for anybody not naturally born in a country. If I as a citizen of Ireland went to the US or another country, obtained citizenship fraudulently or otherwise and was part of a terrorist organisation where my focus was to take part in a terrorist event, I do not think anybody would suggest I should not face any repercussions or that my citizenship could not be revoked. Where this privilege is bestowed on people, it is revoked in only the most serious of circumstances. Much of the discussion I have heard outside of this Chamber has been about where a person commits crimes. I do not think supporting England in the final on Sunday is along those lines. I know Senator Clonan was being satirical, but we are not talking about minimal crimes. We are talking about where somebody is a serious risk or threat to the State and that information is provided to the Minister through the gardaí, the Defence Forces or the institutions of the State and separately confirmed through that independent body and process. That ruling is given to the Minister and he or she must adhere to that. We are future-proofing a process so that it is more focused on human rights and ensuring any individual has access to that independent process.

I do not mean to trivialise this because revoking anybody's citizenship is a serious matter. For the most part, this is a response to a ruling. I appreciate that any miscellaneous Bill tends to come at the end of term. There are individual laws that need to be changed and do not fit into any one large Bill. Bringing them all together usually happens at the end of the term and there is often a challenge with the time. This particular piece and this particular amendment have been worked through by my Department. We have engaged with the Attorney General on it. It has been moved to make sure that we can respond to the 2020 ruling and not have it go on for another year or two, potentially, whenever there might be another miscellaneous provisions Bill. I reiterate that this does not create a two-tier system. Citizenship is bestowed on people and for 99.9% of people that is a really important time in their lives and something that will never be abused. However, where a person abuses that to the extent I have mentioned, there has to be a mechanism for a Minister to revoke citizenship. What we are doing is making sure that the safeguards are there in response to the Damache ruling.