I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Simon Coveney, and his officials. As this is the first time he has attended the committee, I wish him well in his role. The members of the committee look forward to working with him in a genuine spirit of partnership and co-operation.
Diplomatic Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2017: Committee Stage
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, line 27, to delete “and”.
This section amends the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 to provide that any period of time spent in the State while exempt from immigration controls is not reckonable for naturalisation purposes. It also clarifies that children born to diplomats and associated persons who are exempt from immigration controls do not qualify for Irish citizenship by birth, unless one of the child’s parents is an Irish citizen or entitled to be, a British citizen, a person entitled to reside in the State without any restriction on his or her residence, or a person entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on his or her residence.
With the amendments I am proposing to address a minor anomaly that has been identified in our citizenship legislation with regard to Irish public servants serving the State overseas. Under section 7(3) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, as amended, a person born outside the island of Ireland derives Irish citizenship through a parent who was also born outside the island of Ireland but only if their birth was registered on the foreign births register. Pursuant to section 7(3)(b), if at the time of birth that parent was abroad in the public service of the State, the person is automatically an Irish citizen without being required to be registered on the foreign births register. This ensures children born to non-Irish born public servants serving abroad are not disadvantaged in terms of entitlement to citizenship. However, an issue has been identified with the provision in so far as disadvantages may arise in respect of subsequent generations. For example, if a person who has derived his or her citizenship by virtue of section 7(3)(b) and who is not a public servant has a child abroad, assuming the child’s other parent is also non-Irish born, that child would not derive Irish citizenship unless registered on the foreign births register. The proposed amendments are aimed at correcting this anomaly by deeming such a person as having been born on the island of Ireland for the purposes of that subsection.
I am sure Deputies will agree that public servants working overseas do crucial work and are a credit to the State. In many cases, taking up a foreign posting can entail considerable sacrifices for the individuals concerned and their families. For these reasons, we are committed to ensuring disadvantages are minimised. This is a minor anomaly in the citizenship legislation. Nonetheless, it seems appropriate to take the opportunity in a miscellaneous provisions Bill to address it to ensure public servants, their children and grandchildren will not be disadvantaged under the citizenship laws. I hope Deputies can support the amendments which are a practical and sensible response to recognising what service abroad is actually about, namely, working for one's country. In simple terms, the provisions recognise that when an Irish diplomat serving abroad has children abroad, in law it is the same as having a child at home.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(c) in section 7 (amended by section 3 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2001) by the insertion of the following after subsection (3):
"(3A) A person to whom paragraph (b) of subsection (3) applies shall be deemed to have been born on the island of Ireland for the purposes
of that subsection.",
and”.
Amendment agreed to.
Deputy Seán Crowe submitted an amendment that was ruled out of order. As such, we cannot discuss its content.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
As the Chairman indicated, I submitted an amendment that was ruled out of order. The Bill is technical in nature and I welcome the explanation in the memorandum of the amendments the Minister is putting forward. On Second Stage I referred to my concerns about the provisions of this section. Those concerns were reflected in the disallowed amendment. Having read through the debate on Second Stage in the Official Report, it seems mine were the only concerns raised in this regard. My amendment was disallowed on the grounds that it could involve a charge on Revenue, in accordance with Standing Order 179(3). With the Chairman's indulgence, I would like to explain why I submitted it.
The Deputy should focus in his comments on the section rather than the subject matter of his disallowed amendment.
I will do so. The section seeks to amend the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 to provide that any period of time spent in the State where persons are exempt from immigration controls, as workers in embassies are, is not reckonable for residency in the context of a naturalisation application. The rights of embassy workers are important and should not be undermined or interfered with in any way. On Second Stage I said I did not understand why this provision was being included in the Bill. Is it to do with immigration controls, checks and so on? It proposes to take away the rights of a category of persons without any explanation as to why it is being done. I still do not understand the purpose of excluding in this way what is likely to be a very a small group of workers which will probably comprise no more than 20 or 30 persons.
Following the Second Stage debate, nobody from the Department contacted me to provide the information I had requested and the section remains the same. That is bad form. It is seldom we have legislation passing through the House these days but normally the Minister or the Minister of State who sums up the debate will reply to questions raised by Members in the course of the debate. That was not done in this instance. I acknowledge that it was the Minister's predecessor who took the debate, but it is still unacceptable. On Second Stage I asked the previous Minister to explain why these workers should be treated differently from others and indicate how many people had applied for naturalisation or citizenship in this way in recent years. I pointed out that having this important information would help to explain the inclusion of this provision. I questioned why this change was being made at this time and asked the Minister to outline the policy goal it reflected, but none of my questions were answered. Does the Minister agree that they deserve some response?
On Second Stage I indicated my intention to raise this matter again on Committee Stage unless my questions were answered in a satisfactory manner. Bizarrely, I was told my amendment had been ruled out of order because the retention of the current provision might involve a cost to the Exchequer. Apparently, under the existing provision, people might potentially be eligible for citizenship at an earlier date, as a consequence of which additional costs might arise. That is my understanding of the reason the change is being made. That is an unacceptable usage of Standing Order 179(3), in respect of which there is no appeal mechanism. When I queried why it cost an applicant €950 to apply for Irish citizenship, I was told that the charge was necessary to cover the cost of the administration work involved in processing the application and reflective of the high value in which Irish citizenship was held. If applicants are paying for their own application process, how can more applications be considered to be a charge on Revenue, or do citizenship applications cost the State money?
I am seeking clarity from the Minister on these legitimate questions. I am unable to push the amendment to a vote, but the Minister can do so on Report Stage. If he does not, I will be voting against the Bill, something I do not want to do. I have no other objections to what is a largely technical Bill. When an Oireachtas Member asks legitimate questions, he or she should be given answers. I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak to the section. It is worth spending a few minutes to discuss the matter
On a point of clarity, neither the Minister nor the Department was involved in ruling the Deputy's amendment out of order. That decision fell to me as Chairman of the committee and was made on the basis that the proposal would involve a potential charge on the Exchequer. Only a Minister or a Minister of State may bring forward an amendment that has a revenue or expenditure implications.
I will try to address the issue the Deputy has raised in the context of the section as a whole. As the Chairman noted, neither I nor my Department has a role in deciding whether an amendment is ruled in or out of order. From a policy perspective, the Deputy deserves to understand why we have not brought forward a similar proposal to what he has set out in the amendment which has been ruled out of order. During the Second Stage debate my predecessor, Deputy Charles Flanagan, explained the rationale for this policy which I will reiterate briefly for the benefit of the Deputy.
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, members of diplomatic missions and their families are required to be exempt from immigration controls. With regard to citizenship, like many other countries, Ireland has long considered that the spirit of the Vienna Convention envisages people coming to the State as employees of a foreign government for a finite period of time before returning to that country or another on assignment. In these circumstances, it is considered appropriate to exclude such persons from the mainstream citizenship arrangements, just as they are exempt from immigration controls, one being a logical corollary of the other. In effect, employees of foreign governments are deemed to be the responsibility of those governments. Persons who are working in a diplomatic mission here are effectively exempt from all sort of things, including a potential liability for tax and PRSI, and do not need to go through work permit application procedures or anything like that. They come as part of a diplomatic mission and are usually here for a set period before moving to another mission, whether back home or in a different state. As such, they are in a different category from other types of non-citizen worker. Somebody who receives a work permit to come here is effectively part of the Irish immigration system by being here. After four to five years, he or she has the timeline required to be eligible to apply for naturalisation. By contrast, a person who comes to Ireland to work in a diplomatic mission bypasses all of these application procedures and arrives as part of a team from another country, representing that country's interests and being employed by its government. Of course, at some later point, if such persons wish to apply to come here as individuals, they may do so on the same basis as anybody else.
The matter being raised by the Deputy was whether they should be able to use the time they spent here on a diplomatic mission as time towards a naturalisation application at some stage in future. That was not the intention of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in general. Just as when Irish teams are abroad in Irish embassies, they are essentially still part of Ireland although they operate outside the State as a representative for Ireland. That was the rationale as outlined by the previous Minister, Deputy Flanagan. I will take a look at it in a bit more detail if the Deputy so wishes before Report and Final Stages. Perhaps we could have a stab at the numbers involved, as they would not be huge. There is a point of principle whereby somebody who comes to Ireland and needs to go through the permitting and visa procedures and who works here on the back of that permit system is in a different category to somebody who comes here as part of a diplomatic team. I will have a look at it but the rationale as outlined by the former Minister stands, and that is why we do not have an amendment mirroring that of the Deputy yet.
Question put and declared carried.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
As the Bill has completed Committee Stage, it is recommended that members submit Report Stage amendments to the Bills Office without delay as Report Stage may be tabled at short notice.