I welcome the opportunity to address the House on Irish naturalisation and citizenship. Ireland has been transformed by migration over recent decades. People from every corner of the world have chosen to live, work, study and raise families here. They have contributed enormously to our economy, our public services, our communities and our culture, and they will continue to do so in the years ahead. Migration has strengthened Ireland and enriched our society in countless ways.

It is important for me to say clearly that this Government recognises the value of those contributions. We remain fully committed to maintaining a migration system that is welcoming to those who come here legally and contribute to Irish society. At the same time, the Government has been clear that our migration system must be firm, fair and effective. That is essential to maintaining public confidence in our immigration framework.

The programme for Government contains a commitment to continue implementing a firmer migration system that protects the integrity of our immigration framework. Last year, the Government approved a broad package of policy and legislative reforms aimed at ensuring Ireland's migration system remains efficient, sustainable and aligned with international best practice. As part of that wider programme of reform, we are now reviewing aspects of our citizenship legislation.

Irish citizenship is a significant status. It is an earned privilege. It is one of the most important legal relationships that can exist between an individual and the State. Irish citizenship brings with it important rights, opportunities and protections; it also carries responsibilities. It represents far more than residence in Ireland. It reflects a lasting and enduring bond with this country, its people and our shared future.

As citizenship represents the fullest expression of membership of Irish society, it is important that the legislative framework governing access to citizenship is robust, fair and sustainable. As legislators, it is entirely appropriate that we periodically review the legal framework governing citizenship. Our laws must continue to meet current needs, reflect international developments and support a modern and effective migration system. The Government has a responsibility to review citizenship policy and adapt its frameworks in light of changing migration patterns, demographic developments and evolving public policy objectives.

The Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and I recently secured Government approval for priority drafting of legislation to strengthen Ireland's naturalisation framework. The reforms being considered are intended to ensure that the pathway to citizenship by naturalisation reflects a genuine, sustained and meaningful connection to Ireland. The general scheme of the Bill approved by the Government contains several key proposals, and I would like to outline some of them.

First, the scheme proposes increasing the standard residence requirement for naturalisation applicants from five to eight years. Under the proposed model, an applicant would generally be required to demonstrate two years of continuous residence immediately before applying, together with six additional years of residence accumulated over the previous ten-year period. The rationale is straightforward. Citizenship is an enduring status. It is therefore reasonable that applicants demonstrate a stronger and more established connection to the State before that status is granted.

Second, the scheme proposes the introduction of a power to require applicants to demonstrate language proficiency. Importantly, applicants would be able to demonstrate competence in English, Irish or Irish Sign Language. That objective is there not to create barriers but to support integration and ensure that citizens can participate fully in public life, access services, understand their rights and responsibilities and engage confidently in civic and democratic processes. Importantly, the legislation would provide flexibility regarding the standard required, the method of assessment and the circumstances in which exemptions or waivers may be appropriate.

Third, the scheme proposes the introduction of a civics, society and politics requirement. This reflects the principle that citizenship involves active participation in the life of the State. Understanding how our institutions operate, the rights we enjoy and the responsibilities we share helps to strengthen social cohesion and encourage active citizenship. We will ensure that any testing regime is proportionate, fair, accessible and transparent, and supports meaningful participation in Irish civic life without creating unnecessary barriers to naturalisation. The objective is not to reward educational achievement; rather, it is to ensure that individuals can navigate daily life, communicate effectively in their communities, participate fully in the workplace and perform the important duties of citizens, including voting and, where called upon, jury service.

The scheme proposes measures relating to self-sufficiency. The objective is to promote independence and support positive integration. It is important to note that detailed operation of these provisions would be determined through regulations following consultation with relevant Departments and stakeholders.

In addition, the scheme proposes amendments relating to reckonable residence. These changes would provide greater clarity regarding the categories of residence that may be counted towards naturalisation and would provide that certain temporary permissions and schemes, including residence under the temporary protection directive, would not be reckonable for citizenship purposes.

These proposals should be considered in the broader European context. Some commentary has suggested that Ireland would become an outlier if these reforms were enacted. That is simply not the case. Citizenship policy is ultimately a matter for each sovereign State. Across Europe, countries have adopted different pathways to naturalisation, but almost all require applicants to demonstrate a substantial period of lawful residence and, in many cases, some degree of language competence and civic understanding.

Fourteen EU member states require eight years or more of residence before naturalisation. Ireland is currently the only EU member state that does not require some form of language competence for citizenship by naturalisation. Civic integration requirements are also common across Europe, with 22 member states having some form of civic knowledge, civics or citizenship requirement. Taken together, these proposals would bring Ireland more closely into line with established European practice while maintaining a fair, balanced and accessible pathway to citizenship.

While we are discussing changes to citizenship policy, it is equally important to acknowledge the significant work undertaken in recent years to improve the operation of the naturalisation system. The number of citizenship applications received in recent years has increased substantially. Despite this growth in demand, considerable progress has been made in improving processing arrangements, modernising systems and reducing decision times. Improvements in digital processes, enhanced operational capacity and ongoing reforms have enabled the Department to process applications more efficiently while maintaining the integrity of the system.

Citizenship ceremonies play an important role in marking the transition from lawful residence to full membership of the Irish community. Only last week I had the privilege of attending a citizenship ceremony for our newest citizens. It is always a powerful reminder of what citizenship means to people to be present at the ceremony when it is granted. The pride, commitment and sense of belonging demonstrated by people taking the declaration of loyalty and fidelity to the State remind us that Irish citizenship remains highly valued at home and around the world.

That pride is important. It reflects the enduring value of Irish citizenship and the strength of the connection people feel to the country. The purpose of these reforms is not to diminish the attractiveness of Irish citizenship but rather to protect and reinforce its value for future generations. We want a system that is fair, transparent and sustainable, one that supports integration, strengthens public confidence and reflects the significance of the bond created when a person becomes an Irish citizen. That is the objective of these proposals.

I look forward to engaging constructively with all stakeholders as the proposals are considered in the months ahead and to hearing the views of Senators here today.

The Minister of State is most welcome to the Seanad Chamber today. I commend him and his officials in the Department of justice on bringing forward some changes to how the citizenship procedures, processes and laws work. I think these are changes for the better, and I commend the Minister of State and the work he has done in the whole area of temporary protection, the closing down of IPAS centres, the establishment of deportation flights and the speeding up of the processing of applications for asylum.

It is very important the core idea underpinning that system is the same as what underpins this system, which is that we must have a firm, fair and effective immigration system. Part of that is ensuring the value of Irish citizenship is protected into the next generation. That speaks to a lot of the reforms the Minister of State is looking to bring in here which, in my view, are about ensuring that citizenship, while not being difficult to obtain, is something that is cherished and comes with a set of criteria clearly laid out for anybody to see in order that were he or she to want to become an Irish citizen, the rules are there.

It is a good thing to extend the length of time an individual has to have lived in Ireland from five years to eight years to apply for citizenship. It is fair and reasonable to expect anybody who applies for Irish citizenship to have proficiency in the language of this country. It is important there are clear provisions and clarifications brought to the citizenship rules in respect of how an individual can have his or her citizenship revoked. It is important legal certainty exists in that area. While it is a rare occasion on which a person's citizenship is revoked, the institutions of the State must retain the ability to revoke citizenship in those areas. In the provisions the Minister of State has put forward and the legislation coming before us, I note it would only be revoked when it is considered necessary in the interest of public policy, public order or national security. It is important we have that certainty about what criteria can be used to revoke citizenship.

Perhaps, when looking at this legislation, there also needs to be greater certainty around long-term residence and the rules for people who have lived here for 20 or 30 years on long-term residency visas and their ability to apply for citizenship. It is important to have clear certainty on that in the new scheme of rules and regulations to be brought before us shortly.

I commend the Minister of State to make reforms in this area. The people I speak to want certainty about citizenship and the process around it. The changes the Minister of State is bringing forward are a move in the right direction.

I welcome the Minister of State here today. I wish to make a few comments about what he has told us today is his view of this legislation.

First, as the Minister of State said, citizenship is not the right to carry an Irish passport. Citizenship is not the right to move from Ireland to other countries in the EU and to reside there under EU freedom of movement provisions. Citizenship is not a purely transactional matter which arises from the fact you have been physically located on Irish territory for a certain period. It is not some form of ATM transaction in which "I have been here for five years and I demand to be regarded as an Irish citizen". That is a complete misunderstanding of citizenship.

When we look at the Constitution, and sometimes people do not, Article 9 states the fundamental political duty of citizenship is fidelity to the Irish nation and loyalty to the State. These are the most fundamental duties of citizens but there are a whole series of other duties, such as the obligation to serve on a jury, as the Minister of State mentioned, or the obligation to serve in the Defence Forces if an emergency arose. These are things that are attributes of citizenship.

Citizenship also is nationality. You are joining not merely a concept or construct such as the State and achieving certain rights in that sense but you are also saying, "I want to be part of the Irish nation and I am going to be faithful to the Irish nation. I want to be regarded as a citizen of the Irish State and I am going to be loyal to that State. It is now a state to which I am pledging my loyalty." Therefore, the idea of saying, "I have been here five years. Give me citizenship", is completely misconceived. The fact you live in Ireland for any particular period may or may not entitle you to citizenship but at the very least, if you become a citizen you have the right under Irish law to participate - if you reside in Ireland - in referendums and elections, to stand for public office and to decide on issues of fundamental importance to the Irish people and their future, submitted by way of constitutional amendment to the people. You have these rights. However, the correlative obligations are that you acknowledge that this is your state and this is your nationality.

Nationality means something. You cannot just simply be an isolated person who cannot speak the language and who stays in a remote community which has nothing to do with Ireland, its traditions, values or whatever. People have to understand this. While I fully understand you may want to have a travel document on the same basis as everybody else who is an Irish citizen, by the same token, that is not the same as saying you are signing on for all the complex obligations to your fellow citizens that being an Irish citizen entails. The heads of the Bill the Minister of State has mentioned have been drafted and the Bill is going to the justice committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. I look forward to it being examined in detail there and I will participate in that examination as a member of the joint committee on justice.

I will say this: I do not accept the proposition that anybody who is in Ireland automatically qualifies for an expectation of citizenship simply by virtue of the fact the law is as it is at the moment and cannot change. I do not accept that proposition. The Minister of State is entitled to bring in legislation that will affect some people's rights and will extend the period for some people on residence grounds to remain in Ireland. However, I ask the Minister of State to consider - and we can tease it out at the justice committee - the position of individuals who are married to Irish citizens and who are bringing up a family in Ireland with an Irish citizen.

I ask him to consider whether an exception could be made in their case such that the existing residence requirements would suffice, in addition to the language and civic educational requirements he is introducing. In other words, if somebody has been here for some time and they have made all their plans as a family based on one of the members of the family, the parent, being an Irish citizen, there could be injustice in saying, "Sorry, but your plans are going to have to change" because we are going to demand that in addition to membership of this family and co-parenting with an Irish citizen, they will have to wait for another three years, or whatever it is, to become a citizen on top of satisfying the language qualification, etc.

I make the point that whereas I do not accept the proposition that the existing time periods are cast in stone and create a legitimate expectation for anybody in Ireland that they will not be changed contrary to their wishes, there could be injustices and problems for families where, for instance, one of the spouses is denied Irish citizenship unnecessarily on the basis of this change. I ask the Minister of State to bear that in mind as something we should look at carefully when we come to pre-legislative scrutiny.

I have one last thing to say. The Irish people are not unreasonable on these matters. In 2004, I remember people said the referendum was racist when it brought Irish law into line with the rest of Europe, and closed a loophole whereby a person expelled from the United Kingdom could, by going to Northern Ireland, have a child there, then go back to England and say they were an EU citizen and could not be got rid of under the Chen and Zambrano case law and all the EU jurisprudence that followed. It was not racist; it was sensible. It has done no wrong to anybody and has done a lot of good to maintain people's confidence that citizenship was not going to be made into a totally artificial status being exploited by people with no interest in this country at all and who never actually stepped into the jurisdiction of the Twenty-six Counties at any stage, but were, in fact, foreign nationals living in Britain.

I welcome this proposed Bill. I think it is sensible. Nobody can claim to be part of the Irish nation if they cannot understand the languages in which we operate. You cannot be a citizen and participate in an election if you do not know what the election is about. You cannot be a juror if you cannot speak the languages. These things are so obvious when you think about it. We have been lax in the past but there is nothing racist or retrogressive about making a sensible law. In that light, I ask the Minister of State to bear in mind the one exception of which I have spoken. There should be some flexibility for those people who are in a family situation, co-parenting with an Irish citizen, and who should be in a position not to have to wait a further three years if they can satisfy the other criteria proposed to be brought into law.

I acknowledge Deputy Daniel Ennis and his guests in the Gallery, as well as Deputy Paul Gogarty and his guest. I hope they enjoy their visit to Leinster House today.

I too welcome the Minister of State to the House. My comments follow on from the theme of the two previous speakers. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. It is important to recognise what citizenship represents. Irish citizenship is one of the most important legal statuses the State can confer, and the Minister of State made comments in this regard in his contribution too. It provides a person with a permanent legal connection to this country and with the rights and responsibilities that come with being an Irish citizen. For someone who has moved to Ireland, built a life here, worked here, raised a family and become part of the local community, naturalisation can be an incredibly significant moment.

The Government's proposed reforms are about strengthening the integrity and value of Irish citizenship. The general scheme of the Bill proposes a number of significant changes, which the Minister of State has outlined. These include increasing the qualifying period of reckonable residence for most applicants from five years to eight years, including language and civic testing and requiring applicants to demonstrate self-sufficiency. Contraventions of immigration law would be clearly identified as a bar to naturalisation. These are important changes and I suggest that most reasonable people would not have an issue with them. They seek to ensure that citizenship reflects a genuine and durable connection with Ireland, an understanding of our society and a willingness to participate in the life of the State.

It is important that Ireland's system is considered in a wider European context. As the Minister of State also outlined, a number of European countries have residency requirements of between seven and ten years already in place. Indeed, our closest neighbour, the UK, has a period of six years in total to get citizenship through the standard naturalisation route. Language and civic requirements are common across most EU countries. Requirements around self-sufficiency and financial stability are also features of citizenship systems in a number of member states and throughout the world.

I also welcome the proposed strengthening of provisions dealing with immigration law compliance and the protection of the integrity of the naturalisation process. I note changes relating to the revocation of citizenship on public order and national security grounds, together with a streamlined revocation process. Nobody should have a problem with that either. Given the importance of citizenship, any revocation mechanism must be subject to strong safeguards, due process and appropriate legal oversight.

In particular, I note the proposed provisions relating to people who have been living here under temporary protection. This proposal would clarify that the time spent in the State under temporary protection, including protection provided to people fleeing the war in Ukraine, will not be reckonable for naturalisation purposes, as their country, no doubt, would welcome them back with open arms to rebuild it and its economy.

I understand that the proposed legislation will now proceed to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. Like Senator McDowell, I am a member of that committee. We look forward to debating the proposals during that process. No doubt, as Senator McDowell outlined in his contribution, situations will arise that will need full debate and to be looked at in a sympathetic manner.

As far as I am concerned, ultimately, Irish citizenship should remain a valued and meaningful status. These reforms should strengthen confidence in our naturalisation system, while supporting positive integration and ensuring that those who become Irish citizens have a genuine and lasting connection to the country they now call home.

Irish citizenship is something to be valued. It represents membership of our nation, it carries rights and responsibilities and it should reflect a genuine and lasting commitment to Ireland. Sinn Féin believes migration must be managed in the best interests of people across Ireland, while recognising our need for workers in key sectors, the pressures on housing and public services and our humanitarian obligations to those fleeing war and persecution. It is a priority to ensure that those who legally make Ireland their long-term home are fully integrated into our society and communities. We recognise that migrants make an enormous contribution to Ireland, including in our public services, economy and communities. Any reforms must recognise and respect that contribution.

International evidence shows that the best way to achieve integration is through a clear, transparent and fair pathway to citizenship that encourages civic participation, community involvement and a genuine connection to the country.

Sinn Féin recognises that any changes to decision rules can create uncertainty for those seeking to acquire Irish citizenship and this needs to be considered. We are also conscious that delays in residence permit renewals have caused unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for many people who have made their lives here and those delays must be addressed as a matter of urgency. I regularly encounter people whose residence permits are about to expire. They apply in good time for renewal but are often left with a gap where their residence permit has not been renewed and they cannot continue to work. Their employer has to let them go for a period of time until that residence permit is renewed. That delay in the system needs to be addressed.

For many applicants, delays in renewing residence permits and the absence of a long-term residency option are major reasons why they feel pressure to pursue citizenship as quickly as possible. As the number of citizenship applications has grown, it is right to examine whether the current system remains fit for purpose and whether it properly reflects the significance of Irish citizenship. For too long, successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael governments have failed to develop a coherent citizenship policy. The current system relies heavily on length of residence, broad ministerial discretion and rules that are often unclear to applicants. The time spent in Ireland matters but on its own it does not demonstrate integration, contribution, good character or indeed a commitment to Irish society. We believe citizenship should be acquired through a structured and transparent pathway that reflects both the privileges and the responsibilities that come with it.

We support stronger clearer more consistent citizenship rules. Citizenship must not be reduced to a passport acquired simply through the passage of time and equally it must not be a privilege available only to the wealthy. Greater emphasis should be placed on integration, civic participation, community contribution and understanding of Irish society as well as language, be that Irish, English or Irish Sign Language. Work, education, caring responsibilities, volunteering, tax compliance and participation in community life should all be recognised as evidence of contribution and integration.

We want to see a pathway to Irish citizenship for people in the North who have legally moved to the North, including those married to Irish citizens and who meet the same conditions as apply in the South.

We also believe that people who have lawfully built their lives in Ireland should have access to a secure long-term residence status. Citizenship should not be the only route to certainty and stability. The question of whether transitional arrangements should be put in place for people who have established their lives in Ireland under the existing rules with expectations around when they could apply for citizenship based on reckonable residency must be examined.

I thank the Minister of State for coming here for the debate. I recognise that in his opening statement he talked about the need to periodically review the legal framework around citizenship and it is important that we have space for this discussion. It is great to have space for this debate without the context of the legislation. However, my concern is that how it was announced has created a huge amount of concern among our migrant community, many of whom are on the pathway or believed they were on the pathway to citizenship, specifically security and stability in the knowledge they could stay here and build lives here permanently.

My concern is that the way this legislation was announced and these massive changes were announced seems to be in the context of an urgent problem that we have to fix. However, I do not know what the problem is and maybe the Minister of State can outline what it is. What emergency are we responding to with this legislation? A lot of people feel that they are having the rug pulled out from underneath them. They have been living here and have been contributing. In some instances, they might have married Irish people but even if they have not married Irish people, their kids might be in school and they want to build lives here. They are contributing to our economy and to our communities.

Some applicants may have been here for four years and six months. They had a pathway, a plan for their lives and suddenly that is about to change. In many ways, it actually directly impacts integration. The Minister of State spoke a lot about the importance of integration as all of the contributors have. Integration is important and I hope this will come into the pre-legislative scrutiny in the justice committee. There is a plethora of research showing that having no pathway to citizenship or permanent residency and no pathway to stability of where they live for the future can have a direct impact on their ability to integrate. There is a huge amount of research into that. What is really frustrating about the context of this debate is that I am not getting the evidence on which we are making this change. All of our policy-making should be based on evidence and I am not seeing the evidence upon which this change was made.

The Minister of State mentioned about bringing us so that we are not an outlier in Europe. I do not accept that point because 11 other countries have a five-year requirement. My major concern is that we are not considering alternative pathways for migrants to apply for permanent residency. Citizenship is one thing, but creating stability so people can live here in the long term is another. Many countries do not permit dual citizenship. Some people may not want to give up the citizenship of their country of origin but they do want to build a life here. Therefore, having that alternative is really important.

I have concerns from the scant information that we have so far on the plans. One of them relates to the requirements around work. Obviously, we want people to be in our society contributing actively; that is really positive. However, what if someone becomes sick or is made redundant? Are they excluded from applying for citizenship because they have taken statutory sick pay? Will someone who may have had cancer or some sort of chronic illness be excluded? They might be looking after a relative, possibly their partner, and in receipt of carer's benefit. Will they be excluded because they received that social welfare payment? In that case, we are sort of saying that the only pathway to citizenship is for people who have money and do not need to rely on support in the State even if they have been taxpaying citizens and actively contributing. If medical staff, nurses, doctors, people who come to look after our sick and our elderly, and people in the care space get statutory sick pay will they be excluded? That is a really important question that a lot of people want answered because there is not clarity on that. Will someone with a disability be denied because they receive disability payment or disability allowance?

We have already heard from one of the other Senators about the break in the Irish residence permit, IRP, renewal. There have been chronic delays in IRP renewals, as I am sure the Minister of State knows. I know there is a grace period. Will the grace period be included when it comes to totting up the months that someone has been in the country, for example? Many people have been way over. Let us say there are three months that they can apply for. They can apply on 1 March and they have three months to receive. Particularly during the Covid pandemic, there were massive delays. Again, anxiety is being created for people around that.

I am not inherently opposed to the language requirement. I agree with the other contributors on the need to be able to actively engage in society. To do so, people absolutely need to speak the language of that country, but we also need to ensure that there is State support for that because there is a cost to their getting language lessons. Again, we are saying that pathway to citizenship only exists if people have the money to pay for those lessons. There is a component around that too. The Minister of State is shaking his head. Maybe he will be able to outline if that will be part of the support programmes he plans within that.

We need to think about the long-term planning of this country. The government's own Project 2040 plan outlined the need for inward migration to meet the demographic changes that we are going to be seeing to fuel our economy. Administrative and support services rely on having 45% non-Irish labour. For accommodation and food services, it is 45%. In the information and communication sectors, it is 41%. We need highly skilled people. There is a competitive market for highly skilled labour in Europe at the moment. In order to get people into the country, we need to be attractive and incentivise. There are lots of different ways we can offer those incentives. A really clear way is providing a pathway to permanent residency. However, we are making that more difficult and more challenging through these changes. It will create insecurity and they will choose to take their high skills elsewhere. I receive emails from people working in the tech sector who are saying this.

I worry that we are creating a double-edged sword with this and I hope that will be discussed in the pre-legislative scrutiny. We are actually disincentivising people whom we need in our economy and in our labour market and that is a concern.

I will pick up on the question of alternative pathways and alternative citizenship. As I mentioned, not everyone wants to give up their citizenship if their country does not allow dual citizenship. We are quite unusual that we do not have a permanent residency status. In addition, becoming a citizen obviously has a cost to it and some people cannot afford that because of other obligations, etc., in their lives. Permanent residency gives a migrant a sense of certainty and stability that actually supports adopting and integrating into a new culture. That stability and knowing they have a long-term future somewhere is a really core component of that.

We do know that reducing access to citizenship status or having no permanent residency will have a direct impact on integration. For example, if I moved to the US for a job and I had to apply every single year for my residency application to be approved and I had a child and my child starts school but I still have to keep making that application, it would not give me a sense of hope for a future there. It would not give me a sense of stability.

That is what we are looking at here. If social cohesion and integration are our end goal, then changing the goalposts and narrowing the criteria could have a negative knock-on consequence for that.

I am not opposed to this debate. I am not opposed to having new discussions about how people can live fruitful, stable, integrated and communal lives in Ireland. However, we have a glaring gap with not having a permanent residency status. It is a glaring gap in Ireland. If I am honest, my concern is that this debate is reactionary, that we are posturing and it is not based on policy and evidence. I feel we have relentless negativity from the Government when it comes to the question of migration and a feeding of a negative statement towards migrants is having a direct impact on people. We know there is a rise in racism and in hate crime. We have seen that over the past 12 months and it is absolutely awful. It is not what any of us in the two Houses wants. We need to be careful of how we conduct this debate and to be mindful of the people and the very real lives that are affected whenever discussions about who is and is not valuable to us as a State are put into the public realm. It has real knock-on consequences. I hope this debate will continue to be constructive, evidence-based and grounded in the lives of real people and what our country needs in the long term.

I welcome this debate today. I think it is great. I will start by saying that citizenship is not a right afforded to people and there is not an automatic entitlement to it. It should be earned. The proposed changes to citizenship rules have made people sit up and realise that up until now we essentially put zero restrictions on acquiring citizenship, and that should not be. Irish citizenship should be valued. Our requirements are laughable compared with other countries. If you want to apply for citizenship in Sweden you must have eight years of residency. It is 12 years of residency in India and 15 years in Nigeria with no criminal record in that time. There has been criticism of the new proposals but they should be viewed through a positive lens both for the benefit of those applying and for integration. People need to have an interest in Ireland and not just in the value of an Irish passport. If you cannot speak the language of a country, if you know nothing about its culture or traditions and you cannot financially support yourself, you have no business applying for citizenship. One of the proposals is that people demonstrate they can support themselves and not become an unreasonable burden on the State. This is only right and reasonable. I would never expect to move to America or Australia and immediately expect access to social housing and welfare. Aontú has raised this issue and suggested language checks for citizenship. A few weeks later, the Government is running with the idea and I welcome that.

I thank the Minister of State for being here and welcome him to the House. At the outset I wish to stipulate that every State has the right to set its own terms on citizenship. I fully appreciate that and I am not arguing for open borders. However, I am saying that citizenship matters and asking people to show real commitment is reasonable. When the scheme was initially approved, the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, said that Ireland values the contributions that migrants make. I believe him, but that fairness has to cut both ways. I know outside the gate today there are many people who came here on critical skills visas and so on. They came here in their thousands under the rules we had already set. They are nurses, engineers and carers, etc. People were recruited under the critical skills permit because we needed them. I got many emails from them in the past couple of weeks. I will give the example of one who arrived in 2023 and planned their life around a five-year plan that would see a new life for them. They came here with good intentions. That has now moved to eight years. They are not looking for special treatment but are asking why the goalposts are being moved halfway through the match. My first ask is about transitional protection. Should people already on the path in Ireland be judged by the rules they came in under? Is there a grandfather scheme or what happens to them?

Second, the scheme speaks of citizenship as an earned privilege and aligning ourselves with Europe. I understand that but it does not say what specific problem each new condition that is being introduced is meant to fix. The conditions include the eight years, the income test, the language and the civic tests. I am practical and pragmatic. If you name the problem then you can measure the answer. That brings me to my third ask. I am thinking about a review of the Bill requiring that a report to both Houses be provided within two years of commencement on whether the changes do exactly what they set out to do. I think that is only fair in any law.

A friend of mine was recently in intensive care in St. James's Hospital. It was meant to be a simple procedure. He ended up staying there eight weeks and the majority of staff on that ward were nurses from Kerala, India. The people who staff our wards and build our homes deserve fair play when it comes to this. When I have spoken on the radio about migration, I have been accused of wanting open borders. Then I would be on another show and be accused of not wanting any migrants. It is a delicate topic and it is hard to play all sides, but I think fairness is what is required. I also believe that changing the goalposts in the middle of the match is unfair.

I have closing remarks to hand but I am going to speak back to what people have said. The first thing I want to make absolutely clear from my perspective as a Minister of State, from the Government's perspective and that of the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, is that we believe in fairness. Absolutely, at the heart of the decisions we try to take day to day on any aspect concerning migration, fairness and how it will impact are always at the forefront of our consideration. What we have looked at in this area with the changes we are bringing forward, is what we believe is a fair system. We believe it is a fair system in how it will impact on people who are going through the process to achieve what is an incredible privilege, which is Irish citizenship, and how it will impact on the State by having a system in place that is fair and reflects the modern values of the State. Every Government, as Senator McDowell said, is entitled to bring in a review of legislation and make changes to put in place what it believes to be the correct approach. In this area, that is what we are attempting to do. We are not fundamentally trying to make it more difficult for people to achieve citizenship. We are trying to have a process that will result in more inclusive citizenship for somebody who has earned the privilege of citizenship.

A Senator who is unfortunately no longer present raised a number of things and asked what this or that will be. We have to factual about these things. We are having an early set of statements on legislation that is going in for pre-legislative scrutiny. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot ask everything you want to cherry-pick and look for an answer today when you know, as a legislator, that all those questions you are asking are part of the process we are going to go through. It is important to recognise that I want that pre-legislative scrutiny to be deep and strong and to give people an opportunity to work through these questions. We are not trying to do anything suddenly.

I want to draw one or two small points. First, I appreciate people feel it is important to make mention here and there of other things but I do not want to conflate this discussion with things like IRP cards and how fast we are renewing them or whatever. To be clear, I recognise the problem that was in that area. I have committed extra resources and have asked my officials to commit extra resources to ensure we have a much better and more functioning process there. It does not have a particular impact in this area.

I want to challenge Senator McCarthy on one thing. I take his bona fides on it and he brought a smile to my face with the notion that he could be in favour of an open-door immigration policy one day and the next be accused of being anti-migrant. It is something as Minister of State with responsibility for migration that I experience almost daily. Sometimes it can happen within an hour and within the one debate.

Language is so important. I really value the work that is done by so many people who have come into this country, who work not just in the health system but in our tech industry and in construction. I want them to be here. I want them to participate fully in the country they have chosen to live in and to be able to work and to do all the other things. However, they do not come for citizenship. They come because they want to work, to live here, to participate and to base themselves here. The notion that somehow or other they think they have an automatic right to Irish citizenship because they have come here to work is not an idea I support. Citizenship is a privilege. It is something people must value, and they must have that as part of a process that is fair to them and to the State. That does not mean we want them to leave or that we somehow or other do not value them as much. Many EU states have a residence period of ten years and many have one of eight or nine years. Yes, others have a shorter period. Until now, we have had a shorter period. That does not mean that those states value or devalue those people. It does not mean that we use the number of years to compete as to whether or not people come here to work. I would like to think that one of the reasons people come here to work is that they get an opportunity to be part of a vibrant, strong, modern Ireland, to choose to earn their living here and to get the benefits of the pay and conditions available here in the industry or job in which they have chosen to work. I would be disappointed if the idea was that they picked a country off a map because they thought they would get citizenship in five years. If they have a plan that wants them to be here for long, surely we can build those extra few years into it.

Issues were mentioned and thrown out about language support and that we must support people. To make it clear, we already do. We have integration funding and supports that help, through partnerships, people with language and language skills. It is critical that if someone wants to play a firm, developed role as a citizen in the country they have chosen to get citizenship in, their integration is based on the fact that they can use one of the main languages, whether the day-to-day language of English or the other official languages of Irish or Irish Sign Language. That is so important. I do not for one minute think that is an impediment to somebody getting citizenship. That is an enhancing process for someone to be able to use their citizenship to enjoy the full benefits of having it.

I thank the Senators for their remarks. I look forward particularly to engaging with those who are on the justice committee and who have indicated their involvement in this process. We have now a process that will take place. At its heart, I believe that at the end of it we will have a better, more effective system that is fair to all. That is what the Minister and I want to see in terms of this legislative change.

I ask the Acting Leader when it is proposed to sit again.

At 1 p.m. next Tuesday.

Is that agreed? Agreed.