A total of 143 persons, including 48 spouses and children of investors, have been naturalised under the passports-for-sale scheme since it was established by former Minister for Justice and Communications, Mr Ray Burke, in 1989.
This is part of the "statistical and other information" contained in a "summary" of the Government's review of the scheme, published by the Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, yesterday.
A number of breaches of the guidelines for the operation of the scheme, set out in a statement of intent in 1989, are revealed in the report, relating particularly to the requirements on residency and evidence of good character.
But the Minister, Mr O'Donoghue, told the Dail yesterday that "by and large, the main elements of the statement of intent were complied with".
The requirement of 60 days residency in the State prior to application for a passport was not complied with in 56 cases. It was adhered to in 10. The commitment to reside in the State after naturalisation was adhered to in 17 cases and ignored in 49. The evidence of "good character" was established in 17 cases and not in 49 cases.
These findings led the Fine Gael spokesman, Mr Jim Higgins, to challenge the Minister's contention in the report that the guidelines were complied with. He called on him to publish the entire report and make its contents fully available to the Moriarty and Flood tribunals.
Over the period 1989 to 1994, according to the report, the range of investments made under the investment-based naturalisation scheme widened from industrial development to include, for example, some property and forestry development and the shipping sector, according to the report. In this period, 66 investors, plus 39 spouses and children, were naturalised.
New guidelines were introduced in 1994 and 29 investors, plus nine spouses and children, had been naturalised since their introduction. In general, the provisions of the terms of reference had been complied with, the report said.
The Rainbow Government decided on September 4th, 1996, that no new applications should be accepted pending the introduction of specific legislation, while the processing of existing applications could continue.
The Government decided, on March 11th, 1997, that 19 cases on hand at September 4th, 1996, were to be regarded as cases where commitments had been made, while 50 other cases were to be left over until legislation was in place.
Referring to four applications processed by the outgoing Rainbow Government, the report says that on May 6th, 1997, despite the decision of March 11th, the Government decided that additional applications should be accepted in respect of three companies. The Government further decided, on June 25th, 1997, the day before it left office, that a further application should be accepted in respect of a fourth company. It approved the substitution of an application for investment in a particular company where the original investor had withdrawn, the report states.
The new Government decided, on September 2nd, 1997, that further consideration of the scheme should be deferred pending the submission of this report.
The summary report, submitted to the Government in the form of an aidememoire last February, reveals that the scheme brought in investment in excess of £90 million. "It is difficult to say precisely how many jobs have been created/preserved but the information suggests that the figure is in the thousands," it says.
It continues that regulation of a scheme of this kind is very difficult for various reasons - checking character references for persons who have never lived in Ireland; checking whether the persons concerned have, in fact, honoured the undertaking to spend 60 days in Ireland in the two years after naturalisation; and the inability to take effective action against persons who might not honour their commitments regarding residence.
The countries which gave citizenship in return for investment or direct payments to governments, in so far as the Department of Justice ascertained, were St Christopher and Nevis, Tonga, Belize, and Panama. It is understood that in 1994 the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Ecuador, Uruguay and the Bahamas operated similar arrangements.
The Minister was of the view that the scheme, as constituted, should not be re-established, the report concluded.
