2026-05-14

9. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will clarify that an applicant for naturalisation who has changed their name through a gender recognition certificate does not need to show use of that new name for two years in order to have the name appear on the certificate of naturalisation; if he will ensure the naturalisation process is informed by the Gender Recognition Act 2015; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35578/26]

I want to raise a flaw or a gap in the naturalisation process in the context of the Gender Recognition Act. I have been contacted by a constituent who last year changed their gender and name through the Gender Recognition Act. That process allows a person not just to register a change of gender but also to alter their name. They are a citizen of another EU state, working and living in Ireland. They applied for naturalisation but cannot progress that application because of the rule that people must be using a name for two years.

I thank the Deputy for her question and would appreciate it if she would send on the details of the case because I was not able to identify the issues on the basis of the question. It is a complicated issue and I just want to give the Deputy the following reply. Under the Irish legal system, a person’s name is the name by which they are known or which they commonly use. For most people, evidence of their name is most commonly provided and accepted in the form of a birth certificate, which, for example, may be supported by a marriage certificate in the case of a change of name on marriage. The name by which a person is known by is acquired through use and repute. Where a person seeks to use a different name acquired through use and repute in the naturalisation process, my Department requires evidence that they have been using that new name for a period of at least two years. I am sure the Deputy can appreciate that establishing a person's identity is a critical part of the immigration and naturalisation process. I want to stress that this two-year requirement is not contained in, and does not arise from, the Gender Recognition Act 2015. Rather, it reflects a broader administrative practice. It is important that a person seeking naturalisation is properly identified so that, among other things, appropriate checks can be undertaken. It is also important in establishing their new status as a naturalised citizen that it is done in a name that they are known as. Use and repute is a critical, non-statutory method for proving identity, particularly when a person changes their name outside of marriage or civil partnership. It acts as a bridge between social identity - who people know a person as - and legal identity - who a person’s documents say they are. When proving identity at any stage of the naturalisation process, the citizenship division in my Department requires evidence that a name has been used consistently. This is the bedrock of proving a person’s identity while also helping to protect against identity fraud. I understand that some other Departments are currently reviewing their requirements for use and repute for two years where a person is in possession of a gender recognition certificate. Again, if the Deputy sends on the details to me, at least I will be able to consider the matter in the context of what has actually happened.

The problem is that the use and repute clause is not applied for a marriage certificate, for example. If somebody submits a marriage certificate saying they have now changed their name, it is recognised immediately. So, it can be done but it is not being done in the case of a gender recognition certificate. When people obtain a gender recognition certificate, it is assumed that it can be used straight away. There is nothing said about a period of time that must elapse first. This needs to be looked at in the naturalisation process because my constituent has been forced to cancel their application for citizenship and has lost their fee. They do not want to carry on with obtaining an important State document with their old or so-called dead name. It will be another year before they can have a passport in their new name. This has serious implications for transgender people who are constantly having to explain their gender when they interact with the State, services and so on. It causes difficulty as well when travelling. This is something the Minister needs to look at.

If the Deputy sends me the details, I will be able to look at the issue. The naturalisation process is different from the process, say, for obtaining a marriage certificate. At the heart of naturalisation is the need for the Department to be able to identify the person who is seeking Irish citizenship. It is an essential part of the naturalisation process that people in my Department go back and examine the past of the individual seeking Irish citizenship to ensure that what he or she is saying is correct. There are factors that could preclude a person from achieving Irish citizenship. Let us remember Irish citizenship is not a right but a privilege we give to individuals based upon an application process. On the issue the Deputy raised, it is important to emphasise there is nothing in the Gender Recognition Act that undermines or affects her constituent. The issue is the necessity for identification. If she sends me the application details, I will have them considered. Ultimately, even if the matter cannot be resolved, her constituent will be able to apply in a year.

I accept what the Minister is saying about needing to check out a person's past. I have helped many people with their naturalisation applications. However, if a person has been investigated and has demonstrated a change in gender and name under the Gender Recognition Act, surely the process is simple enough. It should not take two years. There is an anomaly and it should be reviewed. The Gender Recognition Act was meant to be reviewed in any case to also allow for recognition of non-binary status. That change was recommended and indicated. This is something that will impinge on many people's lives. As far as I know, we still recognise trans people in this country. We should allow them, if they are naturalised, to move to their new name as quickly as possible.

The use and repute test is used across the board in the Department. It is not targeting any particular group of individuals. It is not too much to expect, when it comes to assessing identification, that people are able to satisfy the Department that their name is the name they have used for two years and how they have been known by repute for the same period. As I said, I will have a look at this case if the Deputy sends me the information in respect of it.