Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Tá sé go hiontach go bhfuil an deis agam labhairt ar an mBille seo. Don chuid is mó, tá sé ceart go bhfuil an Bille seo curtha os comhair na Dála ach tá roinnt rudaí ann a bhfuil muid buartha fúthu — an ceart taistil lasmuigh den Stát agus an ceart go mbeidh pas ag duine atá luaite in Airteagal 40.3 sa Bhunreacht. De réir sin, tá sé ceart go bhfuil reachtaíocht ann a thugann le fios an córas atá i gceist agus conas a déileálaimid le pasanna, conas mar a eisítear iad agus cad ba chóir bheith sa phas féin. Faoi láthair tá seo faoi smacht reachtaíochta ó 1925.

The Bill introduces the concept of the child's best interests into the decision-making process. I welcome this change, as there are occasions when we need to have this approach to the fore. Section 14 provides for the issue of passports to children and outlines the conditions governing this area, including the circumstances in which the consent of a parent or guardian is not required. In these changed times, that is to be welcomed. The change is consistent with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I also welcome the introduction of the right for transgender persons to change their gender on their passports. This is a recognition of the world in which we live and the circumstances in which people find themselves. This is the first time express recognition has been given to the rights of transgender persons in law. This is a positive development which I hope is the start of the process of similar recognition in future legislation. It is important for people to be treated on an equal footing.

I have a number of key problems in regard to what is proposed. Thankfully, between the first and final drafts of the Bill, the Minister addressed some of the problems that were highlighted. However, I have a major concern about section 12 which provides for a refusal to issue passports. This section gives the Minister dangerously extensive powers of discretion with no transparency. The Minister of the day may make a decision on the basis of his or her opinion, or that of a colleague in Government, to deny a citizen a passport and, by extension, deny him or her the right to leave the State. Those rights are outlined in Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. Thus the Minister can deprive individuals of this fundamental liberty if it is his or her view that they "might endanger public safety", "be contrary to the common good" or, in the often abused term, prejudice State security.

This is a dangerous mechanism. I recognise that at times there may be a need for that power to exist, however, the problem is there is no guarantee that in the case of a refusal to grant a passport or the withdrawal of one, the Minister would have to issue a clear and detailed statement of the reasons for the decision. It is outrageous to vest such powers in one political personality. The Government is essentially proposing that even where no convictions exist, and perhaps even where no charges have been preferred against an individual, the Minister alone, and in the absence of any independent or judicial oversight, can sentence an individual to a lifetime of severely restricted travel or State arrest. In effect, this would result in the person having to remain within the State, given that travelling abroad in this day and age requires a passport.

An individual who considered he or she was being wrongly denied his or her constitutional right could initiate judicial review proceedings but, as anybody who has gone down that road understands, to do so is a lengthy and expensive process which would clog up the courts. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us as to how many people have been refused passports in recent years.

At a minimum, this Bill should provide that the Minister must issue to the individual a clear and detailed statement of the reasons for his or her decision to refuse the application for a passport. Otherwise, the Bill should contain an appeal mechanism against a refusal to an independent body or individual, such as the Irish Human Rights Commission. Some organisation should be available to review the reasons for an individual to be refused a passport. I will table an amendment to this effect on Committee Stage.

For once we are producing legislation to regulate how passports are issued. The Bill introduces the use of biometric data to the process. This automatically raises human rights concerns, especially regarding the right to privacy. We have a data protection commissioner and the Irish Human Rights Commission. In the main, I welcome the Bill. I do not have a difficulty with the inclusion of biometric data on the passport per se, my concern relates to how the data is collated, stored and the other uses to which it can be put.

From the Department's briefing note, it appears the Bill is a response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. It should be noted that at no time has any evidence-based case been made to justify the introduction and retention of biometric and personal information belonging to passport holders. I accept there has been a demand for this from the United States and it is also part of the "fortress Europe" agenda, for a tightening up of identification for security purposes. That is the basis on which the Bill before us, and similar legislation in other countries, is predicated.

I have yet to be convinced that such a change will prevent a similar attack to that which occurred on 11 September 2001. We must take care to ensure we do not continuously undermine our basic rights in the pursuit of this agenda by forgetting the concept of human security. If we address poverty, deprivation and other such problems throughout the world, we would have a more secure and stable international community and we would not be as open to the attack that took place on 11 September 2001 or the subsequent attacks in Madrid, London and other parts of the world.

Let us consider the number of people who have been brought to this country, or other parts of the European Union, by human traffickers. These people prove that it is possible to travel without passports to any country. Interfering with the rights of law-abiding citizens will not change the situation, it will merely make travel more difficult and more expensive for us all. I accept technology is developing but just because the United States has insisted upon it, does not make it right to introduce this highly expensive system which could potentially compromise human rights. We have already jumped through the hoops with regard to passenger record numbers, PRNs, because the United States demanded them. The whole European Union capitulated under the threat that no European citizen who was not compliant would gain entry to the United States. At some stage somebody will have to call a halt. In the past five years we have repeatedly passed European legislation with regard to fortress Europe. This is part of the same agenda.

One of the key principles of privacy in data protection is that any interference with rights must be justified and proportionate. This is not proportionate or, at the least, it has not been demonstrated to me that it is. In July last year the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner held, in regard to the Swiss biometric passport system, that the storage of biometric data on a central database was disproportionate to the objective of identity verification of passport holders. I urge the Minister and his officials to consider this finding and ascertain whether we are moving beyond where we should be positioned at this time.

For the purposes of the Bill, biometric data are defined as information relating to distinctive physical characteristics and may include measurements of the same. Currently, the only biometric data in use for passports are facial images stored in a central database by the Department of Foreign Affairs — in other words, the photographs sent in are scanned and produced digitally on computer to make them easier to read. There is a logic to this, particularly in this day and age, as it makes proceeding through passport control quicker because a computer can read the passport. However, under the definition included in the Bill, at any time and without consultation the Minister could extend the biometrics required from passport applicants to include iris images, fingerprints and, potentially, even DNA profiles. At a minimum, the Bill should be amended to limit biometric provisions to facial images, thereby requiring any further extension to be preceded by full Oireachtas debate and scrutiny. Essentially, I ask that we proceed with the existing system of using the facial image only. If the Minister wishes to include fingerprints, iris scans or other biometric data, the Bill should be brought back to the House to enable us to debate the measures to find whether they are proportionate and properly justified.

Will the Minister confirm that the use of this database and its contents will be limited to that of processing the issuing or cancellation of passports, as this is not clear in the Bill? If there are exceptions to this use, will he outline them? If he addresses this question, the public will be content the database may only be used for passports and cannot be used for any other purpose.

I questioned the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform last year on the situation in the National Gallery which had introduced a security system which required staff to place a finger in a fingerprint reading device. The staff were concerned by this. The Minister stated in reply that the device identified two points of recognition rather than the standard used as evidence in a court, that is, ten points of recognition. To recognise two rather than ten points of recognition might be sufficient for a passport. I was further informed that when staff were scanned, the information was scrambled in order that it could only be used by the computer and not to tell when staff arrived or left. If this type of biometric data is involved, we need to know. There is not enough detail in the Bill for us to tell what level of biometric data is being or will be sought. We need a commitment from the Minister to debate this matter further. The way the world is, it is probable that extra criteria for passports will be added bit by bit. The House should be able to determine whether such change should happen.

Will the Minister demonstrate that the new passport system will not amount to the introduction by stealth of a massive biometric database which could be used by domestic agents such as the Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners or the Department of Social and Family Affairs and which cannot be used, sold on or exchanged with foreign security agencies? Will he detail the safeguards he is putting in place to prevent the abuse of this huge amount of data, which could happen? We do not want a repeat of the situation which arose last week, where a staff member in the Department of Social and Family Affairs leaked confidential information to a brother who used it to target a person to extort money. Guarding against the security agenda is not the only issue. We need a proper data protection system in place. While all such activity is covered by the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, owing to the nature of the data and the size of the database, we must include any extra elements required as the Bill moves through Committee and Remaining Stages.

Section 8 states: "The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make such arrangements, including contractual arrangements, as he or she considers appropriate with such persons as he or she thinks fit for the processing of biometric data in respect of applicants for passports". Is the Minister seriously considering privatisation or outsourcing? One of the elements of the passport system is that it is operated by civil servants who have signed up to the Official Secrets Act and other requirements. If we are considering outsourcing or privatising the processing of something as sensitive as biometric data, or even if there is such an option, we need to know.

Section 3 provides for the making of regulations by the Minister, while section 5 provides for the performance of relevant functions by the Minister on the authority of the Government. It would be preferable, as the Human Rights Commission has stated, if an explicit reference was included in the text of the Bill concerning the obligation of the Minister to take human rights standards into consideration.

Tá a lán eile agam le rá agus labhróidh mé ar Chéim an Choiste faoi costais, an Ghaeilge agus gardaí ag síniú foirmeacha. Ní cóir go mbeadh gardaí ag cur amú ama ag saighneáil foirmeacha do dhaoine nach bhfuil aithne acu orthu. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh leis an mBille dul tríd an Chéim seo agus go mbeidh muid in ann Bille níos foirfe a dhéanamh de ar Chéim an Choiste. Tá gá le sin.

See this speech in context