Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 9, to delete line 8.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 relate to the circumstances under which the Minister can refuse to issue a passport. We dealt with the matter at some length on Committee Stage and I hoped the Minister would return with some amendments to the section.

There are various circumstances under which the Minister can refuse to issue a passport, with the first being blindingly obvious. If the Minister is not satisfied a person is an Irish citizen, a passport will not issue. That is obvious and there is no difficulty with it. If the Minister is not satisfied about a person's identity, a passport will not issue either, which is common sense.

Under section 12(1)(c), a provision indicates the Minister may not issue a passport if "the person would be likely in the opinion of the Minister, after consultation, where appropriate, with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Minister for Defence or both, to engage in" various types of conduct.

The first type of conduct which can result in a refusal to grant a passport is if that person "might prejudice national security or the security of another state". If we believed somebody in Ireland to be a terrorist looking for a passport, and we had sound evidence to suggest that if that person went to another state he or she might blow him or herself up with other people, blow up other people or shoot others, it is reasonable that the State would not issue a passport.

Another provision is if we believe a person "might endanger public safety or order," a passport will not be issued. That is reasonable in circumstances where if a passport is not issued, there is an appeals system. That was originally absent from the Bill but we have that because of matters raised on Second Stage. It is an imperfect system and I will come back to it.

I am concerned about two other provisions in section 12(1)(c). We can refuse a passport if we believe it "would be contrary to the common good". I assume this refers to a person being given a passport. I propose we delete the words "would be contrary to the common good". I ask the Minister of State to give examples of what is meant by that phrase. Will he provide three or four examples of the circumstances in which a passport would be witheld on the basis of a belief it would be contrary to the common good to issue one? It seems to be an extraordinarily wide phrase.

It is reminiscent of the approach taken by the old Soviet Union and still taken in China. If people go abroad and are critical of the state or government there, it would be perceived as being contrary to the common good in those countries. A variety of other countries have a similar view of the world. The Iranians are not too enthusiastic in allowing people go abroad who might be critical of Iran and Syrians do not greet that sort of conduct with great enthusiasm. In Myanmar they do not want people either at home or abroad to be critical.

There is a variety of totalitarian countries that curtail the freedoms of their citizens within their borders and the freedom of citizens to leave the state on the basis that if they leave, those people may make a statement critical of the state, contrary to the common good. I do not know the function of that provision in passport legislation enacted in this republic and I would like the Minister of State to spell out the specific circumstances envisaged.

The first two provisions I referred to were the possibility that a person might prejudice national security or the security of another state or endanger public safety or order, be it in this State or another. I presume the reference to this State might pertain to people going abroad to collect armaments to bring to this State. These provisions appear to cover the broad range of eventualities about which we need express concern.

In five or ten years we may have a Government that is a bit prickly and does not like to be criticised. We could assume representatives of an NGO are going to an international conference to explain why there is so much child poverty in Ireland, or who have a view about whether we are protecting people's civil rights in particular areas. They may want to go to an international conference relating to the education of autistic children. Deputy Hanafin may be the Minister for Justice, and as she seems incapable of taking criticism on that issue or even constructively responding to it, she may decide it would be contrary to the common good if a person spoke at the conference expressing criticism of the Government of the day.

This particular provision smacks of a danger that could control people's democratic rights outside Ireland to engage in issues that may make the Government uncomfortable. They may not be issues posing a threat to people's safety or national security but they may cause general discomfort.

We could presume a pop band performs songs we do not approve of. If members of the band sought passports for a tour around the United States, it may be decided that if the songs are performed there, the country may be deprived of a few extra tourists. The passports may not be issued.

See this speech in context