Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)

In respect of amendment No. 14, it is very unlikely that in practice the Minister would seek to invoke the power to refuse a passport on the basis of the common good. Its inclusion is intended to provide discretion in exceptional cases. It is also included in recognition of the fact that the High Court explicitly cited the common good in the judgment that first identified the unenumerated constitutional right to travel as a limitation on that right.

The power to refuse a passport on the basis of the common good is not unlimited and is subject to several restrictions. The concept is defined and clarified further by reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, in particular Protocol 4 to that convention. The Minister is also obliged by the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 to perform his functions in accordance with the State's obligations under the convention and its protocols. Among other implications this means that the restriction must in each case be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. Furthermore, refusal to issue a passport including a refusal on the basis of the common good may be appealed to the passport appeals officer and is also subject to judicial review. There is value in retaining scope for discretion under the Bill and I am opposed to the amendment seeking its deletion.

In respect of amendment No. 15, it is important to retain scope to refuse a passport to a person likely to engage in conduct that might endanger him or herself. My Department has been involved in a few tragic consular cases involving citizens who inadvertently placed their health or lives at risk by travelling abroad. As with other grounds to refuse, this power would rarely be exercised and would have to be exercised in compliance with the Minister's obligations under the ECHR, as well as being subject to appeal and judicial review. In such cases the Minister will normally be in receipt of information provided by family members and or medical practitioners. Furthermore, as the Bill provides, when a passport application is refused the Minister will always provide reasons in writing to an individual. In cases of this nature the practice will also be to outline the circumstances in which a passport could be granted. This might, for example, involve the applicant supplying written confirmation from a medical practitioner that he or she is fit to travel. As removing the Minister's discretion would remove any capacity on the part of the Minister to satisfy the health and welfare of vulnerable citizens, I oppose the amendment.

In respect of amendment No. 17 tabled by Deputy Michael D. Higgins, section 18(6) provides that "an applicant for a passport shall, if ... required by the Minister, surrender a passport issued to him or her (whether or not it is valid) before another passport may be issued to him or her". Section 6(2)(b) provides that an application shall be "accompanied by such information and documents in relation to the person as the Minister may require under section 7". The Minister is thus entitled to require an applicant to submit a previous passport as part of an application for a new passport. Furthermore, the Minister may refuse, under section 12(2), to issue a passport if an application does not comply with section 6.

Consequently, while I appreciate the constructive intentions underlying amendment No. 17, there are other provisions in the Bill that permit refusal when an applicant refuses to surrender a previous passport and I do not propose to accept the amendment.

See this speech in context