John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 24 has already been discussed with amendmentNo. 16.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 13, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

"(e) The Minister is notified by the Courts Services that an order has been made that a passport issued to a child should be cancelled for the purpose of securing the welfare of the child,".

Amendment No. 24 was discussed with amendment No. 16 and the Minister indicated he would take on board one of those amendments. I will withdraw amendment No. 24.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 26 in the name of an tAire has been discussed with amendment No. 3.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 26:

In page 14, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

"(7) A reference to a passport in this section includes a reference to a document which was issued as a passport by the Minister before the commencement of sections 6 and 7 and which had ceased to be valid before the commencement of section 27(1).".

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 27a in the name of the Minister arises out of Committee Stage proceedings.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 27a:

In page 14, line 9, to delete "(e) or (f) of subsection (1)" and substitute "(e), (f) or (g) of subsection (1)".

This is a technical amendment to the wording of the Bill that arises from the acceptance of amendment No. 16 from Deputy Shatter. That acceptance incorporated into the Bill a further basis on which the Minister may refuse to issue a passport. The basis set out in section 12(1)(g) concerns cases where the Minister has been notified by the Courts Service that an order has been made to require the surrender of a child's passport or to require any person to refrain from applying for a passport for a child.

Following consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, it has been agreed that a further minor consequential amendment is required to provide a corresponding provision for appeal in section 19 in respect of a refusal under section 12(1)(g). To do so, it is necessary to insert a reference to paragraph (g) in section 19(1) and to move the word "or".

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 14, lines 14 and 15, to delete all words from and including "(other" in line 14 down to and including "citizen)" in line 15.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments No. 29 and 30 in the name of Deputy Shatter are related and will be discussed together.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 14, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

"(4) A person who appeals a decision of the Minister pursuant to the provisions of this section shall within seven days of lodging such appeal be furnished with the reasons for the decision given in respect of which the appeal has been lodged.".

This amendment relates to the situation of a person being refused a passport and being informed by the Minister. Further along, the Act provides an appeal mechanism. It is nearly impossible for someone to appeal a refusal if he or she does not know the grounds for the refusal. It is reasonable that, when a person's application is refused, he or she is given the information concerning the reason. It is a basic requirement and the appeals mechanism will be rendered inadequate if this measure is not included.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 19(15) provides that the Minister may prescribe time limits for the making and determination of appeals under section 19. It provides for a prescription of such ancillary, supplemental or consequential matters as may be necessary for giving full effect to the section. In light of this provision, I do not wish to include specific time limits in the primary legislation. I agree with Deputy Shatter in his amendment that clear limits are necessary and I appreciate the constructive intention behind the amendments, but it would be preferable to specify these matters in regulations. The regulations will also address other time limits, such as the period of time within which a decision on appeal must be reached.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be brief because I understand Deputy Timmins's point. I am not certain that this relates entirely to time limits, though specific time limits are important. Normally there is a 28 day period during which one may appeal, whether with regard to planning, social welfare or any such area. This is usually transposed from one piece of legislation to another so I do not understand why it has not been included in this case. Deputy Higgins's proposed amendments Nos. 27 and 28 also addressed this matter, which relates to a lack of clarity on why a passport may be refused, withheld or withdrawn. A clear appeals system to an independent body applies in the case of social welfare and one's passport is as valuable a document as one's social welfare record. I do not understand the restrictions in this case and I think the Minister should have accepted any one of these amendments.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As Deputy Lynch correctly indicated, there are two aspects to this matter and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael P. Kitt, only addressed one, the time aspect. He quoted section 19(15), which states that the Minister may prescribe time limits, but can this be amended on the floor of the House to state that the Minister shall prescribe time limits? We feel that if the word "may" stays in the legislation, time limits will probably not be applied. Many Departments have time limits and where there are none, such as in dealings with the Land Registry and the Health Service Executive, HSE, it is difficult to elicit information. Can the word "may" be replaced by "shall" in this case, although a specific amendment in this regard has not been tabled?

The second aspect of this, which the Minister of State did not refer to in his response, is the reason for refusal. If I am denied planning permission I receive a letter explaining why it has been refused and I can get detailed information on the refusal from the local authority. A person refused a passport deserves this information, at the very least, particularly if he or she is to make an appeal. If a person is denied a passport under this legislation, how is he or she to formulate an appeal without knowing the reason for the denial?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Reasons are given at the time of refusal or cancellation. Section 12(3) states that the Minister shall inform the person by notice in writing of the decision and the grounds for refusal. I agree with the Deputies on the need for reasons to be given and for time limits but we feel it is preferable to specify such matters in regulations and we will have the regulations ready before the Bill is enacted. Section 12(3) ensures that clear grounds are given at the time of a refusal or cancellation.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 14, lines 42 and 43, to delete all words from and including "officer" in line 42 down to and including "appellant." in line 43 and substitute the following:

"officer.

(10) The appellant shall within fourteen days of being furnished with the reasons given for the decision in respect of which an appeal is lodged furnish a statement of the grounds of appeal relied upon by the appellant.".

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 15, line 37, after "abroad)," to insert the following:

"otherwise than in circumstances referred to in subsection (2),".

Deputy Higgins's thinking on this is that using one's sibling's passport to get into a pub, as is specifically stated in section 5 of the legislation, or for another reason, will carry a fine of €500. His amendment would clarify this section because it appears that the fine is limitless. This is a technical amendment but an important one because Deputy Higgins feels strongly that legislation should be clear.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The maximum penalty for conviction on indictment for the most serious offences under section 20 is an unlimited fine and-or up to ten years imprisonment. Subsection (2) provides for a minor offence that involves the use, or attempted use, of a passport not issued to a person to gain entry to licensed premises or a club. The maximum penalty is a fine not exceeding €500.

Section 21(d) is designed to prosecute serious offences relating to identity theft, regardless of whether it relates to travel abroad. As drafted, the legislation would, theoretically, permit the prosecution of a young person seeking to gain access to licensed premises or a night club by presenting a false passport. In theory this would permit the imposition, upon conviction, of an unlimited fine and up to ten years imprisonment.

Section 22 reflects the reality that a passport is increasingly regarded as the principal and most secure form of identification and proof of age. Notwithstanding the existence of a system of identity cards designed to provide evidence of age for access to pubs and clubs, most such premises will accept a passport as an alternative form of evidence of age and in many cases a passport is a requirement. It is inevitable that on occasion a young person may seek to use another person's passport, usually that of a relative or friend, to gain entry to a pub or club. While this is rightly defined as an offence under subsection (2) it is a lesser offence and the penalty is tailored accordingly.

However, interference with or the falsification of a passport is an activity that cannot be condoned and it is important that provision remains to prosecute such offences. There is a risk that the proposed amendment could give rise to a loophole allowing a person who falsified a passport to plead that it was done to gain entry to licensed premises or a club, thereby potentially rendering him or her not guilty of an offence. It is not the Government's intention that a person who commits such an offence solely to gain entry to a pub or club should face up to ten years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. I am confident that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the courts will take the circumstances and gravity of the offence into account in the normal way when deciding whether and on what basis to prosecute and, if a person is convicted, the penalty to be imposed.

I appreciate and agree with the intentions behind the amendment but I do not consider that it should be approved.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is wrong to leave the legislation as loose as this; it seems draconian on one hand and on the other it can be interpreted that no offence has occurred. The Minister of State said that he will leave interpretation of the legislation to the good sense of the Judiciary and the Director of Public Prosecutions, and this worries me because, depending on one's background, circumstances in life and experiences growing up, one person's interpretation of something can differ entirely from that of another.

The Minister of State has suggested that a passport is now the normal form of identification and proof of age when gaining entry to clubs but that should not be the case as it is too valuable a document to be used in such a way. If people think they must use a passport to gain entry to clubs they may feel vulnerable and exposed, but that is an argument for another day.

Loose legislation built on the conviction that good sense will prevail may mean that good sense will not prevail. I am concerned there may be somebody who takes an entirely different view from the Minister of State or from the intention of the legislation. The intention of the amendment is to tighten up the legislation. I accept the law is always about interpretation but it should not be so loose as to leave it open to any interpretation one happens to arrive at on the day.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand the sentiments of Deputy Lynch's proposals. We would all agree that changing information on a passport is more serious than pretending to be somebody else to get into a night club. I have confidence in the courts that they would take everything into account. I could reflect further on this matter and, if necessary, look at this issue when it is debated in the Seanad. I know the situation in regard to young people and night clubs and I know what Deputy Michael D. Higgins was getting at when he tabled this amendment.

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the amendment being pressed?

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I do not press the amendment, does it automatically fall? If I press it does it carry on to the Seanad debate?

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment can be put in the Seanad.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can it be re-entered?

Johnny Brady (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. It can re-entered in the Seanad.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In that case I will not press it.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 34:

In page 17, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(7) A reference to a passport in this section (other than subsection 1(a)) and section 21 includes a reference to a document which was issued as a passport by the Minister before the commencement of sections 6 and 7 and which had ceased to be valid before the commencement of section 27(1).".

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 35:

In page 18, line 43, after "accordingly" to insert the following:

", and a passport issued before the commencement of sections 6 and 7 shall not be deemed invalid solely on the grounds that it was not issued under any express power conferred by an enactment".

Will the Minister of State explain if passports issued before the commencement of sections 6 and 7 are deemed to be invalid solely on the grounds that they were not issued under any express power conferred by the enactment of the Bill? The amendment is about clarifying the position in regard to these passports because many people could be left high and dry.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. Deputy Michael D. Higgins raised this issue previously. The position is that since the foundation of the State passports have always been issued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, under the executive power of the State on the authority of the Government. This practice is perfectly legitimate. Enactment of the Passports Bill will simply add a legislative basis to the exercise of this function. Passports previously issued will not be invalidated because of the technical change in the basis on which passports are issued. Accordingly, the proposed amendment is not required.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister of State saying that both systems will run parallel until the passports issued under a previous power expire and are renewed and reissued under the new legislation? Is that the position?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Michael D. Higgins talked about a saver in regard to previous passports. I am assured by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel that there is no need to add a saver as proposed. Passports issued prior to the enactment of this legislation remain valid. That is the bottom line and there is no need to add a saver to the proposal.

Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I note the Minister for Foreign Affairs has initiated a review of the passports system where Oireachtas Members could have a drop-off box. That is not the big issue for me. I do not get as taxed as some of my colleagues do on it. However, there is a related issue, namely, the opening hours of the Passport Office. It opens Monday to Friday but not on Saturday or Sunday. I do not believe it has late opening. We need to look at a system whereby the opening hours of the Passport Office are user friendly to meet the needs of modern society.

We should also have an information kiosk at Dublin Airport and Shannon Airport for people who arrive and whose passports are out of date or who have lost their passport. It happens to us all. If that mechanism or lo-call help numbers were in place at airports we would not run into the present difficulties and the drop-off box would not be an issue. Ultimately it does not bestow any privilege on the Deputy having it. It just means an individual from one's constituency does not have to come to Dublin because one can come in the morning and gets one's passport if one joins the queue. As present that system takes two or three days. This benefits somebody who may not be able to come to Dublin due to the opening hours of the Passport Office.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State for his indulgence on my own behalf and on behalf of Deputy Michael D. Higgins. I thank also the staff who have put so much work into this legislation. From time to time it must be awful to hear the Opposition try to pick holes and find fault with legislation that has been worked on for a considerable time but we appreciate that and understand things have to be done properly. Our job is to ensure there are no flaws in the legislation.

We have had a full Passport Office in Cork for a number of years, which is an incredible resource. It has opened late at night and on Sundays in emergency cases. All of us have had people knocking on our doors who have either lost a passport and did not discover it until two hours before they were due to leave for the airport. The Passport Office staff are the most obliging group of people I have come across in many years. I thank them for their service and the manner in which they carry out their functions. Getting a passport for the first time is quite daunting but the staff do not make it seem like that. Nobody has a bad word to say about them.

I thank the Minister of State, for his indulgence, and his staff and all who work on the issuing and regulating of passports.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The review by the Secretary General of the Department has not yet commenced. I would be happy to convey to those involved in the review any views Deputies may have in regard to the Passport Office. Deputies Lynch and Timmins raised certain points.

I am delighted the Passport Office in Cork is working so well as stated by Deputy Lynch. That strengthens my case for an office in the west and possibly one in the North. The office in Cork has shown how well the service works on a regional basis. I am not forgetting the points made by Deputy Timmins in regard to Dublin and Shannon Airports.

I thank Deputies who have contributed to the debate today and on other Stages in the House. There is a great deal of consensus in regard to the Bill. I thank my staff in the Department and passport office staff throughout the country. I acknowledge the constructive approach taken by Deputies. The Government has accepted a number of amendments which serve to improve the Bill. I look forward to discussing the Bill with Members of the Seanad in the coming weeks.

The Bill sets out a comprehensive statutory basis for the issuance and regulation of passports. It is the first specific legislation on passports and will replace the previous general power to issue passports under the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924.