Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Senator Cummins set out the historical background to this issue and made the point that the passport is a symbol of our independence, which is undoubtedly the case. It is a document that confers rights on Irish citizens to travel within other jurisdictions. It should not be abused or misused and should be regarded as a privilege.

It is interesting that many people in Northern Ireland have applied for an Irish passport since the Good Friday Agreement, not all of them necessarily Nationalists, which is also interesting. It is good to see this happen. We all have relatives in far-flung places. I have a cousin, Peter Hendricks, in the United States who is second generation American. He applied for a passport following his first trip to Ireland, when he established links with his roots and came to appreciate the history of the country from where his forefathers had come. He was extremely anxious to have an Irish passport along with his US passport as it was a badge of identity for him. While we in Ireland may often take the passport for granted, it struck me that somebody who was two generations removed from being Irish would place such value on having and holding his Irish passport. In fact, as he travels a lot, he told me it was extraordinary how acceptable the Irish passport was in every country to which he travelled — he was not always able to say the same with regard to his US passport. It it interesting that this should be the case.

I agree with Senator Quinn with regard to the Schengen area and agree that we should participate in it. The argument heretofore was that the consequence of doing so might be to create a barrier to travelling from here to Northern Ireland in particular. However, that would not happen because it would be totally impractical. I cannot see the British who, let us be honest, in recent decades have made the minimum investment they could get away with, investing in something which would be as unnecessary as this. However, it is an established arrangement and I appreciate the matter must be handled with some sensitivity. There have been some indications in the recent past that we are moving in this direction. I support Senator Quinn's argument in this regard.

The whole purpose of a passports system has taken on a new dimension. It was traditionally about identity and where one was from. It was a form of identification when one moved to other countries which gave one access to them and to travel. Because of the global security situation that now exists due to international terrorism the implications of passports has had to be examined, as has the security surrounding them. That is why we have moved to machine readable passports. The Minister of State referred to the obligation to prevent misuse for travel in regard to terrorism or criminal activity. We have seen many instances of abuse in this regard by criminal elements in Europe as well as further afield.

I welcome the fact that in areas of doubt the Minister may seek additional identification, apart from the provision of a birth certificate and Garda certification of the signature and standing of an individual. Ireland has become more multicultural. Up to 20% of the population has been born in other European countries and elsewhere and it is important that safeguards are in place to ensure people who are issued with passports are qualifying individuals. The Minister also reserves the right to oblige people to attend for interview.

I welcome to some extent the enabling provision that will allow for the introduction at some stage of biometric identifiers such as fingerprinting and iris patterns in Irish passports. It strikes me that there is already a need for us to move in that direction. It would be a very strong preventative measure for the abuse of passports and in particular for identifying major international terrorists and criminals.

Section 14 deals with passports for children. We have seen the abduction of children all too often in the recent past. This is especially important given the propensity for international paedophile rings to abduct, abuse and transfer children between different jurisdictions. There is a necessity to introduce as many precautionary measures as possible.

I note that in his statement the Minister of State indicated that section 14 gives precedence to the welfare of the child and at the same time safeguards the rights of guardians and parents to make decisions regarding a child's welfare. I certainly welcome that. Section 14(8) provides that the Minister may regard consent, once given in writing, as remaining in effect unless subsequently revoked by a guardian. Given that marriages and relationships break down, I wonder whether we should make this area tighter.

We have also seen instances, especially involving members of the Islamic community who have married into a Christian family, where children have been abducted and brought back to the Islamic state of their father, in most cases, against the wishes of the mother. Where consent is given at an early stage in the relationship it would be prudent for further consent to be required at each subsequent renewal of a child's passport. It is proposed that the renewal of children's passports will be done every three or five years because of how they change and develop. A period of 15 or 20 years is too long for consent to be valid. If I am correct in my interpretation of the Bill I urge the Minister to table amendments in this regard on Committee Stage.