Alex White (Labour)

I welcome the introduction of the Passports Bill in this House. We are conscious that it has been the subject of debate in the other House and, as the Minister of State fairly acknowledged in his speech, a number of amendments tabled in that House were accepted in the course of the debate. That is a good thing.

The principal point the Minister of State made, with which we all agree, is that something as important as the passports issuing regime ought to be put on a legislative footing and this has not been done until now. It is important that is done at this stage so that there can be full public confidence and transparency in the system and we understand the rules and regulations and the basis upon which a passport is issued and cancelled.

It is a vitally important right of a citizen to have the liberty and the opportunity to travel and what goes with that is the requirement to hold a valid Irish passport. It is extremely important that persons should be able to see the basis upon which they are issued with that document and the trust that is reposed in the holder of a passport in respect of their right to travel and their right to present their documents wherever they are in the world. This is an important right and it is vital there are clear rules in regard to the regulation of the issuing of passports.

I welcome what appears to have been a comprehensive survey by the Department in respect of interested bodies such as the Irish Human Rights Commission and the Data Protection Commissioner in regard to aspects of this legislation which concern their roles and responsibilities. That is very important. I accept this is done increasingly with all legislation where areas of responsibility arise and it is very good that it is being done in this case also.

Senator Walsh referred to the question of validation by the Garda. We have all gone to the local Garda station to get our evidence of identity signed. It often strikes me that the gardaí themselves would much prefer the system they administer to be on a legislative footing. This is important both for the citizen and for those who have to deal with the applications.

I am concerned about one or two issues and I expect to return to these on Committee Stage. I am not sure about the provision which allows the Department to retain the services of an independent contractor or a third party to collect information from applicants at authorised centres around the country or at locations abroad. I am not sure what is the real intent of that provision and I have some concerns in regard to it. As we are aware, a passport, being a public document, remains in the ownership of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I am a little uneasy and would like to have explained to me the basis, the relevance or the need for contracting out the collection of data related to the issuing of passports.

The Bill includes provisions regarding the issuing of emergency passports and the issuing of passports generally. This has been the subject of controversy recently. I am not sure whether it has come up previously in the debate. I refer to the continuing practice of politicians, whether Senators or Deputies, of getting involved in obtaining passports on behalf of citizens. I do not for a moment suggest there is anything improper about this; it is a practice in which Members of all parties have engaged. However, I wonder whether we have not reached the stage where this process has been properly professionalised and people know the deal, the requirements and where they can get their passports. I am uncomfortable with the notion that politicians, councillors, Senators and Deputies are the go-betweens in respect of something as important as a passport. This is something we ought to consider ending.

I note the reference in section 12 to the question of a refusal to issue a passport. Some of the criteria in section 12 recur in section 18, which deals with the revocation and cancellation of passports. We may have the opportunity to examine these individually on Committee Stage. What concerns me and others is what looks like a catch-all provision in section 12(c)(iii) which empowers the Minister to refuse or cancel a passport where he or she feels it would be contrary to the common good that a person should have or retain a passport. I am always uncomfortable about catch-all provisions such as that. If we can specify other issues in the Bill, we should be able to specify pretty much all the circumstances, as best we can, whereby we think a passport might be refused or cancelled. We might be able to revisit this on Committee Stage.

My time is up, but my final point is on the appeals system. The Minister makes a decision and provides for an appeals mechanism in the Bill, but he will appoint the appeals officers. I do not suggest there would be impropriety, but where we seek transparency in the system it is odd, although not unprecedented, that the Minister who makes a decision, say, to refuse a passport also appoints the officers who decide on an appeal. We might reconsider that.