Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senators for their comments. The term "common good" is included in the legislation to give the Minister discretion in exceptional cases. In practice, it is unlikely a Minister will invoke the power to refuse a passport on the basis of the common good. This provision is also included in recognition of the explicit use of the term "common good" in the High Court judgment that first identified the unenumerated constitutional right to travel and 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 a number of restrictions. The concept is defined and clarified further by reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly Protocol No. 4 to that convention. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is 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. This means, inter alia, that the restriction in each case must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. Furthermore, a 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.

I consider that there is value in retaining scope for discretion under the Bill, as Senator Quinn argued. I am opposed to this amendment as it seeks the deletion of the part of the section providing for such discretion.

Senator Cummins requested examples. If a person had a psychiatric illness and his or her treatment were discontinued if he or she left the country, that would be an issue. My officials checked on the number of passport refusals and, in the past three years, there was only one refusal. As I said, it is unlikely to happen. This provision is intended to provide discretion in exceptional cases.