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

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

The purpose of the Passports Bill is to provide a comprehensive legislative basis for the regulation and issuance of passports. Passports are currently, and have been for more than 80 years, issued under the general administrative provisions of the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924. These passports are perfectly valid and the introduction of the Bill does not in any way suggest there are doubts in that regard.

It is now 30 years since the courts established in 1978 the unenumerated constitutional right to travel and by implication the right to hold a passport. It is time that we reflected the constitutional position in legislation. The Passports Bill seeks to do that and for the first time sets out a statutory right for a citizen to a passport.

The judgment in the 'M' case clarified that the right to travel was not an unlimited constitutional right. While refusals to issue a passport to a citizen are very rare, the Bill clarifies the circumstances in which this may occur. I will return to this issue later.

The Ireland of 2008 is very different from the Ireland of 1924. Over the years, various administrative practices have been developed in connection with the passport application process, reflecting the changes in wider Irish society. The Bill therefore addresses matters such as the consent of parents who are living apart and makes provision for the issuance of passports to persons who are undergoing or have undergone changes of gender. It sets out detailed provisions for issuing passports in accordance with the applicant's name on his or her birth certificate, whether in Irish or English, and it deals with the recognition of changes of names whether after marriage or through established usage. By placing these practices on a specific statutory footing, the Bill will promote greater legal certainty and clarity for the public.

In including these provisions in the Bill, the Minister is not seeking to develop social policy, which is the responsibility of relevant Ministers. However, there is an obligation on the Minister and the Department to provide the appropriate arrangements to permit Irish citizens to travel abroad freely and with dignity.

At all times, and particularly in times of heightened security, we must be also cognisant of the need to protect the rights of the individual. With this in mind, the Minister formally referred the draft Bill to the Irish Human Rights Commission under section 8(b)of the Human Rights Commission Act of 2000. This was the first formal referral of a draft Bill to the commission by a Minister other than the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I am grateful to the commission for its support and helpful views. Consultations on the Bill were also held with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner and I greatly appreciate the commissioner's input.

The passport system has undergone a major overhaul in terms of technology and quality of service delivery. Huge growth in demand arising from the increase in travel, advances in technology and changes in security requirements after 11 September 2001 have necessitated this reform. Major innovations have included the introduction of machine readable passports, the establishment of an automated production facility and, most recently, the introduction in 2006 of e-passports. Arising from these improvements, the Irish passport is widely seen as a high quality and very secure document. Enactment of the Passports Bill will complement this technological reform by putting in place a clear and comprehensive framework for decisions made by the Minister, and on his or her behalf by the Passport Office.

Whereas improvements in technology mean that we now have a much more secure passport, the increased security of the document must be matched by strengthening measures to tackle fraudulent applications. Organised criminals have developed increasingly sophisticated methods to carry out their activities. Moreover, crime does not respect borders and greater freedom of movement, especially within the expanded European Union, means that every member state has a responsibility to strengthen efforts to detect and prevent misuse of national travel and identity documents.

The Bill tackles fraud in two ways. First, it clarifies that before issuing a passport the Minister must be satisfied as to an applicant's identity and citizenship. This permits the Minister to require applicants to produce adequate evidence of identity and entitlement to an Irish passport. The normal level of evidence for most applications involves the submission of certificates of birth or a previous passport, and the witnessing of identity by An Garda Síochána. However, in cases of doubt, the Minister will now have a legislative basis for requiring the submission of additional documentation or, if necessary, for requiring an applicant to attend for interview.

Second, the Bill strengthens efforts to combat fraud by providing for a series of offences and penalties relating to fraudulent applications for and misuse of passports. It will also enable prosecution of such offences even where committed outside the State. This section was drafted in close co-operation with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There was a positive reaction in the Dáil to the Bill and a constructive approach was taken by all parties. Several amendments were accepted and the Bill passed by the Dáil, and which will now be considered by this House, represents an improvement on the draft published last April.

I will now explain in brief the provisions of the Bill and I will focus in particular on issues which were the subject of discussion in the Dáil. Sections 1 to 5 under Part 1 are standard provisions relating respectively to the Short Title and commencement date, definitions, service of notices, provision to make regulations under the legislation and expenses incurred in the administration of the legislation. Section 3 on service of notices was added to the Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil. This new section drew together provisions which previously had been repeated at a number of points in the Bill. It deals with the manner in which decisions and information are conveyed to passport applicants and holders. Section 6 provides for the right of an Irish citizen to apply for a passport and outlines the application process. Subsections (3) and (4) address issues which may arise in connection with applications in respect of children and persons with a physical or mental incapacity. More detailed provisions regarding consent of parents and-or guardians of children are set out in section 14, to which I shall return later.

Section 7 provides that the Minister must be satisfied as to an applicant's citizenship and identity before issuing a passport. Citizenship may be acquired in various ways: most commonly through birth; by descent through an Irish-born parent or grandparent; or through naturalisation. In some circumstances involving persons born in the State on or after 1 January 2005, it is also necessary for a parent to establish minimum periods of lawful residence in the State. This is a complex area and the nature of the documentation required in passport applications will vary depending on individual circumstances.

Section 8 provides for the processing of personal data, including biometric data, in connection with passport applications. Biometric technology makes use of the unique physiological features we all have. The inclusion of high quality photographs in the Irish passport permits the generation of facial measurements and will, over time, reduce substantially the scope for fraud. It also permits comparison of photographs at border control points to ensure that the person travelling is the real owner of the passport. The Passport Office currently has the facility to compare electronically an applicant's previous and current photographs. In time, this technology will offer scope to simplify the process for persons seeking to renew their passports. It may reduce the need for submission of certificates and for authentication of identity at the time of renewal, while at the same time ensuring a more secure system. The Passport Office is also seeking to upgrade this technology to enhance its capacity to detect and prevent multiple applications by individuals using different names and identities.

There are currently no plans to include a second biometric identifier such as fingerprints or iris patterns on Irish passports. However, it is possible that this may become standard international practice at some point in the future and it cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, subsection (2) makes provision for the possibility of contractual arrangements with a third party to collect this information from applicants at authorised centres around the country or at locations abroad. We have consulted closely with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner regarding relevant provisions in the Bill, including section 8.

Section 9 deals with periods of validity of passports. Most passports are valid for ten years but passports for children are valid for periods of three or five years depending on the age of the child. These shorter periods of validity are necessary because a child's appearance will change substantially over time. Emergency passports may be issued in circumstances where an applicant is required to travel at short notice but there is not enough time to enable production of a full passport. Such passports are valid for one year and are accepted internationally, including under the visa waiver scheme for the USA. The period of validity for diplomatic or official passports also varies depending, for example, on the likely duration of an officer's assignment to an embassy or consulate overseas. Section 9(2) would also enable passports to be issued for reduced periods of validity in other circumstances, for example, in the case of an applicant who has a history of persistent passport loss.

Section 10 sets out provisions regarding the name in which a passport is issued. Again, this is designed to reflect and underpin existing passport practice. A strict approach is required regarding changes of name to safeguard the integrity of our passport internationally. The general rule is that a passport is issued in the name of an applicant as it appears in his or her birth certificate, whether this is in Irish or English. Where citizenship is acquired other than by birth, for example, through naturalisation, the reference point is the name on the relevant supporting documentation. The section also provides for a change of name after marriage. It also permits a change of name where an applicant produces satisfactory evidence to show that he or she has used that name for a minimum of two years.

Section 11 deals with gender re-assignment and outlines the circumstances where a person who is undergoing treatment or procedures to alter his or her gender, may be issued with a passport in a new gender and/or new name. Supporting evidence must be provided, including medical evidence from a registered medical practitioner. This provision is intended to underpin existing practice of the Passport Office. I mentioned earlier the formal referral of the Bill to the Irish Human Rights Commission, and the commission welcomed in particular the inclusion of this provision.

Section 12 outlines the circumstances where a passport shall not be issued, as well as situations where the Minister has discretion in this regard. I referred earlier to the constitutional right to travel and to hold a passport, and to the way in which the Bill reflects the approach of the courts in so far as it has been held that this right is not unlimited. Section 12 sets out the grounds on which a passport shall be refused. Let me again reiterate that passports are very rarely refused to Irish citizens. There was broad agreement in the Dáil that it was appropriate to provide for an obligation to refuse on the basis that a person has not established his or her identity or citizenship. Similarly, no difficulty was raised with regard to court orders concerning persons subject to bail orders, to cases where false information is provided or in cases where difficulties arise with parental consent.

Queries were raised in the Dáil as to the provision for refusal on the basis of the common good. The inclusion of this provision is intended to provide discretion for exceptional cases. It is also included in recognition of the fact that the common good was explicitly cited by the courts in the M case as a limitation on the right to travel and hold a passport. Furthermore, the power to refuse a passport on the basis of the common good is itself subject to a number of restrictions. The Minister is obliged by the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 to perform his functions in accordance with the State's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and its protocols. This means that were the Minister to refuse a passport for the common good or on other grounds, that restriction must in each case be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. In addition, any refusal to issue a passport to a citizen, including a refusal on the basis of the common good, may be the subject of independent appeal and is also subject to judicial review.

Section 13 deals with the inclusion in a passport of information including biometric data, an issue about which I spoke already in connection with section 8. Section 14 deals with the issuing of passports for children. In line with passport practice and existing family law, section 14 gives precedence to the welfare of the child and at the same time safeguards the rights of guardians to take decisions regarding the child's welfare. The overriding requirement is that consent of all guardians must be obtained before a passport can be issued. Where consent is withheld, a passport cannot issue unless the other guardian obtains a court order dispensing with the need for that consent.

In respect of non-guardian parents, the Minister is obliged to take into account all circumstances, in so far as known to him or her, before issuing a passport without the consent of a non-guardian parent. At the same time, it is important to provide for cases where there may be difficulties in obtaining court orders, such as in cases where a child is resident outside the State with a parent or guardian. Subsection (5) therefore provides that in such cases, having regard to all the circumstances, including whether an objection has been made by the other parent or guardian, the Minister may issue a passport where he or she is satisfied that this is required to secure the child's welfare.

Further exceptional circumstances are provided for in subsection (6). This provides that a passport may be issued without the consent of one or more guardians of a child where there is an immediate and serious risk of harm to the child's life, health or safety which requires the child to travel. Finally, subsection (8) provides that the Minister may regard consent once given in writing as remaining in effect unless subsequently revoked by a guardian. The intention behind this provision is to reflect the changing structure of the family where many parents work away from home. Guardians in such situations frequently find it difficult to understand, when they have previously indicated consent to the issuing of a passport, why they have to give consent a second, third, or even fourth time in respect of the same child. Permitting some discretion under this provision will ease the burden on such families when they apply for passports for children.

Section 15 concerns the issuing of emergency travel documents. Emergency passports are usually valid for one year and may be issued in urgent cases where there is insufficient time to arrange the issue of a normal passport. Emergency travel certificates may be issued in cases where travel is urgent but where an applicant is unable to produce documentation to prove beyond doubt his or her entitlement to a passport. The certificate is valid only for a single journey and most such cases relate to an individual travelling abroad whose passport has been lost or stolen and who wishes to return to Ireland.

Section 16 provides for the issuing of diplomatic and official passports. Diplomatic passports are issued to officers of diplomatic rank or to persons or groups of persons designated by the Minister. The majority of diplomatic passports are issued to officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs, to their spouses or dependents when accompanying the officer on a foreign posting, and to members of the Oireachtas. Official passports are issued to Irish public servants who travel abroad on State business, with the principal group in this category being Irish soldiers serving abroad with the United Nations.

Section 17 requires a person who believes that his or her passport has been lost or stolen to notify the Minister and the Garda Síochána. The Minister may inquire into the circumstances of a case and may require the provision of such information as is considered necessary.

Section 18 permits the Minister to cancel a passport in certain circumstances and provides for the surrender of a cancelled passport. Reasons for cancellation must be provided and a decision to cancel a passport may be appealed to the passport appeals officer. In response to comments made on Second Stage in the Dáil, I indicated that it was always my intention to establish an independent appeals mechanism and that I would do so by Government amendment on Committee Stage. There was a broad welcome for this amendment which is now incorporated into the Bill in section 19.

Section 19 provides that a person who is refused a passport or whose passport is to be cancelled will have a right of appeal to an independent passport appeals officer. Before making an appeal, an appellant will have been provided with a statement of reasons for a refusal or cancellation. He or she can then make a case to the passport appeals officer why the decision should be overturned. The appeals officer may confirm a decision or recommend that it be set aside, and he or she shall provide reasons for this determination. Where the Minister does not accept a recommendation, he or she shall inform the appeals officer and the appellant of the reasons for not doing so. While judicial review proceedings remain an option for a disappointed passport applicant, this appeals procedure provides a speedy and inexpensive additional means for a person to challenge a decision of the Minister to refuse or cancel a passport.

I mentioned earlier that the Bill provides for a range of passport specific offences. These are set out in section 20 and include the making of false applications, possession of a false passport and sale or attempted sale of a passport. Section 20 was amended on Report Stage in the Dail to ensure no loophole was left concerning the misuse of an expired passport. The maximum penalties range from five to ten years' imprisonment and-or a substantial fine. Section 20(2) provides for a minor offence which covers situations involving the use of another person's passport to gain admission to a pub or club. The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of €500.

Sections 21 to 25, inclusive, set out related provisions on definitions, summary trial in the District Court, proceedings outside the State, liability of bodies corporate and an amendment to the Bail Act 1997. Section 26 provides that a passport will remain the property of the Minister at all times. This reflects the long-established practice to print a statement to this effect on all Irish passports.

Section 27 is a standard provision which provides for continued validity of passports issued before the commencement of the Act, while section 28 is a standard provision authorising the levying of fees for passports and other consular services.

That completes my detailed statement on the purpose and main provisions of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael Kitt, to the House. This is a simple and necessary Bill. It is surprising we have had to wait so long to debate a Bill which explicitly covers the means by which people obtain passports in this country.

Passports have been a controversial subject in the past. We all remember the passports for sale controversy where it was alleged that some people effectively were able to buy Irish passports in return for investing in Ireland. At a time of high unemployment and business failures, such investments were welcome but the process discredited the point of holding an Irish passport. A passport is a crucial identity document which allows a person, when travelling, to use the good name of Ireland.

Passports carry a symbolism and a power. Media reports have referred to people from other countries who have sought to use Irish passports because of the good name of Ireland abroad. That was especially true in trouble spots throughout the world. To have an Irish passport and be seen as Irish earned a person a warmer, and sometimes safer, welcome. Ireland, unlike the United Kingdom, the United States of America and many of our European neighbours, is seen has having no past as a coloniser. At present, Ireland is not viewed as a country which is intervening in trouble spots for its own benefit. A passport in many ways symbolised our neutrality and our good reputation.

The growth in the number of Irish passports being issued is indicative of the rapid increase in international travel and the growth of Ireland as an economic power. Eight years ago, 388,000 passports were issued. By 2003, three years later, that figure had increased by 80,000 to 468,000. Last year, more than 630,000 Irish passports were issued.

With new travel has come new dangers as well as new possibilities. The reality of worldwide terrorism necessitates greater security associated with passports, something now possible with new technology, as the Minister of State mentioned. We have seen the introduction of machine readable passports and in 2006 the introduction of biometric passports, not that many of us know what such terms mean. I suspect that many of us have yet to get our heads around iPods and MP3 players, so we will leave this technology to the experts and hope they know what they are doing.

What surprised me was that Ireland, 80 years after independence, had no formal passport Act. Instead general administrative rules and procedures were laid down in the likes of the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924. Ad hoc procedures and practices evolved.

Mentioning the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 reminds me of the historic importance of passports in achieving our independence. When Ireland became a dominion, it was presumed by Britain that all dominions were, in effect, extensions of Britain. Britain did not imagine that its dominions would issue passports, appoint ambassadors, receive ambassadors or do any of the things independent states do. The Irish Free State, however, ignored British worries and decided that it was going to issue Irish passports. Downing Street was furious and the dominions office was shocked but WT Cosgrave and his Minister for External Affairs went ahead, making Irish people the first people in the Commonwealth outside Britain to have their own passports. They then went further by appointing ambassadors and having the Governor General, on behalf of the King, accept credentials to Ireland from ambassadors for foreign countries. In issuing passports, that Cumann na nGaedhael Government was telling the world Ireland was independent and not part of Britain.

When we carry a passport, we do not just carry a little wallet with our details. We carry a symbol of our fight for independence. It may have the words "European Community" written on it now, which I presume will change to "European Union" if the Lisbon reform treaty is passed, but by having the harp and the words "Éire" and "Ireland" on it, that document symbolises the fact that we fought and achieved independence.

This Bill also includes provisions to deal with the position of children when parents are separated or divorced and with the issue of people whose names change, whether through marriage, divorce or gender realignment surgery. The latter inclusion will help solve some of the problems that arose in the case of Dr. Lydia Foy. Dr. Foy's inability in law to change her birth certificate meant she could not change her passport, causing her considerable problems. The issue of her name on her birth certificate eventually led to a court case and the landmark ruling from Mr. Justice Liam McKechnie in October last year.

While there is a constitutional right to travel, that right is not unqualified. This Bill, along with various court judgments, deals with that issue. Of course, we also face another more sinister problem in those who use Irish passports to facilitate criminal activity. Criminal activity using an Irish passport besmirches the name and reputation of Ireland and fraudulent use of an Irish passport must be dealt with severely. Any misuse of an Irish passport is unacceptable and I echo the comments of my colleague, Deputy Billy Timmins, in Dáil Éireann during the debate there on this Bill: "It is disturbing to think that the Colombia three have never been charged for an offence relating to the misuse of passports."

I am disappointed, as is my party, at the decision of the Government to exercise an opt-out from the justice and home affairs section of the Lisbon reform treaty and I hope this does not limit our ability to deal with criminality that may involve the use of our passports. This is a major concern that I ask the Minister of State to consider.

I also question the decision to move the Dublin Passport Office to Balbriggan. Decentralisation is all very well if there is no need for the public physically to visit an office. We all know the Government has created alternative ways to get a passport and it is not always necessary to visit the office but in the real world not everyone will use the new systems. There will always be people who go to the public office and it is ludicrous to move it to a location that is difficult for most people to get to. It should be at a central location where, if people choose to go to it, as is their right, they can get there easily. It makes no sense to relocate the office to an inaccessible location and I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider this decision.

It is common practice throughout the country to make copies of passports to gain entrance to night clubs and such establishments. Some people are required to produce a passport to enter such places but it is dangerous to ask people to carry their passports around with them. There is now a market for identification cards and copies of passports and this matter, which I raised previously in the House, should be examined. The misuse of passports is a serious subject.

On balance I believe this is long-needed legislation. It may be technical in cleaning up and clearing the system by which our passports operate, but a passport is a very important document in practice and in its symbolism and we must ensure it is not abused.

Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and wish him well in his position. This Bill is simple but is necessary because it will put in place new procedures in the administration of passports. I have analysed the Minister of State's speech on this Bill. It is quite detailed and says we have a right to travel so we have a right to apply for a passport. The passport is a badge of our identity and citizenship. The Bill refers to a minimum period of residence, the new concept of biometric data, the quality of photographs required, the validity of passports, procedures for obtaining a passport in an emergency situation, changing the name on one's passport after marriage or gender realignment, for example, the grounds on which a passport may be refused in the area of common good and so on.

Regarding changes in issuing passports for children, the practice of having a child's name included on a parent's passport is discontinued. The Bill also referred to the changing structures of families and I am running through its provisions to illustrate the details of this proposed legislation and how much work has gone into every aspect of it. The Bill also covers lost and stolen passports and the penalties involved when a passport is cancelled. It also goes into the new appeals system that may be used if a passport is refused.

The Bill is detailed and necessarily reflects societal changes because we live in different times and the system for processing passports had to be modernised and reformed. There has been a rapid growth in international travel and a consequent increase in demand for passports. There have been huge advances in technology and we have had to deal with changes in international security requirements. We have machine readable passports and now we have the introduction of the biometric passports. These have been designed as extra safeguards to make it easy for the Irish citizen to travel abroad freely and with dignity. Therefore, it is necessary to modernise the passport system.

The Bill will bring about an improvement in the quality of service. Usually the issue of a passport takes ten working days. In the event of an emergency it can be provided within a much shorter timeframe and, perhaps, on a same day service, at an extra charge.

The Bill includes a provision that addresses the consent of parents who are living apart when dealing with the welfare of the children. Given the changes in society, children's names are no longer on a parent's passport. Where parents are living abroad and consent is withheld creates cumbersome difficulties. I am not sure the public understands how that provision will work. If they refuse it and are living in another country, a court order must be secured. It should be made clear the way in which this will ultimately be handled. If I was explaining the issue I would have some difficulty getting it into my own head. I ask the Minister of State to look at it again and how it is explained in the Passport Office.

We have to be sure that the children's welfare is protected at all times. In recent years we have had to deal with the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 disaster and hence the need for increasing emphasis on improving the identity of passports. I welcome the introduction of the biometric system. We have also had the Columbia Three incident, following which it is clearly necessary that specific legislation be introduced to cover these type of offences. The Bill also includes the offence and penalties for fraudulent applications for misuse and abuse of passports for human trafficking, crime and so on. I am glad to note that a special mechanism is in place to detect that misuse or abuse. Given the expanded EU, we all have greater freedom of travel, therefore, it is even more necessary today that the integrity of the document is protected.

In regard to biometric technology I understand that the processing of the application will deal with personal data and photographs. I am pleased the Minister of State said that the information will only be used for passport purposes and will not be shared with other agencies. I always worry when I read that the lines on one's face can be measured from photographs and that it will be known from previous photographs whether the photograph is of the individual, a makeshift of the individual or whatever. While I welcome it for the passport system I would not like it if my photograph was lamp-posted throughout the country.

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

Except at election time.

Ann Ormonde (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a cause for concern but the Minister of State's assurance that there would be no breach beyond the Passport Office is to be welcomed.

The Minister of State gave the reasons when passports will be refused, such as, false applications, the position of false passports, use of cancelled passports and so on. I am pleased a unit has been established within the Passport Office with trained staff who will be able to scrutinise the applications.

I am concerned about the matter of lost and stolen passports. When that happens one is required to notify the Minister and the Garda. To give a small example, I was standing in a queue at the airport a year ago when the person in front of me was asked to present his or her tickets and passport, only to discover he or she did not have a passport. The queue was held up in a natural way but it meant there was panic. All the person could be told was to contact the Garda or the Minister. This was in the middle of a queue at 9 a.m. It is important to have an official or sub-office at airports, throughout the country to handle such situations. It could be a panic situation. One could have been getting one's children ready to go on holidays and left the passport on the table. In that case the family cannot travel. That is what happened on that day to the family in question because the passports were not available. Rightly, the family had to be refused permission to travel.

With all the advances in technology, such as the biometric system, I would like to think there was some mechanism in place whereby it would be possible to put up on screen the person's details, following which a temporary passport could be issued to allow the person travel. I ask the Minister of State to look again at that issue. It is not fair to the genuine people. I appreciate we have to be extra careful and stringent in regard to analysing the passport application and so on but these are genuine examples and there should be some facilities within our airports to handle such situations.

The Minister of State said the main Passport Office was being transferred to Balbriggan. I ask that we have a passport office in all the major cities to make it easy for people to make application. Given the advances in application procedures which the Bill has outlined it would be quite simple to have offices throughout the country. People should not have to make application through the post. There may be problems and it would be nice if they could be sorted out locally. Many families would prefer to do that than travel to Dublin.

On the whole, the Bill is a good one. The sections cover very wide areas. We are living in an age of huge international security problems, international crime, trafficking and the aftermath of 11 September 2001 and the Columbia Three. There are sophisticated criminals trafficking who can disguise passports. Therefore, it is necessary that these reforms be put in place. Nevertheless, I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the position regarding lost and stolen passports.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State to the House who is getting very fond of us. I congratulate him on his explanation of the Bill.

I proposed the passports for sale legislation some years ago and it was accepted in this House on Second Stage. The then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform went on to introduce his own Bill which incorporated what I was attempting to do. Senator Maurice Cummins referred to this earlier.

I congratulate the Minister of State on the efficiency of the Passport Office which I have used on a number of occasions and with which I have been very impressed. I was upset when I was not allowed to be photographed with a smile. The official said it is supposed to be one's normal face. I felt like saying, "I always smile", but he would not accept it and made me take a second photograph.

As someone who has a special interest in passports, I welcome this long overdue Bill. On a matter as important as this, it beggars belief that there has been no legislation in place until now regulating the issue of passports and the other important matters covered in this Bill. Senator Cummins educated me today. I was unaware when we became a free State of the history of how we established our first passports and our first embassies when as a dominion we were not expected to do so.

I have no great difficulty with any of the measures in this legislation, but I would like to extend our discussion to something that unfortunately is not covered here — Ireland's non-membership of the passport-free Schengen area. The Schengen area is a common travel area of the kind we used to have with the United Kingdom. Within that area, individual national borders do not count as places of control. Once inside the area, one can travel freely without border controls to any other part of the area. Since the Schengen area now includes all of the EU except Ireland and the United Kingdom, this makes practically the whole of Europe one big border-free area. In recent months, I have travelled to Estonia, the Czech Republic and Brussels on a number of occasions. I feel almost like an outsider because while others do not need passports and can have any sort of identification, I must have it. I am also reminded of what travelling between Ireland and the rest of the world was like before the Schengen area came into being and my delight when it became necessary to only go through the blue zone instead of the green and red zones.

Joining the Schengen area has naturally required a strengthening of the controls at the boundaries of the common area for member countries. In other words, while travel within the Schengen area has become freer, getting into the area has been considerably tightened up. This has involved a sharing of data between the 25 member states and the application of common rules for entry and for the issuing of visas.

By and large, I understand the system is working well and that it is very much welcomed by the people in the countries it covers, as I have seen. I can well understand why this is so, because I remember very clearly the excitement I first felt when the special blue customs channel was introduced at our airports for travellers arriving from elsewhere in the EU. It brought home to me very graphically that Europe was now one big customs-free area, and, to be frank, it brought home to me the reality of the new Europe in a way that all the legislation and institutions of the EU had never done. It was the change that caught our imagination.

That was why the further step, the creation of the huge passport-free area that Schengen brought about, excited me too. However, from the outset Ireland stood apart from the development. We stood apart because the UK wished to stand apart, and we had to follow suit because of the existence of our long-standing common travel area with the UK. We had, in effect, to choose between two common travel areas and we chose to stay with the devil we knew rather than the devil we did not know. My view at that time was that this was a retrograde step. We should always be trying to move closer to the rest of the Union, and our staying out of the Schengen process put a permanent and very real barrier in the way of that integration.

Ironically, we made our decision at the same time that the benefits of the common travel area with the UK were being whittled away. Passengers travelling between the two countries have for many years been liable to police inspection at either end of the journey and are often required to prove their identity, so much so that the carrying of passports between the two countries became advisable as a way of avoiding hassle. In addition, Ryanair imposed photo-ID requirements on all passengers. In practical terms, this means that most Irish citizens must carry their passports to be allowed on a Ryanair flight to any destination, even in Britain. Between the Special Branch on one hand and Ryanair on the other, over a number of years this area became a common travel area in name only. In practice, one needed a passport to go from one country to the other. That is the reality today.

The latest news in this regard is that the British intend to tighten up the external controls on the island of Britain rather than in the UK, and they will expect us to do the same. On the basis of our history, we will probably meekly go along with whatever the British want us to do. I do not believe we should do that. We should detach ourselves from the British common travel area and join the much bigger common travel area that already exists across Europe, namely, the Schengen area. This would reflect what I think we all believe, namely, that our future lies much more with being an integral part of Europe rather than simply an appendage to Britain.

We broke the link with sterling and, despite all the gloomy prognostications of that time, we have prospered as a result. We should now take the further step of moving away from a small regional arrangement that is no longer delivering benefits and instead become part of what is now virtually a continent-wide area covering 25 European countries and which is working very well. If we are truly to regard ourselves as part of Europe, there can surely be little doubt as to which decision we should make. While this will give rise to challenges, I believe they are surmountable.

The regulatory framework for Irish passports that will be created by this Bill demonstrates that we have put in place a modern, secure, state-of-the-art system of documentation for our citizens. We are eminently qualified to build on that by joining the Schengen area and we should do so without delay. Because things are changing, those challenges that would have made it difficult to do this in the past can be overcome. I would like to open out this debate because the issue is worthy of debate and of serious consideration.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Senator Mullen. We will each have five minutes.

Geraldine Feeney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Alex White (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House. We are seeing a lot of him lately. It always feels a little more like home for me when this Minister appears in the House. I also welcome Senator Quinn's, as always, thoughtful comments on the common travel area and the debate we need to have on whether we would be better off with our existing arrangements or the Schengen Agreement. Generally I welcome this Bill. The giving of legislative underpinning to our passport system is overdue. It seeks to reflect the constitutional basis of the provision of passports and is very important.

I welcome the efforts in the Bill to combat fraud in various ways and the series of offences and penalties related to the fraudulent application for passports and the misuse of passports. In particular the section 20 provision on the use of false passports for the purpose of misrepresenting one's age to gain access to public houses and the purchase of alcohol is a useful step as part of a panoply of steps needed to tackle Ireland's ever more serious drink problem. There may be enforcement issues. I wonder if that provision is purely declaratory. I wonder if the bouncers who might give evidence in related cases need to be registered. These are general points that may require further consideration. Overall I welcome that provision.

While I reserve the right to find other concerns between now and Committee Stage, my main concern so far is the proposal to issue passports in cases of gender reassignment. I do not want my comments on this very sensitive issue to be misunderstood. My concern is primarily that the Government appears to be jumping the gun by seeking to make legislative provision in this area. In February the High Court gave the Government two months to outline how it proposes to rectify breaches of human rights. This followed the Foy case in which Mr. Justice Liam McKechnie found in favour of the plaintiff that certain provisions of the birth registration laws, specifically the Civil Registration Act 2004 violated the right of the plaintiff to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights because those provisions of Irish law did not provide for "meaningful recognition" of the plaintiff's new female identity. The Government still has two months from 14 February in which to say what it will do. The Government has yet to say whether it intends to appeal that decision. Through this Bill one Department is cutting across the right of another Department to decide whether it wants to appeal. It appears to be jumping the gun by incorporating the thrust of the High Court's decision in seeking to legislate in this way. The Government's time in which to say whether it will appeal the High Court's decision does not appear to be respected by the incorporation of the decision in the Bill.

In an unwarranted way this Bill proposes to deal with a very sensitive issue in a piecemeal manner. Gender reassignment and the question of whether this should be recognised in various ways in various kinds of identity documents — birth registration, driving licences and passports — is a complex issue which the Oireachtas should consider in separate legislation rather than deal with in a piecemeal manner by a particular provision being made. The Government is taking the High Court judgment as the position and cutting across the Oireachtas's right to consider the matter in full. The Oireachtas needs an opportunity to think through this very complex area of gender reassignment. Let us remember that in the High Court Mr. Justice McKechnie noted we are dealing with gender dysphoria, a syndrome where a person's gender identity is at odds with his or her physical sexual indicators.

One might try to deal with this in various ways. One might say "yes" to complete recognition of the new identity in various documents. One might say "no", because there are certain objective facts; in the case of a man who has become a woman through gender reassignment, that person still has Y chromosomes. We might argue the compassionate approach is to have a kind of via media where newly issued birth certificates and passports would reflect the original identity but would perhaps, to use a phrase that is used elsewhere in this Bill, contain an observation which would reflect the new situation. Further thought is needed on this. The Oireachtas should not be prevented from considering this sensitive issue in a more holistic way than this Bill provides by purporting to legislate for one specific area, namely, the issuing of passports. On Committee Stage I will propose that section be deleted pending a wider consideration in separate legislation by the Oireachtas.

I apologise to the Acting Chairman for stretching my welcome.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In general I welcome the Bill because it is necessary to reform many aspects of legislation on passports. It is an important document for all our citizens and we must ensure it serves its purpose for them in terms of its security and general usefulness. I continue to have concerns on some aspects of the Bill, which I will elucidate as I speak. A passport is probably of greater importance to Irish citizens than to people in other countries. We have a history of emigration and statistics about the number of passport holders in the United States show we are largely at variance with other nationalities in our practice of holding a passport and travelling outside our national territory in our adult lives. That helps give Irish people a more rounded view of the world and we should encourage this as much as possible and ensure any administrative constraints on the use of passports are minimised.

My concerns relate to the provisions on biometric data. The need for biometric data and its acceptance in other jurisdictions is a reality in modern passports. The security of the data and how it will stay in State control and never be accessed or used by third parties is not spelled out in the Bill and might need to be dealt with in future regulations. Enough has not been said on that in this debate. I would like the Minister and officials in responding to this ongoing debate to describe how such security measures can be taken.

My second concerns is slightly at variance with Senator Mullen's contribution. For a change, it says something positive about our legislative process that we are responding more immediately to judicial decisions. He may disagree with the particular decision in this case——

Rónán Mullen (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not necessarily. That was not my point.

Dan Boyle (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the principle rather than the content of the decision. There should be a greater onus on Parliament to enact legislation on foot of discrepancies that have been identified through judicial decisions. We have not done that as well as we should have in the past.

My problem with this Bill is with the specific references about gender assignation. There is a far greater difficulty with the factual information about some of our citizens who are not being taken into account in the Bill. I put forward this argument during the debate on the Civil Registration Act 2004 when I was a Member of the Dáil. It relates to the identity details of adopted people. Passports and birth certificates contain the name of the person concerned as well as their date of birth. However, owing to administrative convenience and an existing mindset that people who are adopted should not be given too much information lest it triggers a need to find out more about their natural parents, the place of birth of adopted people is always listed as Dublin. On the adoptive certificate, it is listed as Dublin NC2, which is a fictitious post code which ensures people cannot even start from the right place if they happen to be from Dublin.

Not only do we have discrimination between adopted people and all other Irish citizens, there is also discrimination between people who are adopted through foreign born adoptions and Irish adopted children. Foreign born adopted children obviously would have their place of birth registered as part of their foreign adoption. We must move away from the mindset that adopted people should have as little information about themselves as possible. The Civil Registration Act 2004 reinforces that bias. Unfortunately, this Bill builds on that bias and if any attempt can be made to amend it, that area needs to be tackled. A number of adoption Bills have reinforced that mindset, but adoption legislation has been promised in the programme for Government. However, one sad aspect of this Bill is that we will be retrenching that particular bias in this legislation when we issue passports in future.

I ask the Minister of State to take this up with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and with the appropriate officials in his Department to ensure that when Irish citizens who are adopted present their documents to leave this State, the information on those documents should be truthful. We are doing a disservice to them and to the nature of the document itself by containing such information.

I welcome the Bill in general as I recognise the need for reforms in this area. I have a concern with the need for security on biometric information gathered for the issuing of passports. I particularly have a concern with ending discrimination against adopted people in our society. Until we end that, the hackneyed phrase of second class citizen will apply especially in this circumstance. I ask other Members to take that into consideration.

Cecilia Keaveney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not expect to be speaking on this Bill until I was in the Chair, and I wish to take up from where Senator Boyle left off. Many of my comments will be related to the fact that I am from Donegal, which is geographically north of the North and politically in the South, something that confuses in many ways.

I am not au fait with the adoption laws in the North, but given that passports are of an all-Ireland nature and that I was born in Derry, what is the situation regarding an adopted person born there? There is an all-Ireland dimension to most things. I often travel down on the Enterprise train from Belfast. In the recent past, passengers arriving at Connolly Station in Dublin would go through the same doors as everyone else onto the platforms, but now they are sent through a separate channel. I resent talking about a common travel area in the island of Ireland, but is that a move to impose a passport control at the train station in the future? Why are we being sent into a different channel? Why was this done recently? The clarification of this issue is important.

There is a car ferry on the Foyle that goes from Greencastle to Magilligan, which is an international port. If the authorities were being absolutely strict, passport controls could be put in place. Security exists there, but it is a joke. There are security checks going out of the North into Donegal and not the other way round, yet we are paying for it. We are talking about the use of passports and the all-island concept of the passport, yet facts on the ground are not in keeping with this. What is being done to get rid of these real borders that we are discovering? We are paying for the security of something that has no implication. If the security checks are in place to stop illegal immigrants going into the North, then they are certainly not doing that. I get off the flight from Derry at Dublin Airport and I am asked for my passport. Officials will say they are not looking for my passport, but rather my identification. I am not sure whether the passport is a form of identification or whether it is a passport.

I would have been concerned about the biometric issue until my diplomatic passport was stolen, which was one of the new passports. I had been to the US, so my iris and my fingerprints had been taken. I was very satisfied to hear that when my passport was stolen, it could not be used going to America again because my iris and fingerprint details were on it. However, I share Senator Boyle's concern, particularly following the disappearance of health documentation when disks were stolen. It is more about the safety of the information. If one is doing nothing wrong, then one should not worry about people who might be watching. However, no one wants that information abused or lost.

If a person whose name is Edward but is known as Ed buys an airline ticket using the latter name, he will not be allowed to travel if the name on the ticket is not the same as the name on the passport. Some people need to be warned about that. An information campaign could be carried out. I was approached recently by a girl who was always known by a particular name that she preferred to the name on her birth certificate. This name was used on her bank accounts and for other purposes. It was brought to her attention that the use of this name was potentially illegal because it differed from the name that appears on her birth certificate. Provision must be made for cases in which people use a name other than that which features on their birth certificates.

I call for the establishment of a passport office in the north west. The regions need passport offices and the population of the north west is sufficient to sustain a passport office.

Senator Alex White complained about the practice of Members intervening to have passport applications dealt with speedily. I thank the staff of the Passport Office for the number of times they have pulled people out of holes, so to speak. I have intervened in such cases, including one in which a woman discovered the night before she was due to travel that her passport was out of date. The next morning she took the same flight as me from Derry to Dublin and I managed to have her case dealt with because I was coming to the House and knew the people working in the Passport Office. I telephoned ahead and the woman, who did not have a passport at 8.30 a.m., boarded a flight at lunchtime. I compliment the staff of the Passport Office and our consuls and embassies all over the world on the tremendous work they do.

A garda is required to confirm the identify of a person applying for a passport by signing a photograph presented by the applicant at a Garda station. After my passport was stolen, I went to Pearse Street station where I discovered a sign indicating that passport applicants must have photographs signed at their local Garda station. Given that many rural Garda stations do not have long opening hours, surely valid identification such as a driving licence is sufficient to enable a garda in any station to sign a passport photograph.

I am not arguing either in favour or against the introduction of ID cards, which is a wider debate. On the possibility of requiring people to carry a passport to prove they are over 18 years, it is not safe to carry one's passport on a night out.

Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Second Stage debate of the Passports Bill 2007, which contains a number of positive elements. The right to travel outside the State and the right to hold a passport are enumerated rights under Article 43 of the Constitution. The prospect of having primary legislation clearly articulate these rights and the system governing their realisation is welcome.

The Bill introduces in the Minister's decision making the concept of the child's best interest, a welcome development that is consistent with the foremost principle of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I also welcome the provision allowing for transgendered persons to change their gender on their passport. This is the first time explicit recognition has been given to the rights of transgendered persons in law. As such, it is a positive development.

The Bill is problematic in a number of respects. Section 12 provides for the refusal to issue passports and gives the Minister dangerously extensive powers of discretion with little transparency. The Minister may decide either alone or on the basis of the opinion of a Government colleague to deny an Irish citizen a passport and, by extension, the right to leave the State. The Minister can deprive an individual of this fundamental liberty if, in his or her view, the person may engage in conduct that would endanger public safety, would be contrary to the common good or on the often abused ground that the person might prejudice State security.

I note the Dáil amended this section to allow a passport appeals officer to appeal the Minister's decision to refuse or cancel a passport. This provision is worthless because the officer cannot reverse the decision. For this reason, Sinn Féin advocates the establishment of a direct channel of appeal to the District Court. At minimum, the Bill should provide that the Minister must issue the person applying for a passport a detailed, clear statement setting out the reasons for a decision to refuse the application for a passport or the withdrawal of same. The Bill must make provision for a prompt, independent administrative appeals mechanism.

The measures on biometric data create significant human rights concerns, particularly with regard to the right to privacy. It appears from the Department's briefing note that the main premise for introducing these provisions was the attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September 2001. It should be noted, however, that at no time has an evidence-based case been made to justify the introduction and retention of biometric and other personal information belonging to passport holders. While I acknowledge that the world is changing and technology is developing, this highly expensive system with the potential to compromise human rights is being introduced at the insistence of the United States and for no other reason. This issue needs to be considered very carefully.

One of the core principles of privacy and data protection is that any interference with these rights must be justified and proportionate. In July 2006, the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner held that the storage of biometric data on a central database as part of the Swiss biometric passport system was disproportionate to the objective of identity verification of passport holders.

For the purposes of the Bill, biometric data are defined as information relating to distinctive physical characteristics and may include the measurements of same. Currently, the only biometric use for passports are facial images, which are stored on a central database held by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Under the section, the Minister may, at any time and without consultation, extend biometrics required for passport applicants to include iris images, fingerprints and, potentially, DNA profiles. At minimum, the Bill should be amended to limit the biometric provisions to facial images, thereby requiring any future extension to be preceded by full debate and scrutiny in the Oireachtas.

I ask the Minister of State to confirm that the use of the database and its contents will be limited to the processing required for the issuing or cancellation of passports, with high bar exceptions only. According to the Bill, the Data Protection Acts apply. However, they contain broad exemptions. The Minister must demonstrate that the new passport system will not amount to the introduction by stealth of a massive biometric database at the disposal of domestic and foreign security agencies. I ask the Minister of State to detail the safeguards in place to prevent the abuse of information provided for the purpose of making a passport application.

Section 8 provides that the "Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make such arrangements, including contractual arrangements, as he or she considers appropriate with such persons as he or she thinks fit for the processing of biometric data in respect of applicants for passports." Is the Minister seriously considering privatising the processing of something as sensitive as biometric data?

There is scope for improving the Bill. On section 3, which provides for the making of regulations by the Minister, and section 5, which provides for the performance of relevant functions by the Minister on the authority of the Government, it would be preferable if, as recommended by the Irish Human Rights Commission, an explicit reference was made in the text to the obligation of the Minister to take human rights standards into consideration when making incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions. The Bill should also refer to the Minister's obligation to make his decisions in a manner that is compatible with the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

Most Senators and Deputies receive telephone calls from constituents who have discovered their passport has expired a day or two before they are due to travel abroad. To address this problem, the Department should alert passport holders by post when their passport is about to expire. Similar steps are taken to inform drivers that their vehicle taxation or national car tests are about to expire. If warnings were issued, the process would run more smoothly because fewer people would seek passport renewals at the last moment.

Senator Keaveney referred to people using nicknames or other forms of their name which do not appear on their passport. I ask the Minister to address in the Bill the need to accommodate those who wish to use the Irish language form of their names on their passports. If Senators or Deputies who use the English versions of their names on passports apply for new passports with the Gaelic versions of their names, which are the true versions in the opinion of many, they will be refused permission to do so under this Bill. They will be refused under the current rules because there is a requirement to show that the Gaelic version of the name has been used in the previous two years for different purposes. That is not fair. We should encourage people to use the Irish version of their name if they so wish. As PPS numbers are used in the application process there is no need for such a restriction on the use of the Gaelic name. I ask the Minister to take on board that suggestion.

John Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the purpose of the Bill. Despite the massive increase in the numbers of people travelling in recent years, due to terrorist events, in particular the events of 11 September 2001 in the United States and the Bali and the London bombings, it has become necessary to implement a series of controls and checks which provide security to all travellers and people at the destination point. The Government has taken the opportunity in this Bill to update the position by providing a comprehensive legislation basis for the regulation and issuance of passports, which is to be welcomed.

I would be concerned that the e-border would limit United Kingdom-Ireland free travel but that is happening in any event because the airlines themselves are implementing controls in that they require photographic identity. We have enjoyed free travel between here and the UK for a long time, despite the difficulties in the 1970s and 1980s when tight restrictions were in place. There was control but there was always a facility to pass through to the UK, as should be the case. I refer in particular to the Republic's land border with the North of Ireland. The restrictions being proposed in the UK would restrict people travelling from Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom.

We can appreciate and understand the benefits of the new technology, which includes biometric passports, the use of iris pattern, which is a unique method of identification, and thumb imprints which would identify the person without doubt. Notwithstanding that, the Passport Office has committed itself to storing photographs and the biometric information, which will be securely held for the people. There is no question, therefore, that the information would be shared with other agencies and used only for passport purposes.

The current requirement for a second biometric identifier of a fingerprint or an iris pattern may become necessary. It will probably depend on what will happen in the United States. Currently, we provide our citizens with a comprehensive package which is well accepted. It is a modern system. It provides a valid passport which is useful regardless of the destination to which people travel. Depending on what happens in the United States we will discover whether there will be a need for fingerprint or iris pattern biometric identifiers, although we hope that will not be the case.

Regarding the Schengen Agreement, if the situation changes between the UK and Ireland, Ireland would have to consider becoming part of the Schengen group for passports and control. A total of 31 states, including 27 European Union states and four non-EU member states — Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland — are subject to all or some of the Schengen rules, and 24 have fully implemented them so far. In 1990, Ireland and the UK did not sign up to the original Schengen Convention and retained a right to opt out of the application of the rules after their conversion into EU law. In that instance we have not ended border controls with other EU member states.

A common Schengen visa allows tourists or other visitors access to the area. Holders of residence permits within a Schengen state enjoy the freedom of travel to other Schengen states for a period of up to three months.

The legal basis for Schengen in the treaties of the European Union has been inserted by Article 2.15 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. This inserted a new title, named "Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons" into the treaty, currently numbered as Title IV, and comprising Articles 61 to 69. The Treaty of Lisbon substantially amends the provisions of the articles in the title, renames the title to "Area of freedom, security and justice" and divides it into five chapters, called "General provisions" — policies on border checks, asylum and immigration; judicial cooperation in civil matters; judicial co-operation in criminal matters; and police co-operation.

This Bill merely brings us up to date with what is happening currently in the world in terms of the threats of terrorism and the obvious need for the biometric changes in our passports. That is the reality. The possibility of the Department of Homeland Security in the United States putting more stringent regulations in place may result in further changes in the future. It is hoped we will not need more stringent biometric regulations but it will reflect what is happening in the world at the time.

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

I thank all the Senators who contributed to the debate on the Bill, which was constructive and informative. It is clear from the debate and the debate in the Dáil that there is a consensus regarding the Bill. We all share a common desire to put in place a comprehensive legislative basis which will ensure the continued provision of a high quality and secure passport service.

As in most countries, demand for passports here is seasonal, with a peak in demand from March to June. As we now enter that peak season it is worth reflecting on the scale of the challenges facing the Passport Office. The Passport Office has the largest client base of any State service. Approximately 4.2 million valid Irish passports are held by Irish citizens throughout the world. More than 600,000 passports were issued in 2007, an increase of over 50% on the figure four years previously. Preliminary data for the first two months of 2008 suggest a continuing high level of demand.

A notable feature of the passport service is that it is the only State service which operates on the ground in all 32 counties. It is very much a local service with the facility available to citizens to apply through the express post service in over 1,000 post offices in the South and some 70 post offices throughout the North. The express post route offers a guaranteed ten working days service for applications which are fully in order. That compares favourably with the level of service available in other EU member states. Applicants can also apply in person at the public offices in Dublin and Cork.

In reply to many of the questions raised, I would like to see other outlets, particularly in the north west, as mentioned by Senator Keaveney, in Limerick — we have a new decentralised office in the mid-west — and in the west where it is hoped to have an Irish aid centre in future years similar to the one on O'Connell Street.

When proof of travel is provided, applications can be processed within ten working days and in urgent cases. On payment of an additional fee, an applicant can acquire a passport on the day of application or the following day. An out-of-hours service is also available for genuine emergencies at weekends and on public holidays.

The passport service is held in high regard and frequent positive comments are made about the quality of service available at the public offices. In particular, the availability of a local office in Cork which deals with the Munster area is greatly appreciated. This was referred to in the Dáil debate. The number and distribution of public offices will be kept under ongoing review having regard to the level of applications made from various parts of the country. I am conscious the level of applications made through Northern post offices has risen steadily in the past two years. This is a trend which is likely to continue.

The quality of service provided by the Passport Office could not have been maintained without the major programme of investment in technology of recent years. In my opening remarks, I referred to the successful completion of initiatives such as the introduction of machine-readable passports, the automated processing system and the introduction of e-passports. These initiatives mean we now have a modern, efficient and, above all, secure means of passport production. It is also possible to track the progress of an application on-line. The Department will continue to keep matters under review to see what contribution evolving technology may make in terms of the efficiency and quality of the service provided.

Most importantly, the high quality of the passport service is mainly due to the hard work and customer service focus of the staff of the Passport Office. I wish to place on record my sincere appreciation to them for their hard work and dedication, and to my officials in the Department, two of whom are with me today.

Senators made interesting points during the debate and I will reply to some of them. Senator Cummins welcomed the Bill and wondered why it has taken so long. I agree with him that 1924 is a long time ago. He referred to passports for sale which is a thing of the past and has no place in the modern Irish passport system. Senators are also correct about the high reputation of the Irish passport.

I agree with Senator Cummins that we need a clear legislative base for our passport system. The Government is conscious of the important symbolism of the passport. This is why we invested heavily in the technology about which I spoke. Our passport is among the most secure in the world. I share the Senator's condemnation of abuse and misuse of our passports and this Bill will make it easier to prosecute those who offend. Senator Cummins also referred to the move to Balbriggan. The Molesworth Street office in central Dublin, which is an important office, will remain open.

I thank Senator Ormonde for her comments. She spoke about the fact that a passport is more than a travel document. It is important evidence of our identity and citizenship. Senator Ormonde also stated the Bill is necessary. It is important as it gives greater clarity and legal certainty to existing and established practices in the office. The Senator also referred to a citizen's right to privacy. I fully support her on this and it is important it is maintained.

On the question of difficulties at airports, to which Senator Ormonde also referred, we operate an emergency system to issue passports on a 24 hours a day, seven days a week basis. Identity and entitlement must be checked and it may not be always possible to issue a passport on the spot. We are examining the possibility of new outlets and we could consider airports as the Senator suggested.

Senator Fergal Quinn referred to the Schengen Agreement. We want to see easier travel within Europe, particularly to and from our fellow European Union member states. However, we also should be aware of the strong implications for North-South relations. The UK is outside the Schengen area. We do not want to see a physical border re-established in Ireland. I will take on board what the Senator stated and pass on his views to the Minister.

Senator Walsh raised the question of relaxing the rules on consent for children to travel. The provision on the relaxation of rules on consent is discretionary. It allows, but does not oblige, the Minister to regard consent previously given as valid until a child reaches 18 years of age. It is intended to reduce the burden on families. However, in situations where the Passport Office becomes aware of any difficulty, it may require the consent of both guardians to be given again in writing for the issue of a passport.

With regard to biometrics, which was raised by Senators Walsh and Doherty, we have no plans to include a second biometric, such as fingerprints, on our passports. Senator Walsh is correct to state this has been put in place in some locations, particularly in other EU member states. We do not intend to do so but provision is made to include a second biometric in the future if it becomes a standard international practice.

On Senator Mullen's point on gender reassignment, this provision was included in the Bill to reflect the established practice of the Passport Office. For many years we have issued passports to persons who have changed gender. The Foy case to which he referred does not invalidate the practice. Should any changes be required with regard to birth certificates, these will be reflected in amending legislation. This is a matter for the Minister for Health and Children. Senator Boyle also raised the matter of birth certificates.

With regard to Senator Keaveney's point on travel between Belfast and Dublin, there are no plans to introduce passport controls between North and South. Senator Doherty spoke about the appeals system. I am glad this will be included in the Bill. The passport appeals officer cannot overrule the Minister. I assure the Senator we will not privatise the biometric system. We are merely speaking about having this in place, and if necessary, a second biometric will be provided.

I thank Senator Hanafin for his remarks on the Schengen Agreement which were interesting. The Senator made clear the reality of the situation as it exists. This may change and it is true to state that some of the difficulties encountered while travelling between Ireland and Great Britain are to do with the practices of airlines rather than legislation or regulations. I thank the Senators for their comments. We will return to some of these issues on Committee and Report Stages.