Passports Bill 2007: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 20

Senator Alex White

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 15, subsection (1)(d), line 46, after “abroad),” to insert the following:

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

This amendment proposes to add to section 20(1)(d), which makes it an offence for a person who uses, or attempts to use, a passport that is, and that he or she knows or believes to be, a false passport as evidence of identity or citizenship, in either case, whether or not in connection with travel abroad. The amendment then refers to subsection (2), which is a specified offence dealing with a person who uses a false passport to gain access to a licensed premises. Under subsection (5), the fine for being associated with using a false passport to gain access to a licensed premises does not exceed €500. However, the fine for conduct covered by the existing section 20(1)(d) is essentially unlimited, if one looks at subsection (4), which deals with fines. It states that such a person is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or both.

My amendment seeks to deal with that anomaly and it addresses it by making sections 20(1)(d) and section 20(2) mutually exclusive so they can be dealt with separately rather than the manner in which they are currently proposed. I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say on this.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Michael P. Kitt)

I fully understand the intentions behind the amendment, but the proposed amendment would involve a change in section 20(1)(d). That subsection is designed to prosecute offences relating to the use of a false passport as evidence of citizenship or identity. The maximum penalty on conviction is an unlimited fine and up to ten years’ imprisonment.

Section 20(2) provides for a lesser offence involving the use of another person's passport to gain entry to a pub or club. This reflects the reality that a passport is increasingly regarded as the principal and most secure form of identification and frequently used to provide evidence of age for access to pubs and clubs. On occasion, a young person will seek to use another person's passport, usually that of a relative or friend, to gain entry to a pub or club. While this is correctly defined as an offence under subsection (2), it is a lesser offence and the penalty is tailored accordingly, with a maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding €500.

There is a significant difference between the two offences. Section 20(1)(d) involves the use of a false passport, whereas section 20(2) involves the use of another person’s passport in particular and limited circumstances. The proposed amendment seeks to ensure that a person using a false passport to gain entry to a pub or club would not face the possibility of an unlimited fine or imprisonment. While it would not be the Government’s intention that a young person presenting a false passport to enter a pub or club should face the maximum penalty, interference with or falsification of a passport for any purpose is an activity which cannot be condoned and it is important that provision remains to be prosecuted for such offences. The proposed amendment would create a loophole whereby a person falsifying and using a passport could plead that this had been done to gain entry to a licensed premises or club. As section 20(2) relates only to use by a person of a passport not issued to him or her, such a person might argue that he or she was not caught by any offence in relation to the use of the falsified passport. We must retain the power to prosecute all offences arising from the use of false passports and cannot risk introducing a loophole.

I am confident the Director of Public Prosecutions will take the circumstances and gravity of the offence into account in the normal manner in deciding whether and on what basis to prosecute and, if a person is convicted, on the penalty to be imposed. While I appreciate and agree with the intentions behind the amendment, I do not consider that it should be approved.

I understand the point made by the Minister of State who has assisted us in clarifying the purpose of the section. I remind the House that the amendment does not propose to remove any part of the legislation but to retain section 20(1)(a), (b) and (c) but to include the saver, as it were, “otherwise than in circumstances referred to in subsection (2),”. The amendment proposes to draw a distinction between the manner in which we deal with the two types of conduct outlined in the section. If the Minister of State is settled in his mind in respect of the conduct he seeks to capture in the separate sections, I will not press the matter. Perhaps he will comment on my point that the amendment does no more than propose a clearer distinction between the two offences.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

Senator Ormonde and I have made clear the difference between the lesser offence of using a person's passport and the offence of interfering with a passport. Given the increasing electronic calibration of passports — I believe that is the correct term — people should not be under the impression that they can get away with interfering with a passport. They will be stopped by customs or immigration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 20 agreed to.

Sections 21 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 27.

Senator Alex White

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 19, subsection (3), line 7, after "accordingly" to insert the following:

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

It appears that section 27(1) does not validate previous passports issued without statutory authority. The proposed new provision would clarify this matter by providing that a passport issued before the commencement of sections 6 and 7 shall not be deemed invalid solely on the grounds that it was not issued under any express power conferred by an enactment.

Deputy Michael P. Kitt

While I understand the rationale and intentions behind the amendment, passports have, since the foundation of the State, been issued by the Minister for Foreign Affairs under the executive power of the State and on the authority of the Government. This practice is perfectly legitimate. Enactment of the Passports Bill will simply add a legislative basis to the exercise of this function. Passports previously issued will not be invalidated because of the technical change in the basis on which passports are issued. For this reason, the amendment is not necessary and I cannot accept it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 27 agreed to.

Section 28 agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 13 in the names of Senators Quinn, Ross and O'Toole is out of order as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Senator Ann Ormonde

I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Michael Kitt, and Members on all sides of the House for their contributions and easy passage of the Bill. The Committee Stage debate was worthwhile in teasing out certain points. Senator Alex White made me think about some of the issues he raised. I thank the Minister of State for facilitating us during Easter week. I wish him a happy Easter.

Senator Paul Coghlan

This is the first Bill dealing with passports for a considerable period and was overdue. I commend Senator Alex White on his amendments and the manner in which matters were teased out, primarily between him and the Minister of State.

The Minister used the word "calibration" and the manner in which entries can appear on passports. Since the Bill was introduced, a scenario was brought to my attention whereby a citizen has an entry stamped or written on a passport inadvertently by an immigration or customs officer in another land. It can be entered into what the Minister of State referred to as "the system", which may, in turn, preclude the citizen from future entry into other states. I know one case of an Irish citizen precluded from travelling to the United States because of such an entry in his passport. While I accept it is a separate matter which I must take up with the Minister of State, I welcome the legislation and commend the Minister of State and his officials.

Senator Alex White

I welcome the passage of the Bill and thank the Minister of State for his professional and gentlemanly style in the debate. Senator Coghlan was too kind in his remarks because colleagues of his were also active in tabling amendments. Members on all sides of the House have contributed to the Bill's passage.

Some issues remain such as the basis for the issuing of diplomatic passports. There remains a measure of discretion on the part of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in that regard. How diplomatic passports are issued to persons other than serving Ministers deserves debate but I accept it is a matter for another day. I commend the Minister of State and his officials on their work and approach to the Bill and extend my thanks to them.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Deputy Michael P. Kitt)

My officials have reminded me this is the first Bill, other than legislation from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that has been referred to the Irish Human Rights Commission. It is also the first Bill on which the Oireachtas Library and Research Service did a helpful analysis, for which we are grateful.

I thank Senators Cummins, Coghlan, Alex White, Ormonde and Quinn who raised important issues in the debate. I welcome the debate's constructive tone and the support given by all sides of the House to this important legislation. The Government has tried to be as accommodating as possible. In the Dáil, the Bill was amended in several areas to take account of Opposition suggestions. We have a better Bill on that account.

This is the first legislation in this area since the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924, as pointed out by Senator Coghlan, and it is not before its time. It is progressive legislation, carefully balancing the need for tight security and preserving the liberties and privacy of individual citizens. We live in an era of increased opportunity for identity fraud and misuse of sensitive information. The right legislative framework to punish those who would seek to undermine the integrity of the passport system, the State's premier form of identification, must be put in place. It is important the Irish passport retains its reputation as one of the most secure in the world. Every Irish visitor abroad would be disadvantaged if vigilance were not maintained in this area. I understand Senator Alex White's views on diplomatic passports. The issuing of them can be examined when considering the regulations.

The highest possible level of data protection must be ensured. Citizens must have the confidence the personal data they provide in good faith is stored securely and used only for legitimate purposes. This balance has been achieved in this Bill. I thank my officials for their work in both Houses.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 19 Mar 2008

Passports Bill 2007: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Mar 2008