I thank all the Senators who have contributed to this debate, irrespective of their views. There has been general support for the measure from Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. I fully appreciate what Senator Ryan said about his position and while he has strong views on the matter, he is a realist.
When I was listening to Senator Norris, I could not help thinking that I could have been one of the victims of the 9/11 attacks. Those who are old enough can remember where they were when John F. Kennedy died. We all remember where we were on 9/11. I will share these facts with Members of the House. I was at Shannon Airport on my way to the United States to attend an EU-US meeting as a Member of the European Parliament. Some of my colleagues had travelled earlier from Brussels but I had intended to fly by Irish airlines. I had an appointment in the Pentagon two days later, but it could have been two days earlier, that is, on the day of the attacks. As we were pushing off, we knew there was something wrong when we were taken back into the airport. We were briefed and I met a gentleman from Roscommon who had spoken to his wife in the United States. She had previously spoken to their daughter who was in one of the top floors in the Twin Towers. There was consternation because Americans did not know what was happening.
On the positive side of all that, when we were transferred back to Dublin — obviously we did not go ahead with the trip to America — there was a message from the Roscommon gentleman to say that his daughter had got out and was saved. I am saying all this because I would have no difficulty in providing information. The issue, which has already been referred to by Senator Ryan, is that if we did not have the bilateral agreement with the United States the exact same information we are now being asked to provide would be available from visa applications.
I have been long enough in the other House to remember that I had worn a path to the United States embassy in Ballsbridge to represent my constituents with their holiday visa applications. That situation continued for many years. I visited the embassy on numerous occasions but the same information would have been available to the embassy then as we are now being asked to provide. This is not just an agreement that will be introduced in two days' time, by when, incidentally, I hope all 25 member states will have agreed it. The European Union is anxious to have it in place in a few days' time. The fact is, however, that were we to have a much longer debate on this motion, I doubt we would arrive at any other conclusions.
We are all public representatives based in various parts of the country and I do not believe many people are aware that this requirement has been in place for some time. We are made aware of this requirement by constituents. There had been very little negative feedback on the requirement of a passenger name record, PNR, for airline users. The Government, myself and many others who contributed to this debate would prefer if this requirement were not necessary but it is in place to protect us and to make air travel more secure for everybody.
Senator Ryan asked if the agreement will be permanent. It is a temporary arrangement up to the end of July 2007. Many of the issues raised by Members, irrespective of their views, will be considered again in the context of a new agreement to replace the negotiated one. The agreement will have a lead-in time and we in the Department of Transport will have an opportunity to debate it further, possibly at the beginning of the second quarter of next year. The position on a new agreement, if there is to be one, is that after 31 July 2007, the Department will consult the Office of the Attorney General on that question. We will do that in the normal way we would consult the office on any legal constitutional requirements.
I am advised by the Attorney General that this motion does not override any provisions in the Constitution. The method of submitting the motion was done on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General. Issues and questions were raised about who will monitor the agreement. In response to a question raised by Senator Paddy Burke, this is not a bilateral agreement between a member state and the United States of America. Article 5 of the Council of Ministers agreement provides that this is an agreement between the EU, representing all 25 member states, and there must be unanimity on it. If we in this House decided not to accept the motion, we could not proceed with the agreement.
The introduction of this agreement is in the interests of safety. We cannot compromise on safety, although I am not using that argument as a form of blackmail to try to convince Members that they should agree this motion. We all want to be assured that when we travel on airlines which require such information, it is provided. However, people have a choice. If they do not want to provide such information, they do not go to the United States. I am not saying that in a facetious way but that is the position.
There is provision in the agreement for reciprocal sharing of information. At this stage there are no plans to request the US to supply similar data. However, there is such provision in the agreement and such a requirement could be triggered, if necessary. All member states must agree to a single EU-US agreement and there can be no separate bilateral agreements for one member state or groups of member states.
On the question of the big brother element of regulation, we are anxious to ensure that the information that will be given will be provided only for the purpose for which it is intended. The information will be forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security and others who are involved in sharing terrorism information. We have been given an undertaking that it will be provided only to those involved in the sharing of information on terrorism activities and for no other purpose. The European Union will be anxious to ensure that the provision of this information is monitored closely and it should not be provided for any other reason. Strict limits will apply on the access by other US authorities to this information. It will be provided only to those involved in sharing terrorism information.
There is no change to the list of 34 items of data which has been in place for the past six months. When the European Court of Justice decided that the case brought by the European Parliament did not have a legal basis, a period of 90 days was allowed, which brought us up to 30 September. We are now anxious to ensure there is no further slippage of time and that the agreement is introduced as quickly as possible.
I believe I am as much in touch with my constituents as any of the Members present and I have not heard in the past six months that the provision of this information has delayed any passenger who travelled to the United States. In light of the ethnic connection between Ireland and the United States, many family members have had to travel there at short notice at the time of a bereavement. There have been many such instances, including a few in my constituency where family members have had to provide the information and travel at short notice.
I have always been treated with great kindness and courtesy by the officials in the holiday visa section of the United States Embassy in Ballsbridge, to which I have called on many occasions when I have had to secure holiday visas for constituents. The views of some Members are contrary to those of others. Senator Norris gave a passionate contribution but when one reads the Official Report, one will note that his contribution is a matter for another day and another debate.
Let us hope that this agreement does not have to remain in place indefinitely and that terrorism can be dealt with. We know that the many people of Irish descent and with Irish relatives suffered on 11 September 2001. This regulation is a small price to pay to ensure that travel between here and the United States or through the United States is safer for all mankind.
