I thank the Department for the helpful briefing document that was forwarded to us. I had raised some questions on these matters. I am noting, as the Minister of State has indicated himself, that the proposal being discussed today is part of a twin set of proposals published in December last year, both of which relate to the new rules around the sharing of advance passenger information. One of the proposals, which relates to border management, did not require an opt-in. I believe, and the Minister might confirm, that it automatically applies to countries within certain Schengen agreements.
The second proposal, which is the one we are opting into in this motion, relates to the use of API in the prevention of terrorism and serious crime. These twin proposals are part of a set of new changes to API rules. We are only getting a say in one of them, where in fact it is the other half of the set of proposals that raises some concerns. That is why I want to discuss how they will operate together as one suite of measures. Perhaps this is an opportunity where we might be able to get reassurances about the impact of this combined set of new API rules, for example, on those people seeking international protection. I have already noticed some contradictions. The Department has said that API data can be consulted for immigration purposes in accordance with existing API rules and used to identify persons of concern who are due to arrive or have arrived on a relevant flight, including undocumented arrivals. However, in the majority of cases, this cohort presents immigration officials with no documentation. In such instances, the immigration officer cannot refer to the API data. There is a little bit of a contradiction here because one part is saying that it can be used to identify persons of concern and then the second part is saying that people cannot be identified. We need clarity on this. I am concerned that this information should be used correctly. Everybody would support the use of API data in identifying persons of concern for terrorism or serious crime. However, we do not want a situation where there is, for example, a constant trawling and checking for persons who may simply have different documentation. This is in the context of the European Regions Airline Association stating on its website in January last year that the new API rules will be used to combat irregular immigration on all flights entering the Schengen area.
The right to seek asylum is a form of migration that should not be constrained in this regard. I am also concerned by some of the stories I have read in the Dublin Inquirer detailing cases of airlines stopping Bolivians from boarding planes to Ireland because they were preceptively trying to avoid fines they believed they may incur if those passengers landed in Dublin, despite the fact that Bolivians have the same right to visa-free travel to Ireland as many others have. A decision was made, in terms of policy, that Bolivians' travel would be made more difficult. A Dublin Inquirer reporter wrote that there is a danger that airline staff "may sometimes act as a kind of outsourced - and less accountable - form of immigration control.". Airlines can be fined up to €3,000 by the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB, for flying in passengers who, in the view of a border control officer, do not have their documents in order. There is a real concern in relation to this. In 2022 the GNIB issued €1.1 million in carrier-liability fines. My concern does not solely relate to what we are discussing today, which I hope will be only used for terrorism and serious crime, but to the fact that we are seeing a situation evolve whereby we have an unaccountable immigration filtering system involving airline staff who are not necessarily trained in human rights, in the right to seek asylum and so forth. They are effectively having a chilling effect on travel within the Schengen area. In that regard, I hope that the Minister of State can give us reassurances on how this information will be used. Will it be used by the GNIB? Will it be used in relation to the potential issuing of fines to airlines?
Finally, advice published by the Irish Refugee Council reminds us that Article 31 of the refugee convention holds that persons seeking refugee status must still have their application processed, regardless of whether they have entered a state with legal documents. This rationale exists because there is no visa to claim asylum and it is very difficult for a person who is leaving a refugee-producing country or who is in a crisis, to access a visa.
I hope the Minister of State will address my concerns and clarify the issues I raise. My concern is not necessarily with these powers but with how they might be used.
