Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 2007

International Agreements: Motion.

Minister for Transport and the Marine (Deputy Noel Dempsey)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion, provided by Article 1.11 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption of the following proposed measure:

Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of passenger name record data by air carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 3rd July, 2007.

The motion which has been presented in accordance with Article 29.4.6° of Bunreacht na hÉireann seeks the approval of the House for Ireland to participate in the adoption of a new agreement between the European Union and the United States concerning the collection, storage, use and transfer of passenger name record data. Deputies spoke earlier about the manner in which a copy of the proposed measure was laid before the House. Having checked the matter, I have been assured by my officials that a copy of the agreement was left in the Oireachtas Library last evening and has been there since. I acknowledge and regret that Deputies have not had as much time to consider the agreement as we would have wished. Negotiations between the European Commission and the US authorities concluded this day last week. The matter will be submitted to the Council for decision on 10 July. There has been little time for member states to complete their internal procedures for approval of the agreement. It is essential to ensure a new agreement is in place before the current agreement expires on 31 July to ensure there will be a continued legal basis for the transfer of passenger name record data to the US authorities. Deputies will appreciate that the factors I have mentioned were outside my control. While it is regrettable that the House does not have more time to consider this relatively short agreement, I am glad it has an opportunity to debate it now.

I would like to remind Members of the background to the agreement. The events of 11 September 2001 and terrorist attacks in other parts of the world, most recently in Glasgow, have made us aware that terrorism is a global problem which affects Europe and the United States. The United States radically revised its internal security procedures following the events of 11 September 2001 with a view to protecting its citizens from terror attacks. The Irish authorities share the concerns of the US authorities in this regard. The events of 11 September 2001 and the recent incident at Glasgow Airport emphasise the particular vulnerability of the aviation sector. Enhanced airport security has been noted throughout the world since 11 September 2001. As part of the anti-terrorism security measures they introduced following the events of that day, the US authorities enacted legislation providing that air carriers operating flights to, from and within US territory have to allow the US authorities access the data in their reservation and departure systems. The information in question is known as passenger name record, PNR, data.

The identification of potentially high risk passengers by means of PNR data analysis gives states and aircraft operators the capacity to improve aviation security, enhance national and border security and prevent and combat terrorist acts, related crimes and other transnational serious crime, including organised crime. It protects the vital interests of passengers and the public. PNR data help to expedite customs and immigration at airports and facilitate and safeguard legitimate passenger traffic. Irish and European carriers have been submitting PNR data to the US authorities since May 2004. Two agreements between the European Union and the United States have provided the legal basis for the transfer of records since. The first agreement which was signed in May 2004 was subsequently referred to the European Court of Justice by the European Parliament. The court found that the legal basis for the Council decision that had approved the conclusion of the agreement was not appropriate. A new interim replacement agreement was then negotiated. The State's participation in the adoption of that agreement was approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas in October 2006. This interim agreement is due to expire on 31 July next.

On 27 June the US authorities and the European Commission, acting on a mandate agreed by the member states of the European Union, completed their negotiations on a new long-term agreement on the processing and transfer of PNR data by air carriers to the US authorities. The agreement was considered by the EU Committee of Permanent Representatives on 29 June and it is proposed that it will be submitted to the Council for approval on 10 July. The new agreement which will provide a long-term solution for the processing and transfer of PNR data will be valid for seven years. It will ensure legal certainty for a considerable period. Agreement was also reached on an exchange of letters between the United States and the European Union. The US letter gives details of how the US Department of Homeland Security handles the collection, use and storage of PNR data received from air carriers, referred to in the letter as "assurances". The EU letter acknowledges receipt of the US letter and states the assurances explained in the US letter allow the European Union to deem that the Department of Homeland Security ensures there is an adequate level of data protection for the purposes of the agreement.

The agreement contains important commitments by the Department of Homeland Security on how it will handle PNR data in respect of data protection. I will outline the main differences between the existing interim agreement and the new agreement, as well as the key elements of the new agreement. Like the previous agreements on this issue, the new agreement aims to prevent and combat terrorism and other serious crimes that are transnational in nature. The number of EU PNR items to be collected has been reduced from 34 to 19 through a process of rationalisation. References to "undertakings" which had been part of the existing interim agreement will be deleted, to be replaced by an exchange of letters between the European Union and the United States. The US letter will outline how the US Department of Homeland Security will collect, use and store PNR data. The period of retention of records by the Department of Homeland Security will increase from three and a half years to seven for records on active status. The further retention period of eight years for data in a dormant status is unchanged. Such data may be accessed in response to an identifiable case and on the approval of a senior official in the Department of Homeland Security who has been designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Sensitive data such as data relating to ethnic origin or religious beliefs will be filtered and deleted by the Department of Homeland Security unless it is required in exceptional cases, for example, if the life of a data subject or others could be imperilled. The Department of Homeland Security will extend to EU PNR data the protections in the US Privacy Act which provide redress for data subjects who seek information on, or correction to, their PNR data. The extension of these protections to non-US citizens is new and did not feature in the existing agreement.

The agreement which will last for seven years may be suspended or terminated at any time by either party. There is a provision in the agreement for a periodic review. A reciprocity clause has been included in the agreement to the effect that if a PNR system is implemented in the European Union or in one or more of its member states that requires air carriers to make available to authorities PNR data about people whose travel itinerary includes a flight to or from the European Union, the Department of Homeland Security will, on the basis of reciprocity, actively promote the co-operation of the airlines within its jurisdiction. I am conscious there is a balance to be struck between public security considerations and privacy rights of the individual citizens in this matter. The European Commission, in line with the mandate it received from member states, sought to strike that balance in the negotiations with the United States authorities.

Important new protections for data and avenues of redress for persons seeking information about, or correction of, PNR data are provided in the new agreement, which is a welcome development for EU citizens. The new agreement will also provide carriers operating services between the EU and the US with the legal certainty they require to enable them to continue to transfer the data required by the US authorities, thus facilitating the continuation of transatlantic air services.

As I said, it is regretted that the very recent conclusion of the negotiations on the agreement, combined with the scheduling of the European institutions and the Houses of the Oireachtas, has not afforded Members much time to consider this issue. I commend the motion to the House.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell

Fine Gael will not oppose approval of this agreement. I support it because I agree with its intent. I realise that terrorism and international crime is a real threat. We had several examples of international crime within our own borders in the past few days and terrorist threats more recently in Great Britain and less recently in Spain and other countries. Fine Gael realises that the world is not a safe place and that agreements such as this one may be necessary to safeguard innocent people. I am also conscious that trade and tourism depend on international flights going from Ireland to the United States, that that is essential and would stop abruptly on 31 July if we did not approve it. For those reasons, Fine Gael will vote approval for this agreement.

I am outraged, however, at the way the process is being handled. I note the Minister's remarks that the agreement has been in the Library since last night but we had no way of knowing that. I received a very brief briefing note last night and as the Minister is aware the relevant spokespersons were engaged with the Roads Bill all day yesterday. I appreciate this has only just been passed by Cabinet and given that they got such little notice I was somewhat tolerant of the fact that we got such little notice. However, I was annoyed that when the Minister's press office was asked about this by the media it rubbished the Opposition's reservations and complaints about the way the process is being handled and the speed with which it was being pushed through the House without adequate scrutiny.

The Government and the European Union knew that this agreement had to be replaced before 31 July. The EU is aware that Ireland has a constitution. Other countries may not have to put it through their parliaments but we have a constitution. The Irish people voted for the Amsterdam treaty. We inserted a clause in the Constitution, as a result of that treaty, stating that any further international treaties would be the subject of Dáil approval. Dáil approval presupposes that we know what we are talking about and that we have an agreement which we have analysed and debated. We owe it to the public to do that. I would have thought the Government would have been sensitive to that commitment given to the public when they voted for the Amsterdam treaty in view of the fact that we will be voting on another treaty within 12 months. If that is the way we treat commitments we have given the public when they vote for a treaty that is promoted by the Government, it does not say much for the Government's word when it then expects a treaty of significance such as this one, to be approved. This was a sensitive treaty given that its first draft was thrown out by the European Court. It is not an insubstantial treaty. It may be brief but it is not unimportant. It deals with an important matter and was for that reason thrown out by the European Court of Justice when the first agreement was put to us because it lacked any proper legal basis.

The new agreement requests 19 pieces of passenger name data instead of the previous 31 pieces. In the absence of the agreement we had no way of knowing until just before I came into the House — it takes some time to scrutinise a treaty — what these 19 pieces were and how they were related to the previous 23. Were they a complete replacement for them or an amalgamation of what went before? Without that kind of information we are talking in a vacuum and pretending to scrutinise something we know nothing about.

I also want to address the issue of sensitive data that is part of the new agreement. As the Minister points out, the EU and the US have agreed that all sensitive data such as ethnic origin or religious beliefs will be filtered out and deleted by the Department of Homeland Security except in exceptional cases. If that is supposed to be an assurance it is a laughable one and the Minister must forgive us for being sceptical about such a provision. The main focus of terrorism protection is on extremists, and Muslim extremists in particular. The aim of this type of legislation is to get that kind of information. That this is the focus of international security and terrorism prevention measures belies the commitment to filter it out. The agreement states that it will filter it out if it does not need it. What sort of agreement is that? It is a nonsense to put that in as an agreement. I understand the reason they want the information but to pretend that they will not take the information is a nonsense.

What really bothered me was the terms "filtering out" and "sensitive information". It refers to the EU PNR data, as specified by the PNR codes and terms which the Department of Homeland Security has identified in consultation with the European Commission. These matters have been agreed in private. We do not know what they are or what are the codes. What is the information included in these codes to which we are now being asked to give approval? It is not in the agreement. It is telling us that there is such an agreement outside this agreement but we do not know what it is. We do not know the codes and terms that are being used by different airlines and so on. We have no way of knowing and are being asked to give our approval to something we know nothing about.

The way in which the Department of Homeland Security collects, uses and stores all passenger data was left unanswered in the interim agreement we discussed last October. I now find it remains unanswered. The previous agreement made reference to undertakings; that is now the exchange of letters. We do not know what is in the letters. There is more outside the agreement than in it yet we are expected to nod it through. I have not seen these letters. I do not know what is in the detail of them. I do not know if the Minister knows. Perhaps we are not meant to know and if that is the case, the guarantees that data and privacy is protected is weak protection because we do not know what is being protected.

Another concern is the number of bodies within the United States to which this information is being transferred automatically. I do not know if the commitments given by the Department apply equally to the other bodies which have a role in security in the United States. Obviously, the more bodies that get this kind of information, the more potential there is for its abuse. As part of the agreement the Department of Homeland Security will extend to non-US citizens the provisions of the US Privacy Act. On the face of it that appears to be a welcome measure but its provisions seem to be only about providing redress to data subjects seeking information about their passenger name data. I would hope it would go further and give further legal protections from the US authorities to those who may suffer actual invasion of their privacy rather than just simple information.

I would like confirmation that the opt-out clauses in the interim agreement that allowed the EU to stop the transfer of data if it believed the standards are being breached or their continuing transfer created an imminent risk to data subjects are still in place in the new agreement.

Another concern that has been widely expressed is the length of time that the data has been held. This is one of the issues that was raised when the interim agreement was discussed in October last when it was felt that three and a half years is far too long, and yet now we find the length of time has been increased to seven years and, taking into account the eight dormant years, that effectively makes it 15 years. I can understand building a profile of people over a couple of years, but one begins to wonder is it necessary to keep that kind of information on people for 15 years. It is a case of big brother gone mad if one is keeping, over a period of 15 years, a profile of intimate information about people, including their credit card details, travel itineraries and who they travel with.

One of the issues which had not been included and about which we all expressed concern was the lack of reciprocity in the interim agreement and I am pleased to see that there is at least a mention of it in the agreement, although it does not seem as comprehensive as the commitment we are giving. The information that we are giving to the US is essential to get a flight into the US. What we are being promised by the US is that it would actively promote co-operation of the airlines within its jurisdiction. That is a long way short of a reciprocal agreement, although it is a step in the right direction and at least it acknowledges that we on this side of the Atlantic Ocean have concerns about our citizens and that terrorism can originate anywhere. Reciprocity is very much lacking in the agreement. The agreement should be reciprocal.

As I stated, my party will not obstruct the passing of the motion because regardless of our concerns about the use to which the data are put and, indeed, the process, we are anxious that aviation traffic across the Atlantic Ocean continues. I am sure we would get little thanks from all those who have booked summer holidays in the United States if they found that they could not go, but it is a serious issue. It is fundamental to Irish business that we continue trade with the United States and although Dáil approval is required for this agreement, there is a gun to our heads in a sense in that we have little option but to agree to it.

I recognise that the world is not a safe place and that we must trade some of our personal privacy and freedoms to ensure the safety of all innocent citizens. However, I ask the Minister, to the extent that he can and through the EU, to ensure that all the protections and assurances that have been given by the US to protect data on innocent travels are rigorously enforced and that the data flow stops if there is a breach of any of the assurances that have been given.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I reiterate a number of the points made by Deputy Mitchell in respect of the manner in which the Government has handled this matter. I accept it is not entirely the Government's fault in so far as the EU was late in agreeing this and details of the agreement, such as we have them, only emerged in the past couple of days.

In October last when we debated the interim agreement Members on both sides of the House raised concerns about some of its provisions, principally that there was no clear mechanism proposed for monitoring of it. Various assurances were given and safeguards referred to, but there was no mechanism to ensure that those safeguards were put in place and adhered to. Overall, that is my biggest concern with this final agreement.

I am not suggesting for one moment that it was easy from an EU point of view to come to agreement on this. Essentially, the US was dictating what the EU could do in terms of air travel and in many ways, metaphorically, was holding a gun to the head of the EU on what it could accept and reject. At the end of the day the position adopted by the US was that unless the EU accepted its terms, European airlines would not be permitted to fly into the United States. That was obviously an unthinkable outcome for any European country but it raises the issue of what power the EU has in the context of negotiations with the US and whether we must accept, as we seem to have done on this occasion, that the EU is powerless to stand up to the US in terms of it stating the conditions under which people can enter that country.

We cannot argue with that at the end of the day, but there is an issue regarding some of the principles of the right to privacy held dear in this country and throughout the EU and it is not clear that those rights, or the principles in respect of personal liberty and the right to privacy on which the EU was founded, are being respected in this. It may be that such is the way it must be, but there is no indication that these principles were fought for or that any attempt was made to persuade the US to recognise the principles of individual freedoms which the EU espouses.

We do not know the background to this. In many ways it was sprung on us last night. The same occurred in October last with the interim agreement and the following points were made, that this is not the right way to do business, we should have been given notice and we should have been given more information and more time to consider it. All those points were made during the debate and an appeal was made to the Minister that the next time around, when it came to the final agreement, time would be allowed. Certainly, the point was made to the then Minister that he should use his influence at EU level to ensure that there were early negotiations in respect of the next agreement, that every effort should be made to finalise those negotiations in the early part of this year and that we in Ireland would be given adequate notice to consider the terms of the agreement.

Unfortunately, that has not happened and we now find ourselves in exactly the same position in which we were in October last, getting a telephone call at night informing us that there will be a debate the following day. That is not an acceptable way to do parliamentary business. I got a telephone call last night to tell me that we had got an e-mail containing a short briefing document on this that tells us very little and today there was one copy of the agreement in the Library which had to be photocopied for Members who requested it. The time allowed was completely inadequate for Members to give the matter a proper reading, let alone consideration. Given the day that is in it, with a transport Bill before the House all day long, the two main spokespersons were not in a position to read this matter and it was not a satisfactory way of dealing with it. I register the concern of the Labour Party in that regard.

The briefing document states that the number of PNR items to be collected has been reduced from 34 to 19. Will the Minister give us more information on that? In his speech, he did not do so. Will he clarify what that means? What are the 19 items of data that are included?

The document also refers to the deletion of references to the undertakings which had been part of the existing interim agreement and their replacement by an exchange of letters between the EU and the US outlining how the Department of Homeland Security will collect, use and store PNR data. When one tries to find out what that means, we are told that it has been covered by a letter from the Department of Homeland Security. No information is provided on it. Can it be accessed or can the information be relayed? Is it all on the basis of a covert exchange of letters between the US and the EU? The citizen is left with little information in respect of agreements that have potentially major implications for personal freedom.

Another provision refers to the increase in the retention period for data from three and a half years to seven years on active status. There is no indication of the reason. Is there a rationale for holding information for this long? Holding information for three and a half years has been debated at length. The increase of eight years for data in dormant status brings to 15 years the period for which data can be held on an individual who travels in or out of the US. This seems an excessive period and no justification is provided.

The Minister referred to sensitive data concerning ethnic origin, religious beliefs etc. This will be filtered and deleted by the Department of Homeland Security unless required in exceptional cases, where the life of a data subject or others could be imperilled. Who will decide if a person's life or many people's lives are imperilled? Who decides if it is justifiable to hold information for the additional period? What agreements or procedures are in place to monitor the terms of the agreement? On what are the Minister's assurances based? EU statements seek to provide assurances and guarantees but these are only comforting sounds. Who will monitor the operation of the agreement and ensure the US adheres to the terms of the agreement? From what I have read there is no monitoring mechanism. I would like the Minister to prove me wrong but I can find no evidence of proper monitoring and accountability in respect of important and sensitive data.

It is not only the Opposition that raises these concerns. The House of Lords set up a committee to examine concerns about passenger name record agreements and highlighted a number of concerns. The interim passenger name record agreement does not achieve the standard citizens have a right to expect. The agreement goes beyond what is needed for the fight against terrorism. The report of the committee states:

"The Committee state that the new PNR agreement being negotiated with the US must include clear and unambiguous undertakings about the collection, use and retention of data. The US must not be allowed to amend the undertakings unilaterally".

Can the Minister provide the assurances that I cannot find?

The House of Lords committee further stated:

The Committee believe that the new agreement must be no more invasive of individual liberty than is strictly necessary for counter-terrorism. This is vital if public confidence in the system is to be maintained. Other recommendations the Committee make include:

Airlines must inform passengers about what happens to their personal information: who receives it, and under what conditions.

The agreement must include a full list of the data allowed to be collected. This must not include open-ended data elements like ‘general remarks'. Data must not be passed to bodies not dealing with counter-terrorism unless this is essential, and only if the same safeguards are maintained. There must be annual reviews of the working of the agreement.

Is an obligation on informing passengers about their personal information included in the interim agreement? It does not seem to be. Is there any right of access to information held about an individual passenger? We are told that information will be carefully stored and passed on only if necessary but what safeguards are there? Who will oversee the process and what assurances have been given on adequate safeguards? I see no reference in the agreement to annual reviews.

A letter, dated 27 June, from the European Data Protection Supervisor is even more important than the views of the House of Lords committee. The contents are a matter of grave concern. The supervisor states:

It is my role as EDPS to ensure that data protection rights are respected in all policies of the EU. As such I am writing to inform you that if the final agreement with the USA is similar to that which has been reported, then I believe that European data protection rights will be at risk.

The main areas of concern are the extension passenger data are:

The extension of the time that passenger data are kept — effectively from 3.5 to 15 years in all cases — introducing a concept of "dormant" data, that is without legal precedent;

Data on EU citizens will be readily accessible to a broad range of US agencies and there is no limitation to what US authorities are allowed to do with the data;

The absence of a robust legal mechanism that enables EU citizens to challenge misuse of their personal information;

The US wants to avoid a binding agreement by exchange of letters.

If a person believes that personal data has been misused, what redress is available? It seems there is none. The European Data Protection Supervisor raised the last point as a matter of grave concern. The detail of the agreement is contained in letters that were exchanged but they are not available to public scrutiny.

The letter continues:

EU citizens expect the EU institutions to protect every right laid down in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. If the EU does not lead the way in developing the importance of fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data, how can we expect the rest of the world to follow? It is for this reason that I write to express my concern because I have serious doubts whether the outcome of these negotiations will be fully compatible with European fundamental rights, which both the Council and the Commission have stated are non-negotiable.

Is the Minister in a position to give us those assurances tonight? Unfortunately, I do not think he is, and for that reason we have no choice but to be highly sceptical of this agreement.

Deputy Bernard Allen

As we all know, the approval of the Oireachtas is required under Article 29.4.6° of the Constitution to participate in the adoption of this agreement. The approach by the Government is yet again a mixture of arrogance and incompetence. As a Member of this House I was unaware of anything being lodged in the Oireachtas Library until I heard of it this morning. I did not see briefing material, which arrived late last night, until this morning. It is clear the Government's contempt for this House continues to grow. On the day the Taoiseach missed Leaders' Questions the Government is putting this new deal on EU-US air passenger information to the Dáil for approval without adequate notice.

I have concerns about aspects of this agreement which are shared by the two previous speakers, but I will not go over that ground again. This is not in any true sense a bilateral agreement as its provisions are one-sided. This agreement does not put the same responsibility on US carriers travelling to Europe as it places on those going in the opposite direction. I put it to the House that terrorism is not limited by geography. There is a threat from west to east just as there is from east to west. This issue should be addressed by common agreement between the European Union and the United States.

However, having said that, we must recognise the fight against terrorism is one no country can opt out of. We have pressing responsibilities to protect our citizens and to work with like-minded countries to negate the real threat terrorism and extremism pose to the world. The recent attempts at terrorism outrages in the United Kingdom show the continuing danger terrorism poses in Europe. We should not forget the role played by aircraft in the terror attacks in 2001 and the more recent foiled plot to detonate explosives on a number of transatlantic flights. If these atrocities had gone ahead, countless lives would have been lost and Irish citizens would undoubtedly have been among the casualties.

The Dáil and the people of Ireland need to know that this agreement strikes the right balance between people's privacy and public safety. This contemptible approach to proper Dáil scrutiny is not helpful. The Government is letting down the people who elected it in this regard. Bilateral agreements usually involve exchange, but this one contradicts the intention of fighting those who are targeting western society because the information is going only one way. Nobody has a monopoly on intelligence gathering on wrongdoers. We should all be working together on this issue.

This issue goes deeper than the question of bilateral agreements. If there was justice and a sense of fair play in regard to the Middle East, there would be less of a threat from terrorism. We only have to look at the recent record of the Government in regard to the Middle East and, in particular, Palestine.

At Question Time yesterday we dealt with the withdrawal of funding to the Palestinian Authority by the European Union in May 2006. Even though I am a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs, at no stage was I able to get an explanation or a report from either the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. I tried to get an explanation of our stance on the withdrawal of that funding through both committees, as did other colleagues. That action was disgraceful. It undermined the democratically elected Government in that area and we have reaped the whirlwind since. We have seen the authority of Fatah undermined and the resurgence of Hamas. Part of Palestine, the Gaza Strip, is now in the control of an extreme organisation because the authority and credibility of the more reasonable people were undermined by the withdrawal of funding by the European Union.

This Parliament, through its committees, could not get an explanation on Ireland's position in this regard. We got mealy-mouthed token gestures in the form of statements but we could not get explanations. Coupled with the decision by Israel to withhold the taxes gathered on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, the result was hardship and death in that part of the world. These are the types of actions that are breeding terrorism in the Middle East. Until we extend justice to that area and get to the root of what is happening in the Middle East, we will reap the whirlwind.

The Government's foreign policy on Iran and nuclear power is, again, subordinate to European Union foreign policy. We allowed France, Germany and the United Kingdom, two of which are nuclear powers, to work on behalf of the European Union and Ireland in dealing with the development of the Iranian nuclear industry. That should not happen. Again, we cannot get proper explanations from the Ministers who represent this country at EU level on our involvement in the decision-making process. Our foreign policy now appears to be subordinate to European Union policy, which is dictated by the bigger powers within the European Union.

We should learn a number of lessons from the events of recent days in west Cork. They show we have a soft underbelly in our country. We have a coastline that is open to those who are importing drugs and, if the opportunity were to arise, arms and terrorists. We must live up to our responsibilities. There needs to be a joint European approach to European coastlines.

I referred earlier to the recent incidents in the United Kingdom. These events contain a lesson for us also. The United Kingdom's integration policy on immigrants has been faulty. It has not worked. As a result people there feel they are strangers in a foreign land. These people are coming under the influence of external forces. We have seen the result of that in London and Glasgow in recent days. People who were living and working in Britain are coming under the influence of sinister forces from the Middle East. We must not repeat the mistakes made in the United Kingdom. We must develop an effective policy on the integration of people who come to work and live here.

I accept the Government has appointed a Minister of State with responsibility for integration but I question the motive behind that policy. It could have more to do with winning the influence of those people who are coming to this country to work with a view to the forthcoming local elections as they would have a right to vote. Deputy Kenny, the leader of the Fine Gael Party, called for a national debate and action on immigration. He referred to the need to examine the issue of integration. My party's view is that it is about time we focused on immigration, immigrant rights and responsibilities and that we must manage integration in a way that keeps Ireland safe. We must ensure immigration improves rather than threatens our standard of living. We also have a responsibility to ensure people who come here to live and work must be made welcome and are not exploited.

We must respect their rights and traditions, as well as their culture and history. At the same time however, we must ensure that when such people come to live here, they do not become ghettoised. We must avoid the mistakes that have been made in the United Kingdom.

These issues must be addressed. Despite my reservations about the impact on personal privacy of this agreement, the overall point is that the bigger picture must be considered and all weapons at our disposal to deal with the threats of terrorism must be used. In addition, the core issues that breed terrorists and create terrorist acts must be examined and this must be done sooner rather than later.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I am delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words on this subject. As time goes on, there are increasing signs that terrorism is beginning to become a serious issue in democratic countries in particular. Given their openness and freedom, democracies are more susceptible and vulnerable to terrorist acts than are those in which less freedom obtains. There is also the danger that to protect ourselves against terrorism or to beat the terrorist, we create such an environment that we become part of the problem.

Any proposals that come before the Government or the European Union should have regard for the fact that one can alienate one's own community by introducing legislation, regulations or agreements that are punitive, restrictive or appear to undermine the rights, entitlements or liberties of those to which they apply. This should not be done lightly and should be done equally across all borders. The European Union is very good at handing down diktats frequently on various issues as to what should be done, how it should be done and to what extent. Some within the European Union however, including those at its core, do not always adhere to the principles they set down themselves.

In this case, I would have expected someone from the Independent-Green Party-Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government to have rushed out to the plinth to speak about the possible erosion of the human rights and civil liberties of the citizens of the European Union in the context of embracing the regulations before the House. While I do not wish to minimise the extent of the threat in any way, I assure the House that if some Members who are now on the Government benches were in opposition, their blood pressure would rise immeasurably. I cannot believe they would be able to contain themselves on this side of the House, were a regulation of this nature to be introduced. I am amazed they have not spoken out on this issue or even done something about it. I hope the lure of the tent in Ballybrit is not so great as to completely emasculate their efforts in this regard and leave them in such a way that they are almost afraid to speak. However, I hope they will have a tent for themselves at Ballybrit. It would be only proper to have a tent, wigwam, igloo or something similar. Everyone should be accommodated in that tent and perhaps the Minister will state whether that is the intention.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Seamus Kirk)

The debate does not provide for Members to go off on tangents.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I believe it does. The specific intention is to allow for a debate of this nature.

Deputy Noel Dempsey

The Deputy is usually on a tangent.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Coming at this time, I believe the debate is meant to give an opportunity to those on this side of the House to inquire as to whether the same thinking exists as was the case one, two or three months ago.

Members recognise fully there is a threat, that it applies across Europe and can come when it is least expected or suspected, as can be seen from recent events in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, Members should be equally vigilant to ensure that our rights are not eroded to the extent that we become prisoners ourselves or part and parcel of the system we are trying to defeat.

As time passes, more data are collected on individual citizens than ever before. Banks have such information. Moreover, many institutions possess such data illegally and the extent of the information they possess has no bearing on their purposes for storing it. As for the Data Protection Commissioner etc., all Members are familiar with the restrictions in place in this regard that must be observed. Notwithstanding that, much extant information is being collated, gleaned, put together and so on. This is not necessarily beneficial nor in the interests of the preservation of freedom.

I was a member of the group that drew up the European Charter of Fundamental Rights nearly ten years ago. It anticipated potential future scenarios and the necessity to observe, in both letter and spirit, the fundamental rights as set out in the charter, which would be clearly understood. There have been some developments in this regard subsequently and in recent weeks in particular. From what one can gather, the most recent agreement arising from the summit is a mixture of a watered-down version of what existed previously and what others would like to have. The Chair, who is an avid observer of European affairs, will be aware that although its final shape is still unknown, Members will be obliged to vote on it eventually.

Although the proposed European constitution was defeated in two countries, people continued to forge ahead as though nothing had happened. At the time I thought that since there was such strong opposition, it would require a full review and possibly a redrafting. However, I do not believe that what is available is going in that direction.

My colleague, Deputy Allen, mentioned the threat of terrorism, as well as the threat of the misuse of our coastline and its vulnerability. In the past number of years, I have had the dubious pleasure or privilege of tabling parliamentary questions in this regard. Coastal surveillance has been a particular bugbear simply because Ireland is especially vulnerable due to its extremely long coastline and countless harbours and inlets. Given the procedures in place at present, it is difficult to monitor fully events along the coastline. While this applies to drug smugglers, dealers, carriers and barons, it also can apply to those with terrorist intentions, be it by air, sea or land. As they become more sophisticated in their efforts to disrupt life as we know it, we must be more careful about how to combat them.

When combatting terrorism, it is equally important not to erode the rights of those whom Members are trying to protect. Throughout the ages, history has taught that whenever Administrations have fallen into the trap of eroding the rights and civil liberties of those they were trying to protect by introducing regulations against a clearly visible, real and intentional threat, a proper balance was essential. The liberties of our citizens must be protected and I wished to draw attention to the necessity for balance.

As Ministers, Ministers of State and other Government personnel waft their way towards Ballybrit, which I am sure they will do shortly — if this weather continues, they might sail towards Ballybrit — I hope the weather there is dry and that nothing interrupts the general jollification of the multitudes that one assumes will take place. We hope the Green Party, the Independents, Fianna Fáil, the Progressive Democrats and everyone congregated under one tree or tent will cast their minds over everything they said and everything they did not do despite, having promised otherwise a short time ago. We hope they will strike their breasts, say——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has exceeded his time.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

——mea culpa again and again and withdraw from the scene duly penitent. We hope it does not rain too heavily on the poor critters because we would not like to see the current weather continue for too long as it would dampen their spirits. I realise that regulations of this nature are necessary, but I hope they will not be abused.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Measaim go bhfuil an slí ina bhfuilimid taréis díriú isteach ar an rún seo scanallach amach is amach. Ní raibh deis againn go fóill scrúdú a dhéanamh ar an doiciméad ina iomlán. Ní bhfuair an cuid is mó dúinn an nóta ón Aire go dtí am éigin inniu. Is athrú suntasach é seo. Ba chóir go mbeadh níos mó ama againn féachaint ar an comhaontú. Ba chóir go mbeadh níos mó eolais againn ar na hathruithe atá taréis teacht i bhfeidhm ar an doiciméad a bhí os ár gcomhair i mí Deireadh Fómhair seo caite. Tá an Aire ag maíomh go bhfuil athruithe déanta ar an dá leathnach a chuir sé os ár gcomhair ag an am sin. Dúirt sé go bhfuil ísliú ó 34 go dtí 19 déanta ar an méid míreanna eolais atá clúdaithe sa chomhaontas seo idir an Aontas Eorpach agus na Stáit Aontaithe.

Tá díomá orm mar gheall ar an seasamh atá tógtha ag an Chomhaontas Ghlas. Is cuimhin liom gur sheas an páirtí sin linn nuair a labhríomar i gcoinne an rud céanna, beagnach, i mí Deireadh Fómhair seo caite. Measaim gur gá do na Glasaigh an athrú meon atá déanta acu a mhíniú ní amháin don Teach seo ach dos na Baill a thug tacaíocht don seasamh a bhí acu sa Teach seo roimhe seo.

Glacaim go bhfuil gá ann eolas áirithe a choimeád agus a bhabhtáil i gcásanna éagsúla sa lá atá inniu ann, ach go háirithe leis an slí ina bhfuil an domhain imithe. Is cóir i gcónaí go mbeadh cosaintí ann chun a dhéanamh cinnte nach féidir leo siúd atá an eolas sin á bhabhtáil acu dul thar fóir. Ní ceart go mbeadh aon seans ann go mbeidh aon mí-úsáid i gceist maidir le coigilt an eolais seo. Is léir i gcónaí nach mbíonn fuadar ar aon Rialtas reachtaíocht a dhéanamh chun cosaint a thabhairt d'ár cearta daonna — is trua é sin. Cá bhfuil na forálacha nó an reachtaíocht a chruthóidh réimse maith cosaint eolais san Aontas Eorpach?

Every time a regressive, rights-infringing measure is proposed by the Council of Ministers, the Government jumps and rams it through as quickly as possible just in case the House has the time to consider it properly or to determine how much the Council's agreements are infringing on our human rights, privacy and day-to-day-living. However, when it comes to progressive international measures that would add to the rights enjoyed by European citizens in terms of this debate, such as anti-discrimination measures, where is the rush to the optional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, the draft framework decision on data protection or the UN Convention on Trafficking? This Government and other European Governments sit on the legislation and analyse the implications, but no such analysis is contained in the two-sheet briefing document on passenger name records given to Deputies.

The Parliament is being treated by the Government and the EU as a rubber stamp. It is shameful that, with the backing of the majority, the Government has reduced the role of the House to an administrative rather than a scrutiny function. We have come to expect this from Fianna Fáil backbenchers in particular, but we had higher hopes for the Green Party. Prior to entering government, it stated its principled opposition to the contents of the interim PNR agreement on data protection grounds. Where is that opposition now?

European data protection authorities have slammed the new agreement as being even weaker than the interim agreement, which has been in operation since last October. It ties the fundamental data protection and privacy rights of Irish citizens flying to the United States to an ever-changing and ever-regressive US law, stipulating as it does that the Department of Homeland Security can process PNR data "in accordance with applicable US laws". If the laws are changed, the US could change how it processes and stores PNR data on European citizens and who this can be passed to without renegotiation of the PNR agreement. Will the Minister clarify whether this remains the case or whether a renegotiation is compulsory if the laws regarding homeland security and data processing in the US are changed? The agreement was not made available to us and the short briefing document sheds no light on this matter.

When the interim agreement was made in October, I raised the issue in the House and appealed to the Minister to ensure that when the agreement concluded, any new agreement would need to have as a minimum some of the protections I am outlining. The Minister's briefing document states that the "US Privacy Act" protections are to be extended to EU PNR data. In the few hours available to me, I have had some difficulty in identifying the specific protections to which this refers. The only Act I could find on-line with that exact title dates back to 1974 and appears to have been amended somewhat in the early 1980s.

The Government's failure to provide key information is unacceptable, given that we are being asked to approve an agreement on foot of which citizens must rely on US legislation as their sole means of redress for any wrongful use of their personal data. Will the Minister include in his closing statement details of how the US legislation compares with data protection in this State and with the proposals for a future framework decision on data protection? Have the views of the Irish Human Rights Commission or the Data Protection Commissioner been sought? I doubt it, given the rushed nature of this debate.

If the US legislation is weaker, which I believe is the case, although I might be proven wrong, does the Minister not agree that the more robust European protections should apply to citizens of EU member states? Will the Minister clarify the extent to which the limited commitments from the United States in terms of how it will collect, store and ultimately use this data are binding? It is my understanding that these commitments are simply contained in an exchange of letters, rather than being listed as undertakings within the agreement itself, as was previously the case.

The Tánaiste said this morning that it was important that no legal vacuum is allowed to arise. However, the Government is creating legal vacuums by granting ever greater powers to unaccountable intelligence agencies without introducing adequate legal safeguards to protect the unwitting public against unnecessary invasions of privacy. Nobody has stopped to consider whether the fundamental rights-infringing PNR agreement in operation thus far has contributed in any way to a reduction in crime. Why did the Government not question whether the existing agreement has been effective before proposing a further agreement to the Oireachtas?

At a seminar on PNR last year, air carriers were asked how many aeroplanes had been diverted or sent back to location of origin because of one or more PNR passengers and how many times the aeroplanes should not have been diverted. The companies responded with the information that aeroplanes have been diverted ten times and that it was a false alarm in each case.

EU member states should not allow themselves to be bullied into applying an agreement that fails to guarantee the data protection rights of its citizens. As the new Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, said on the last occasion we dealt with this issue: "We could and should have sought a better agreement to protect the rights of privacy". He is now in Cabinet and it is up to him to seek a better agreement.

Ireland can opt out of this agreement and negotiate an agreement of its own, or it can take the lead within the European Council by demanding a more acceptable agreement. I call on the Government to amend the proposed agreement before its full adoption by the Council next Tuesday to address the concerns I have raised and to ensure, at a minimum, that an annual evaluation of the agreement covering both the detail of its operation and its effectiveness is undertaken not only in this House but also in the European Parliament. Any change in United States, EU or Irish data protection provisions relevant to the operation of the agreement should prompt an immediate and transparent renegotiation requiring further approval by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil seans agam cúpla focal a rá ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. I begin by making a point about the process in which we are involved. When I raised this issue this morning, I mentioned the unsatisfactory nature of the manner in which it is coming before us. I do not mean to impugn the Minister or any civil servant, but it is illustrative of something far more serious and which will become a matter of acute debate between now and next year, when we may be debating a European reform treaty. This is the issue of the serious absence of accountability on European matters as far as the Oireachtas is concerned. As I have limited time to speak, I will do so by way of illustration.

Such information as is provided by the European Parliament on matters such as this is provided on a purely informational basis. As these matters are intergovernmental, parliaments have no power of amendment initiation or change except in the case of the histories to which the Minister referred, where reference is made to the European Court of Justice striking down a Council decision. The Minister assumes intergovernmental matters will come back to the parliament involved, but this is precisely where there is a glaring absence of accountability. The Chairman of the Joint Committee on European Affairs can share information, usually on anex post facto basis, but no other member of the committee can do so. There is no consultation with the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs.

In his opening speech, the Minister referred to Article 29 of the Constitution. There are three references in the Constitution to the role of the Oireachtas in foreign affairs, one of which relates to the declaration of war. Article 29 refers to any agreement that involves a charge, which is what arises here. Article 29 is not honoured by the arrangements in place in this regard.

There is no access to the intergovernmental negotiations or process. The most glaring example of this, which is regarded internationally as one of the most disgraceful conclusions of the European Union, is the Hamas decision of 2003. In the absence of parliamentary scrutiny, COREPER, the committee of permanent representatives to the EU, devolved to anad hoc committee of civil servants, which became known as the “clearing house”, the preparation for the proscription of Hamas as an organisation, without reference to any of the parliamentary accountability mechanisms of the European Union. That decision had disastrous consequences and laid the seed for a further decision relating to the February 2006 elections in Palestine, which were described by Jimmy Carter as the cleanest, fairest and most representative one could see. The EU, however, issued a bland statement noting the elections but not accepting the results.

There is no accountability to the Oireachtas from the Common Foreign and Security Policy and developing areas of European security policy. The question arises fundamentally as to what has been devolved constitutionally, in accordance with Article 29, from Parliament to the Executive and what right has the latter to operate in a blind way as far as Parliament is concerned.

The Minister's speech is proof of what I am saying. In regard to the evolution of the motion, he suggests how it came so late before us:

On 27 June the US authorities and the European Commission, acting on a mandate agreed by the member states of the European Union, completed their negotiations on a new long-term agreement on the processing and transfer of PNR data by air carriers to the US authorities. The agreement was considered by the EU Committee of Permanent Representatives on 29 June and it is proposed that it will be submitted to the Council for approval on 10 July. The new agreement which will provide a long-term solution for the processing and transfer of PNR data will be valid for seven years. It will ensure legal certainty for a considerable period.

This statement is an indictment of an unaccountable process that devalues parliament. I am in the course of research that looks at similar conditions in other parliaments in Europe. It is a matter of deepest concern to parliamentarians.

In regard to legal certainty, the Minister went on to say:

Agreement was also reached on an exchange of letters between the United States and the European Union. The US letter gives details of how the US Department of Homeland Security handles the collection, use and storage of PNR data received from air carriers, referred to in the letter as "assurances".

This raises the fundamental question of the relationship of such an assurance to the guarantee in European law in privacy terms to European citizens. When we look at the history of the first agreement which came into existence in 2004 up to the moment of the hearing of the European Court of Justice and the interim agreement that followed, what one is seeking in many cases is a certainty of guarantee that would, as I and every Member would wish, allow people to travel in the maximum conditions of security but without sacrifice of any of the certainties in regard to the use or abuse of data that has been gathered.

We have received this text very late and attached to it are the two letters that have been exchanged. However, it is far short of a guarantee and in that sense some questions arise regarding those who speak and negotiate on our behalf. I am not imputing malevolence on the part of any Minister when I use the matter to illustrate a problem that is going to be amplified. Can one imagine how much more difficult it will be if, following the acceptance of a form of European treaty no longer called a constitution and where the rights may not be central and embedded in the treaty itself, the post of European Foreign Minister is established? At the moment it is not clear whether a shred of accountability is attached to the activities or statements of the existing spokesperson for the common position, whose bureaucracy is merged with that of the Council. I say this as somebody who is pro-Europe but wants the EU to be based on guarantees of rights.

I take with a grain of salt the suggestion that the criteria on which the United States Department of Homeland Security and the European Union operate are similar. They are not and anyone who reads the literature on the activities of the former will be aware that a plethora of abuses of information and human rights has been declared in the courts of the United States. Far more is needed in this matter than an exchange of letters.

I would like us to use the matter as a case study in accountability and to push it back so that the House can debate that which is delegated to the Executive and that which is retained in Parliament. If we do not do so, I can imagine an atmosphere in which we would want to discuss a future European treaty as one that would correctly be full of unanswered questions. I hope we learn from this, and all one can do is hope rather than be certain that the assurances given in an exchange of letters might in some way be judged by their consequences to have the character of a guarantee.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I might not use my allotted ten minutes but I wish to retain the option of doing so.

I did not intend to speak on this issue and was not even aware it was on the agenda until the Order of Business. I decided to speak for a number of reasons, primary among which was registering my concern about how this arose. I recall speaking on the issue last October when it was debated in the European Parliament. We were told then by Governments that people may have reservations about the measure but there was not much to worry about because the arrangement was an interim one and work would be completed by the end of July on a more comprehensive agreement with which the European Union would be far happier. People decided to live with the measure on the basis of that assurance and because it was not possible to obstruct the agreement when doing so would impede people from travelling from the EU to the US and cause insurmountable problems for airlines such as Aer Lingus. Therefore, even though we were not overly happy with the measures in the interim agreement, we agreed to them.

I have a problem with the fact that a more substantive and long-term agreement is now being introduced as a done deal and I understand that the European Parliament has not been given an opportunity to debate it. Parliaments representing people across the European Union are being given afait accompli and we are being told that the timetable for ratification is such that unless we intend to cause absolute carnage for airlines travelling between Ireland and the United States, we will have to live with the agreement. That is not good enough given that we are supposed to be putting together a negotiated agreement between the US and the EU.

I do not share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers regarding civil liberties. Unfortunately, we live in a world where civil liberties and, to a certain extent, human rights have to be compromised at times in an effort to protect people. Changes in attitudes are taking place in the United Kingdom arising from the new challenges faced in terms of doctors trying to cause mass murder in London and Glasgow. As legislators, we have been given the difficult task of trying to ensure we are cognisant of the rights which form the cornerstone of the European Union while also observing our fundamental responsibility to protect innocent people from terrorism, intimidation and fear. The United States takes one approach to that task, while Europe takes another. The US sees itself as at war with terrorism but we see ourselves as trying to fight terrorism in a reasonable and reasoned manner. Therefore, when we try to negotiate an agreement on passenger name records, we have to reconcile the attitudes of the US Department of Homeland Security, which regards it as essential to build a database which protects US citizens from potential terrorists arriving by air, and the EU, which acknowledges the need to collect data on numbers of travellers and their history but prefers a less aggressive approach. For anyone who understands the US mindset on this issue that is the reason the interim agreement was seen as a means for getting us over the hump. However, we all hoped the long-term agreement would take more account of European attitudes towards the issue.

I have not seen the agreement because I have been unable to acquire a copy. I understand it was only lodged in the Oireachtas Library late last night. However, the briefing note which I read regarding some of the changes made to the interim agreement does not offer much solace. The scope of the agreement has been expanded to cover people on the run, that is, flights from warrants or custody, as well as incorporating serious crime and combating terrorism. From that point of view, the scope has expanded rather than retracted. I concede and welcome the fact that the information being gathered by airlines and passed to the Department of Homeland Security is being reduced from 34 to 19 items. I hope those 19 items will focus on specific, relevant issues as opposed to just gathering as much information as physically possible on every passenger that travels, even if that information is irrelevant when it comes to vetting people and assessing whether they pose a terrorist threat.

The crux of the issue is how the data will be used, with whom it will be shared, how it will be stored and for how long. This was the area of real concern expressed in discussions in the European Parliament and here. Who can the Department of Homeland Security share this information with, can other people access it and can it be abused and used in a way that is not consistent with what we would expect in terms of privacy, civil liberties and human rights? We have been told that an exchange of letters between the EU and the US is solving this problem. I would like to see those letters. Are they available as part of the agreement? I see an official from the Department nodding so I assume they are available. Perhaps I will hold my judgment on this matter until I see them.

The retention period for data is increasing, extending the scope from three and a half years to seven. The Americans want all airlines to be required to use a push rather than pull system of information. Essentially, that means the airlines will have to volunteer the information rather than the Department of Homeland Security having to access it. My understanding is that Aer Lingus already does that so this provision will not directly affect our airline, as it is known, but the issue is a much broader one than just how it affects Aer Lingus.

The application of the US Privacy Act is welcome. If court cases arise from this agreement, in terms of the use of data and people accessing data that is being held about them, that Act will hopefully give some legal clarity as to what passengers are entitled to in terms of accessing information that is held on them.

I am a strong supporter of the European Union and welcome its ability to negotiate,en bloc, for 27 different countries and work with partners like the United States on issues like the war on terror. However, if people are not to grow more cynical about the EU and decisions that are being taken in the absence of consultation with national parliaments or the European Parliament, we must ensure that deals like this one are debated and discussed in a meaningful way, rather than what is happening here today, which is essentially a rubber-stamping exercise for work the Commission has done on behalf of the European Council.

Deputy James Reilly

Having listened to the debate, it strikes me that the major problem here is the manner in which this matter has come before the Dáil and the fact that most Opposition Members feel totally uninformed. There is an awful sense of big brother about it and that is of deep concern. People will always get paranoid and upset when they do not have full information. The main problem here is the lack of information relating to this issue and the manner in which it has come before the House. As my colleague, Deputy Simon Coveney, has pointed out, the documentation only arrived in the library late last night and most Deputies have not had a chance to read it. Even if one had it on one's desk this morning, given the other business in the House, one would not have had the time to read such an important document.

I am pro-European and would be the first to say that the benefits to this country of membership of the EU have been enormous. Similarly, we are all aware of the risk from terrorism but despite that, the manner in which this issue has been presented to the Dáil, as afait accompli, is frightening. It is a frightening example of our sovereignty being undermined. We are being forced to vote on something which most of us have not been able to comprehensively inform ourselves about.

I agree with speakers who referred to the erosion of civil liberties and using the threat of terrorism to justify this. How far are we to go in this regard? Will we end up with our own Guantanamo Bay? I have serious concerns in that regard. What are the guarantees and safeguards for our own citizens, on whom information will be stored? The most important issue in this context is the Freedom of Information Act. Will it be possible, under the terms of that Act, for Irish citizens to access the information that the airlines and the Department of Homeland Security hold on them? That, in effect, would be the greatest reassurance for people, to know they can check the information and ensure it is correct.

We are all familiar with the amount of information that is collected on us, even in the commercial arena, by the banks, for example. If one seeks a loan, not alone does the bank want to know about one's own situation, it also wants to know one's children's age, gender and so forth. One might wonder what such information has to do with obtaining a loan, but the bank is simply profiling one's children to determine whether they might also be in the market for a loan at a future date.

I have serious concerns about this matter. Unless Irish citizens have access to the information held on them, the potential exists for misinformation to be on file, causing serious delay, upset or even wrongful arrest in the United States of America. That has happened before. Indeed, it has happened here also. We must do our utmost to protect our own citizens from potential miscarriages of justice arising from erroneous information being held on file, to which they cannot gain access in order to correct it.

I have ten minutes to speak but I will not need all that time. I simply wish to express my deep concern about the lack of information on this motion and my inability to tell anybody who asks me what safeguards are in place and what the letters of assurance contain. While I do not mean to be derogatory, I am not in any way reassured by the statement that "Such data may only be accessed in response to an identifiable case and on the approval of a senior Department of Homeland Security official designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security". That does nothing to reassure me, even though I consider the United States of America to be a great friend of Ireland. It has also been the greatest protector of democracy in the western world, when times where bad in Europe, with the Iron Curtain and so forth.

The way this document has come before us is totally unsatisfactory. The Minister and the Government have a duty to properly inform the Dáil and reassure us. Perhaps this is all perfectly fine but we do not have the requisite information to know for sure. We must be reassured and there is a lesson in all of this for the Minister. We would not have had such a long debate on this matter had it been handled differently.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Brian Lenihan)

I thank Deputies for their contribution to the debate on what is a very important motion, as Deputy Reilly acknowledged in his contribution. The events of recent days in the United Kingdom have brought home to us that crime and terror do not respect borders but are global phenomena. It is important that Ireland joins in European and international initiatives to make air travel safe for operators and passengers. This is a complex and somewhat sensitive subject. We need to strike a balance between public security considerations and protection of the rights of citizens. European citizens are every bit as concerned as their American counterparts to protect human life and prevent international criminal activity.

This is the third agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on passenger name records. In that context, it is not an unusual agreement or one without precedent. It has a precedent in international practice. From the point of view of the concerns that have been expressed by Deputies, the agreement before the House is a substantial improvement on its predecessors.

Since 2004, Ireland has participated in the adoption of these agreements. Of course it would be preferable if there were no need to collect such data, but it has been accepted by the airlines and passengers that it is necessary and essential to assist in the prevention and combating of terror and international crime.

In the course of the negotiations on this new agreement, the European Commission responded in an effective manner by arranging for the exchange of letters which sets out precisely the scope of the agreement and what assurances were extracted from the United States authorities in regard to the use of the data and its safe custody. I know that Opposition Deputies have expressed reservations but they would have to agree that the efforts made by the European Commission to secure a high level of data protection in the new agreement has had a positive outcome. The comparisons between the current interim agreement and the new agreement are favourable, with the number of data items being reduced from 34 to 19 through a process of rationalisation. Important new protections for data and avenues of redress for persons seeking information about, or correction of, passenger name record data are provided in the new agreement. This is a welcome development for EU citizens. Our participation in adopting this agreement, together with our European partners, will ensure continuity and certainty for airlines and passengers on transatlantic flights.

One of the key criticisms that has been made in this debate is that the matter is being rushed through the House. I want to outline the sequence of events that has led up to our discussion today. The European Union and the United States finalised this agreement last Wednesday. The committee of representatives considered it last Friday. It was brought to the Government for approval and submission to Dáil Éireann yesterday. The Government considered and approved the agreement before lunchtime yesterday. As soon as the decision was confirmed, the agreement was laid before the House in the normal way yesterday afternoon. A briefing note, which covered all the essential points of the agreement, was made available to Opposition spokespersons at approximately teatime yesterday. The Government fulfilled all its obligations concerning this agreement in the most expeditious way and with due respect to the rights of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. With all due respect to Members, the Minister cannot be expected to proceed with greater expedition.

Deputy Mitchell raised the question of the transactions and proceedings of the committee of permanent representatives of the European Union. Our officers continuously reminded our European colleagues that we had constitutional obligations in this matter requiring the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas, and stressed the need for Members to have time to consider this agreement.

Deputy Shortall raised the question of the appropriate balance between the right to privacy and security issues. In an ideal world measures such as this agreement would not be required. The public, including those travelling, legitimately expect the Government to take appropriate measures to secure their safety, as far as possible. The agreement will enhance the security of the public by enabling law enforcement authorities to counter the threat from terror and other serious crime. In this agreement, it is done in a proportionate manner; any intrusion into personal privacy is no more than is necessary to provide assurance to the public of the commitment to their protection.

I would like to deal with others points raised by Deputy Shortall, but my time is limited. The one fundamental point I wish to make, however, is that this agreement is an improvement on its predecessors. From that point of view, I am glad to recommend it to the House.

Deputy Shortall specifically raised the reservations expressed by the European data protection supervisor. I should point out, however, that the letter to which Deputy Shortall referred, was written without sight of the final agreement and prior to its conclusion. The agreement attempted to address some of the concerns expressed in that correspondence.

Question put.

Deputies

Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputies claiming a division please rise?

Deputies Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Arthur Morgan and Martin Ferris rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

As fewer than ten Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 68 the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Dáil.

Question declared carried.