Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 24 May 2012

Vol. 766 No. 3

Passenger Name Records: Motion

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to accept the following measure:

the Council Decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States Department of Homeland Security,

a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 6th December, 2011.

This motion is to enable Ireland to participate in the agreement between the EU and the United States on the use and transfer of passenger name records, PNR, to the US Department of Homeland Security, which has been adopted by the Council of Ministers. I propose that Ireland should exercise the option provided by Article 4 of Protocol No. 21 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to accept a measure after it has been adopted by the Council. The prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas is required to enable Ireland to exercise that option.

This agreement replaces the current EU-US PNR agreement which has been in operation since 2007. That agreement has been renegotiated in order to address concerns that had been raised about proportionality, data protection and data security aspects. A new agreement was signed in December 2011 to cover the ongoing use and transfer of PNR data to the US authorities. The European Parliament considered the agreement in detail and approved its terms on 19 April 2012. The agreement was then concluded by the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers at its meeting on 26 April 2012.

PNR data is information about passengers' travel plans that is collected and held by air carriers as part of their reservations systems. The agreement will require the airlines to provide a portion of the information they already collect to the US authorities for the purposes of combating terrorism and serious, transnational crime. PNR data is a tool of proven value to law enforcement services in counter-terrorism and serious crime investigations, particularly in cases of trafficking in drugs and persons, and a number of countries, including the UK, Canada, Sweden, Spain, the US and Australia, have been using PNR data for these purposes for some years now.

PNR data has been of benefit in investigations into a number of significant transnational, organised crime cases involving the trafficking of human beings and drug smuggling. It can be an essential support to investigating and prosecuting those who would prey on and profit from the misery of others. The use of PNR data was instrumental in the prosecution and conviction of David Headley for his involvement in facilitating the atrocious terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India in November 2008, in which 164 innocent people lost their lives. By entering details of his first name, a partial travel itinerary and a possible travel window into the PNR database, David Headley's full name, address and passport number were obtained. He was subsequently arrested and pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges.

While this measure is an important support to the fight against terrorism and serious crime, I am very conscious of the need to ensure that the rights of citizens are not subjected to unnecessary or disproportionate intrusion. It is important to strike an appropriate balance, especially with regard to the protection of personal data, and I believe this agreement does just that.

Time does not allow for a full description of all the provisions in the agreement. However, we had a very full and detailed debate on this proposal at the justice committee last week. The agreement contains a number of specific safeguards in regard to the use of the PNR data. In particular, the processing of the data is strictly limited to the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting terrorist offences and serious, transnational crime.

With regard to the retention of the data, it will be retained by the US authorities for up to five years in an active database, with restrictions on access to it. After the first six months, the PNR data will be depersonalised, that is to say, fields that would identify an individual will be masked out. After the initial five-year period, the depersonalised data will be transferred to an inactive database, with additional access restrictions. In the case of terrorist offences and related crimes, the data may then be retained for up to a further ten years, that is to say, for a total of 15 years overall. In the case of serious, transnational crimes, the data can then be retained for up to a further five years, that is to say, for a total of ten years overall. The agreement contains specific, tailored safeguards in regard to privacy and data protection, data security, oversight, accountability, transparency and rights of access to information, the correction of errors and redress.

Members should note that, under the terms of the agreement, an individual will have the right to access his or her own data, to have incorrect data corrected and the right to redress for a violation of his or her rights under the agreement. The agreement provides that the administrative and legal safeguards which are in place in the US for privacy and data protection are available to all individuals, regardless of nationality, country of origin or place of residence. The agreement also provides for regular, joint review of its operation by the EU and US authorities, and for a joint evaluation of the agreement four years after its entry into force. The agreement will remain in force for a period of seven years.

This proposal is one of a number of measures being taken at EU level in the justice and home affairs field which arise from commitments set out in the 2009 Stockholm programme. The Government is determined that Ireland will have a full, active and constructive engagement in bringing forward the European justice agenda. Given the potential value of PNR data in investigations into drug smuggling, human trafficking or international terrorism, and the importance of giving a clear demonstration of our continued support for and solidarity with the international community in the fight against these activities, I recommend Ireland's participation in this measure to the House.

As I indicated at committee, we will be supporting the motion. The relations between Europe and the US are at their strongest and relations between Ireland the US have also never been as strong. That relationship brings certain privileges to us, such as pre-access and pre-clearance at Dublin Airport, but with privileges come responsibilities. The responsibilities we are being asked to take on here are not in any way onerous. I agree with the Minister's assertion that a balance is struck between those responsibilities and between people's rights. There are enough provisions in the agreement in terms of access to information and the capacity to correct incorrect information to satisfy that.

The fact this agreement is a result of a review of the 2007 agreement shows this arrangement is constantly being monitored, evaluated and reviewed to ensure the privileges and rights of citizens are being monitored at all stages. When we reflect it is only three weeks since there was another credible attempt to blow up an aeroplane, while people think it is not going to happen to them, it may. We must ensure we have the proper provisions in place to prevent any such catastrophe happening. That is why we are supporting the motion.

I know from speaking with my colleague, Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, that this motion is similar to others that have come before the House on similar issues. Last July we dealt with two similar motions: the first was an agreement between this State and the EU and the second was an agreement between this State and Australia. During the debate on these motions, Deputy O'Brien outlined the reasons Sinn Féin has opposed the implementation of passenger name record agreements. There is no doubt this proposal, like those before it, has far-reaching consequences for Irish citizens, particularly in the area of data protection.

From previous debates, the Minister will be very familiar with the concerns and the reasons Sinn Féin opposed PNR agreements and, therefore, I do not wish to waste time repeating the same arguments. However, I want to put the following on the record. This motion will see the transfer of data between Ireland and the US. Under the agreement, it is proposed that the Department of Homeland Security will be acting as the agency in the US which will be responsible for the retention and destruction of the personal data of Irish citizens which will be transferred. Many questions remain unanswered with regard to some of the accusations which have been levelled at the Department of Homeland Security. Let us be honest, it is not exactly the leading organisation in the area of human rights. We will not be supporting the motion.

I find it a bit mad we are so keen to share information with the US when it is not half as keen to share it with us. I agree with the previous speaker that we are talking about giving a lot of information about our citizens to a country that has an appalling human rights record. Apart from the madness of Iraq, Afghanistan and the atrocities taking place in Pakistan of late, what of the notion that Guantanamo Bay detention centre could still be open? To take the statistics on Guantanamo, of 779 detainees imprisoned there in the past decade, only six have been convicted. That is incredible, and that figure is one less than the number of military prosecutors who have resigned over the system's unfairness.

I spoke to Amnesty International this morning and know it too has concerns. It is still not getting much comfort on questions to the Government on rendition flights passing through Shannon Airport. First, the Government refuses to search the aeroplanes, as was the position of the previous Government, and it is prepared to take the word of the US. Given how the US has behaved on the world stage, I find it incredible the Government would take its word on anything. There is this notion that if there was no prisoner on the aeroplane, that means it was not a rendition flight. Amnesty is at pains to point out that Shannon has been used as a staging post on the way to or from rendition activities. We are facilitating that. We complain about terrible things that happen in the world and we like to think of ourselves as a neutral country. I do not want to take sides with anyone on the planet, powerful or otherwise. I believe it is important we maintain a neutral position and that we have 100% respect for human rights. I do not see it as right to share so much information with a country with such a poor human rights record. That is not a good idea. Therefore, I oppose the motion.

As contributions are now concluded, I must put the question.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 97; Níl, 16.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Fleming, Sean.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelly, Alan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
  • Mulherin, Michelle.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Nulty, Patrick.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Reilly, Joe.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Sean.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Twomey, Liam.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Ellis, Dessie.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Higgins, Joe.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • O’Brien, Jonathan.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Catherine Murphy and Jonathan O’Brien.
Question declared carried.
Barr
Roinn