Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

Fine Gael will not oppose this motion but I want to make some comments about it. We are all a little surprised that it has come before the House but all of us have been following this issue since 11 September 2001 when the Department of Homeland Security in the United States first announced it required this type of information as part of its battle against terrorism. One can understand the Commission's decision to sign up to this agreement, almost without question, given the obvious need to ensure there was no disruption to trade, tourism or the normal social intercourse between Europe and the new world for either economic or social reasons, particularly at a time when the future of air travel was threatened.

Nevertheless, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Parliament for referring it to the European Court of Justice because it was a considerable commitment made on behalf of us all to transfer this data to the United States and have it maintained for an indefinite period. Agreeing to this measure was no small deed and a debt is due to the Parliament for referring it to court, which has found there was no legal basis for the Commission to sign the agreement because it related to issues of security. Also, the protections within the United States of the data transferred were not adequately secured.

On one level, those of us in Europe regard it as a form of paranoia on the part of the United States authorities that they would require this kind of information but on another level one wondered what use the information being transmitted would be to anybody in determining whether a terrorist attack was being planned. Notwithstanding that, the Department of Homeland Security felt strongly about it.

It has made certain commitments and it is essential that those commitments are met to protect individuals regarding the processing of their personal data if they consider that the processing of the passenger name records data is not in accordance with the standards of protection promised by the Department of Homeland Security or where a competent United States authority has determined they are in breach of those standards until compliance of those standards is assured. We can stop transferring the data in certain circumstances, for example, where there are reasonable grounds for believing the Department of Homeland Security is not taking adequate or timely steps to settle a breach of standards. In nodding this motion through the House, so to speak — apparently only two countries have not already nodded it through their Parliaments — we must be rigorous in ensuring that whatever undertakings are given are obeyed to the letter, that information is used only for the purpose for which it is intended and that it is only passed to those who are included in the agreement.

I have a number of reservations and questions and I hope the Minister of State will clarify them for me. The US authorities currently have access to the 34 pieces of data information they require. In other words, they can seek that information rather than Europe giving it to them automatically. Until it is technically feasible for airlines to automatically arrange for the transfer of information, they have that access. I am concerned, perhaps needlessly but I would like clarification, about whether they have access to other information which is not required or if it is restricted to those 34 items of information.

Another of my concerns is the number of other bodies within the United States to whom this information is transferred automatically. Do the undertakings given by the Department of Homeland Security apply equally to the other competent bodies that have a role in security in the United States? The more bodies that receive this type of information, the more potential there is for abuse of that information. I am anxious to know if the undertakings given by the Department of Homeland Security apply also to those bodies and the checks that are in place regarding the use to which they put that information.

Another concern that I and others have expressed is the length of time the data is held. In the new agreement, there is no deadline in terms of the length of time the data can be held. I understand the reason there is no agreement is because the Department of Homeland Security in the United States is anxious to keep it for a number of years to build a profile of people travelling to and from the United States. If somebody travels to the United States and then leaves, the information should be scrapped. Holding on to this data and effectively building a profile of all passengers coming from Europe is beyond what is necessary. When is it expected that type of agreement will be reached in terms of the length of time the information should be held?

Another concern the Minister might address is the fact that this is a one-way process. I am not suggesting there is not a security threat. There is a security threat worldwide. The threats and acts of terrorism are not just directed against the United States; they occur in other parts of the world. If the authorities in the United States consider that this information is essential to them to protect travellers, airports, planes and other targets within the United States and if the European Community agrees they need this information and consequently signs this agreement to transfer that information to them, is the information about US passengers coming here not equally important to this country? Is there any talk of a reciprocal agreement? Do we consider that a reciprocal agreement would be necessary and that they would transfer similar information to authorities in Europe?

Fine Gael has no intention of obstructing the passing of this motion because, regardless of our concerns about the use to which this data is put, our overriding concern is to ensure there is no disruption to aviation traffic across the Atlantic. If we want aviation traffic to continue without disruption, this is the price we must pay. However, I stress again the importance of ensuring that whatever undertakings have been given, which are clearly laid out and are fairly minimal, although they would not inspire total confidence, as part of the agreement to protect data, are rigorously enforced and that the data flow would stop instantly if there was any breach in the use to which this data is put.

See this speech in context