Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)

This is a very difficult matter for the Dáil to consider and has been made even more difficult by the fact that, as Deputy Shortall and others noted, we were only informed about the issue yesterday evening. I understand the frontline Minister was unaware of the requirement for us to pass this motion and that we are, in a sense, second last in the EU to do so. Every EU jurisdiction has approved the agreement, with the exception of Ireland and another state. This puts us in a very difficult position because no one would dispute or disagree with the supposed intent, namely, the provision of data to combat terrorism, such as the events that took place in London in July 2005, Madrid in March 2004 and New York in September 2001. However, this is a balancing act as we also seek to ensure the rights and privacy of Irish and European citizens are maintained in any arrangement with another state, such as the United States in this case. It is difficult in the available timeframe to read the details of the undertaking given by the Department of Homeland Security and establish whether those rights will be correctly protected.

Our party, like our sister parties in the European Union, has significant and real concerns regarding the nature of this agreement and a breach of the principle on the right to privacy which exists within the Union. The principle held in other European countries is that information should only be used for the purpose for which it is collected. If we have control over data handed on to a particular agency, at least we know what its use will be and the conditions under which it will be used.

Effectively, this agreement will mean handing over data to a sovereign foreign government and acceding that it has the right to pass on that information to other agencies within that state where the same data control measures may not apply. We may not have any idea what data control measures will apply. That sovereign state may forward the data to another sovereign state based on its assessment of need. Our control over or understanding of the use of the information we yield and controls over its use will no longer exist. We will hand over in trust that information to the current Administration in the United States.

We could and should have sought a better agreement to protect the right to privacy, cherished and valued within the European Union. Such an agreement should in no way be taken as a weakening of our will to fight terrorism. That is certainly not the intent of this side of the House. The will to fight terrorism should not override our desire under proper constraints to protect the interests of our citizens. We could and should do better than what is set out in this motion.

We are in a difficult position. If we vote down the motion, will we be seen as fighting against the war on terrorism? Will be seen to be on one side rather than another? I trust any other administration would see beyond such simplistic analysis. I trust an administration of the United States would view European legislators as standing up for the principles, rights and freedoms it embodies and state it understands the difference of opinion and the reluctance to hand over control on the right to privacy. It would understand a parliament standing up for the right to privacy of its citizens and having a willingness to provide information but also a desire that the material and data be used in certain ways with certain controls.

When I read this undertaking from the Department of Homeland Security, I see fundamentally we have ceded control on the right to privacy. We could justify it if it were used in a narrow context such as a war against terrorism or valid security reasons. I do not object to that. In reading the undertaking, I see no guarantee or understanding that will be its limit. In yielding data which may be passed on to other governments or third parties we will step too far. My party opposes the motion.

See this speech in context