Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)

I wish to state that I received information on this matter only approximately one hour ago. It affords one little opportunity to research the matter and one must question the motive. If other countries have already dealt with this, why were we left until now? We have seen various examples of legislation rushed through the House. In any context, rushed legislation does not make for sound legislation. I would prefer if we had the information for a little longer. My knowledge of PNR is that airlines run a check on passengers prior to departure and they will now have 72 hours longer to do so.

The requirement of passenger names by the United States conflicts with a number of governments on privacy laws. We have various wide-ranging agreements between the United States and the European Union. This hits at privacy laws. I have no doubt many people are not worried. They are more concerned with being fit to travel to the United States. For some people, the change from having to go to the United States Embassy for a holiday visa was an ease. Some people were lucky enough to get multiple indefinite visas. In that regard, it possibly does away with that application system.

Many people are concerned this represents a major act of faith in the integrity of the Department of Homeland Security. A number of issues are raised such as Guantanamo Bay. That Department has engaged in a policy of extraordinary rendition to countries which permit torture. A recent example is that of a Canadian citizen who was an innocent travelling through the United States. He was picked up, sent off and tortured. Apologies and questions on how and why this happened are now coming from all directions. We must address these issues. Rushing through this motion does not give us time to examine what could happen.

Earlier, it was pointed out that much of this agreement hinges on United States law. The law of any country changes from week to week. If the rules changes, will we be provided with an opportunity to reconsider this legislation or examine its implications? These are difficult issues and we should have an opportunity to consider them.

The anti-terrorism security measures which followed the events of September 2001 form part of the background to this. For some time, the United States authorities have required airlines on transatlantic routes to supply personal information on passengers in advance of travel and this is commonly known as PNR. The transfer of this data takes place within the framework of a decision by the European Commission under EU data protection legislation. Undertakings given to the Commission by the United States authorities limit the use to which the data will be put. This protects the rights of EU citizens while at the same time assists international efforts against terrorism. This is the nub of the issue. We want to protect the citizens of the EU but we are concerned about any further use to which the data could be put. For how long will the data be stored? Can it be stored indefinitely? That would infringe privacy rights.

We all recognise we must act to counter international terrorism in which aircraft have been used in the past. We do not want our country to be used as a conduit. The European Court of Justice ruled on 30 May 2006 that the legal basis for the decision was not appropriate. We will put the onus on airlines to supply names and that is not an appropriate function for airlines. A threat is implied to deny landing rights if one does not comply. Effectively, that is blackmail. We will have little choice in the matter. These issues should be addressed and I am concerned we do not have a wide enough timeframe to do so.

See this speech in context