Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion to approve on behalf of the Oireachtas participation in an interim agreement between the EU and the US on the continued use of passenger name records data.

The history of PNR data between the EU and US stems back to 11 September 2001, the beginning of the so-called "war on terrorism" for the United States, and the fundamental change in mindset in the American public and US policy makers on security matters generally. I was in New York two weeks after 11 September, when the city and country was still shell-shocked by what had occurred. The response was always going to be security obsessed, and understandably so. Since then, led by the Department of Homeland Security, there has been a particular focus on security measures in airports and in the airline sector generally. The resultant consequences are inconvenience for passengers coming from and going to the US and a compromise in people's civil liberties and, some would say, fundamental rights.

While for the most part, US citizens have accepted new security measures, the non-US travelling public, travelling through or to the US, have questioned the lengths to which the US authorities are going with security concerns, particularly the collection of passenger data. Many in the EU are uncomfortable with the US insistence on PNR data and fingerprint information before any visit to the US. These new measures have affected Ireland more than most. Even if we still enjoy a visa waiver programme, the volume of traffic to and from the US makes it even more relevant to Ireland, and to Britain, than to many other EU countries.

Until recently the transfer of passenger data has taken place within the framework of a decision by the European Commission under EU data protection legislation and undertakings given to the Commission by the US authorities to limit the use of such data to protect the privacy rights of EU citizens while assisting in the international effort to counteract terrorism. Serious concerns, however, were raised in the European Parliament and elsewhere at the start of the year that the agreement by the EU and US on passenger data sharing was not legally sound. A case was taken to the European Court of Justice, which ruled on 30 May that the legal basis for the Commission decision was not appropriate and, therefore, could not stand.

As a result of the sensitivities of the issue, the ECJ allowed the agreement to remain in place until 30 September to allow time for the EU and US to come up with a new agreement that would be legally sound and would serve the same purpose as the previous agreement. In 2004 the Commission signed up to a serious commitment between the EU and US without having the competence to do so. It is important to note that the ECJ decision had nothing to do with infringements of people's fundamental rights or civil liberties, even though politicians have raised those concerns on many occasions. Instead, the legal decision was an issue of competence.

The new agreement, which is an interim arrangement that only lasts until 31 July 2007, has the necessary legal basis if all EU member states sign up to it — Ireland is the second last to do so. This is an interim agreement for a reason, namely, to allow for the negotiation of a more comprehensive and acceptable agreement for both sides. This suggests that not everyone is happy with the agreement, as many consider it does not strike a balance between civil liberties and privacy and the need for a comprehensive agreement to counter international terrorism.

The European Parliament has been at the heart of this debate and was primarily responsible for bringing the case before the European Court of Justice in May. The European Parliament, in its hotly debated report, recommended a two-step negotiation strategy on behalf of the European Union on this issue. The first thing it proposed was a recognition that a new, short-term agreement to run for a set period was necessary because there was no time to negotiate a more comprehensive agreement and because of the strongly held views in America. MEPs recommended, however, that we should seek some changes between the 2004 agreement and what we will agree in the interim. The main recommendation was for a change in the process of allowing full and open access to all passenger data for the Department of Homeland Security in the US and a move towards a system that would mirror the "push" system between the EU and Canada and the EU and Australia, where passenger data information would be given to the Department of Homeland Security on request on a case by case basis. This is the essence of the argument, whether we should require airlines to give open access to all data on all passengers, regardless of their background, or we should only agree to provide data on people the US deems to be a risk or in respect of whom it has a reason for requesting data.

That recommendation is not part of the interim agreement because, I suspect, of the firmly held views on Capitol Hill and the Department of Homeland Security. The European Parliament recognised that more time was needed to put together a more comprehensive agreement on air transportation security and sharing of passenger information. This is not only an issue between the US and the EU. If we are genuinely interested in a global war on terrorism, as the US calls it, or combating terrorism at a global level, as we call it in Europe, we must ensure common standards between the EU and other parts of the world.

Many people who recognise the need to counter terrorism still have legitimate concerns about the use of personal information by the US Department of Homeland Security. We must rely on what are referred to in the interim agreement as "undertakings" by the US. The undertakings in this agreement, however, are exactly the same as those in the 2004 agreement. The concerns that have been expressed in the European Parliament and national parliaments across Europe by those who are committed to the war on terrorism and who wish to co-operate with the US in every way that makes sense, on privacy and the US undertakings on the handling of passenger data, still exist.

The essence of the problem is that the United States and European Union take different approaches to this issue. The former considers that because it has been at war with terrorism since 2001, the rules of war apply and it is willing to take more extreme measures. The latter is uncomfortable with this position because Europeans categorise the problem as requiring the introduction of counter-terrorism measures rather than conducting a war. For this reason, it will be difficult to negotiate the type of comprehensive agreement that is required by July next year. If we do not try to achieve this objective, the difference of opinion between the two sides will remain.

See this speech in context