Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate and who posed a number of questions that I will endeavour to answer.

I wish first to apologise, if it is necessary to do so, to Opposition spokespersons and Members for not having more time available to debate the motion. As soon as it was possible to provide a briefing note, we did so. It is merely a case that circumstances have given rise to its being dealt with in this way. The European Parliament brought this matter before the European Court of Justice, which found that there was no first pillar. Afterwards the European Union and the United States entered into discussions but, in the meantime, the agreement did not lapse on 30 May when the European Court of Justice delivered its decision. It provided, pragmatically and realistically, for a period of 90 days, which brought matters up to the end of September. Ostensibly, there was no major change involved. However, as a result of the case and the dialogue that occurred on both sides, the European Union has a legal base for this but the agreement would have run out on 30 September. That is why we are anxious that the motion be agreed to.

There are concerns among Members regarding data protection and Deputy Shortall posed a number of questions. The information that will be provided will be used for specific reasons and we do not want it to go beyond that. If it is given to the Department of Homeland Security or subsidiary bodies, that is as far as it should go. An undertaking has been given to the European Union that this will be the case.

I wish to consider this matter from a practical point of view. For the benefit of anyone who raised queries in respect of this matter, they should be aware that I am not suggesting that we are prepared to compromise on safety. None of us is prepared to compromise on safety. We must, however, consider the practicalities and the views of the people we represent. In that context, there has been little, if any, negative feedback from airline users regarding the PNR.

Both Houses have been given the opportunity to debate this matter. It is not a case that we want to provide such an opportunity, we are obligated under Article 29.4.6° of the Constitution to do so. As already stated, the agreement runs to July of next year. If a new agreement is concluded next year, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, and I will consult the Attorney General's office in the normal way and deal with any legal or constitutional implications that might arise for the Department, the Government or the Houses.

It should be emphasised that the agreement relates only to access to those 34 items of information that may be requested. There is no agreement in place which entitles the US authorities to access any information over and above the 34 items to which I refer. I will not discuss the matter in detail because data relating to the 34 items, which include a person's name and address, frequent flyer information, seat number, bag tag, booking number etc., is provided.

A total of 23 countries have approved the agreement and Ireland will be one of the final two to do so. In that context, it was suggested that time should be provided for a more comprehensive debate. I believe I represent the views of the vast majority of Members and the Irish people when I say that they are anxious that this arrangement should continue in place after 12 October. Unanimity is required within the European Union. We should not follow others but I am of the view that what we are doing is right, practical and in the best interests of travellers and those who we represent who want to visit the United States.

I could be facetious and state that people need not provide the information requested, but if they do not do so, they will not be permitted to travel to the United States. In a sense, the provision of the information is voluntary but if one wishes to travel to the United States, its provision is obligatory.

Provision is made in the agreement for reciprocal sharing of information but there are no concrete plans at this stage to ask the US to provide PNR data to the EU. The United States possesses a centralised system but the EU does not and we should consider this matter in the period before the EU either abandons the agreement or enters into a new one post-July 2007.

There is concern about the use to which this information may be put outside of what is required to ensure that we have safe means of travel, that there is no repeat of the attacks of 11 September 2001 or that there is no chance that what could have been another serious incident in London some months ago could come to pass.

A number of undertakings were issued by the US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection on 11 May 2004. These indicate that the United States can be considered as ensuring an adequate level of protection for PNR data concerning passenger flights to and from that country transferred from the European Union.

See this speech in context