Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Measaim go bhfuil an slí ina bhfuilimid taréis díriú isteach ar an rún seo scanallach amach is amach. Ní raibh deis againn go fóill scrúdú a dhéanamh ar an doiciméad ina iomlán. Ní bhfuair an cuid is mó dúinn an nóta ón Aire go dtí am éigin inniu. Is athrú suntasach é seo. Ba chóir go mbeadh níos mó ama againn féachaint ar an comhaontú. Ba chóir go mbeadh níos mó eolais againn ar na hathruithe atá taréis teacht i bhfeidhm ar an doiciméad a bhí os ár gcomhair i mí Deireadh Fómhair seo caite. Tá an Aire ag maíomh go bhfuil athruithe déanta ar an dá leathnach a chuir sé os ár gcomhair ag an am sin. Dúirt sé go bhfuil ísliú ó 34 go dtí 19 déanta ar an méid míreanna eolais atá clúdaithe sa chomhaontas seo idir an Aontas Eorpach agus na Stáit Aontaithe.

Tá díomá orm mar gheall ar an seasamh atá tógtha ag an Chomhaontas Ghlas. Is cuimhin liom gur sheas an páirtí sin linn nuair a labhríomar i gcoinne an rud céanna, beagnach, i mí Deireadh Fómhair seo caite. Measaim gur gá do na Glasaigh an athrú meon atá déanta acu a mhíniú ní amháin don Teach seo ach dos na Baill a thug tacaíocht don seasamh a bhí acu sa Teach seo roimhe seo.

Glacaim go bhfuil gá ann eolas áirithe a choimeád agus a bhabhtáil i gcásanna éagsúla sa lá atá inniu ann, ach go háirithe leis an slí ina bhfuil an domhain imithe. Is cóir i gcónaí go mbeadh cosaintí ann chun a dhéanamh cinnte nach féidir leo siúd atá an eolas sin á bhabhtáil acu dul thar fóir. Ní ceart go mbeadh aon seans ann go mbeidh aon mí-úsáid i gceist maidir le coigilt an eolais seo. Is léir i gcónaí nach mbíonn fuadar ar aon Rialtas reachtaíocht a dhéanamh chun cosaint a thabhairt d'ár cearta daonna — is trua é sin. Cá bhfuil na forálacha nó an reachtaíocht a chruthóidh réimse maith cosaint eolais san Aontas Eorpach?

Every time a regressive, rights-infringing measure is proposed by the Council of Ministers, the Government jumps and rams it through as quickly as possible just in case the House has the time to consider it properly or to determine how much the Council's agreements are infringing on our human rights, privacy and day-to-day-living. However, when it comes to progressive international measures that would add to the rights enjoyed by European citizens in terms of this debate, such as anti-discrimination measures, where is the rush to the optional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, the draft framework decision on data protection or the UN Convention on Trafficking? This Government and other European Governments sit on the legislation and analyse the implications, but no such analysis is contained in the two-sheet briefing document on passenger name records given to Deputies.

The Parliament is being treated by the Government and the EU as a rubber stamp. It is shameful that, with the backing of the majority, the Government has reduced the role of the House to an administrative rather than a scrutiny function. We have come to expect this from Fianna Fáil backbenchers in particular, but we had higher hopes for the Green Party. Prior to entering government, it stated its principled opposition to the contents of the interim PNR agreement on data protection grounds. Where is that opposition now?

European data protection authorities have slammed the new agreement as being even weaker than the interim agreement, which has been in operation since last October. It ties the fundamental data protection and privacy rights of Irish citizens flying to the United States to an ever-changing and ever-regressive US law, stipulating as it does that the Department of Homeland Security can process PNR data "in accordance with applicable US laws". If the laws are changed, the US could change how it processes and stores PNR data on European citizens and who this can be passed to without renegotiation of the PNR agreement. Will the Minister clarify whether this remains the case or whether a renegotiation is compulsory if the laws regarding homeland security and data processing in the US are changed? The agreement was not made available to us and the short briefing document sheds no light on this matter.

When the interim agreement was made in October, I raised the issue in the House and appealed to the Minister to ensure that when the agreement concluded, any new agreement would need to have as a minimum some of the protections I am outlining. The Minister's briefing document states that the "US Privacy Act" protections are to be extended to EU PNR data. In the few hours available to me, I have had some difficulty in identifying the specific protections to which this refers. The only Act I could find on-line with that exact title dates back to 1974 and appears to have been amended somewhat in the early 1980s.

The Government's failure to provide key information is unacceptable, given that we are being asked to approve an agreement on foot of which citizens must rely on US legislation as their sole means of redress for any wrongful use of their personal data. Will the Minister include in his closing statement details of how the US legislation compares with data protection in this State and with the proposals for a future framework decision on data protection? Have the views of the Irish Human Rights Commission or the Data Protection Commissioner been sought? I doubt it, given the rushed nature of this debate.

If the US legislation is weaker, which I believe is the case, although I might be proven wrong, does the Minister not agree that the more robust European protections should apply to citizens of EU member states? Will the Minister clarify the extent to which the limited commitments from the United States in terms of how it will collect, store and ultimately use this data are binding? It is my understanding that these commitments are simply contained in an exchange of letters, rather than being listed as undertakings within the agreement itself, as was previously the case.

The Tánaiste said this morning that it was important that no legal vacuum is allowed to arise. However, the Government is creating legal vacuums by granting ever greater powers to unaccountable intelligence agencies without introducing adequate legal safeguards to protect the unwitting public against unnecessary invasions of privacy. Nobody has stopped to consider whether the fundamental rights-infringing PNR agreement in operation thus far has contributed in any way to a reduction in crime. Why did the Government not question whether the existing agreement has been effective before proposing a further agreement to the Oireachtas?

At a seminar on PNR last year, air carriers were asked how many aeroplanes had been diverted or sent back to location of origin because of one or more PNR passengers and how many times the aeroplanes should not have been diverted. The companies responded with the information that aeroplanes have been diverted ten times and that it was a false alarm in each case.

EU member states should not allow themselves to be bullied into applying an agreement that fails to guarantee the data protection rights of its citizens. As the new Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, said on the last occasion we dealt with this issue: "We could and should have sought a better agreement to protect the rights of privacy". He is now in Cabinet and it is up to him to seek a better agreement.

Ireland can opt out of this agreement and negotiate an agreement of its own, or it can take the lead within the European Council by demanding a more acceptable agreement. I call on the Government to amend the proposed agreement before its full adoption by the Council next Tuesday to address the concerns I have raised and to ensure, at a minimum, that an annual evaluation of the agreement covering both the detail of its operation and its effectiveness is undertaken not only in this House but also in the European Parliament. Any change in United States, EU or Irish data protection provisions relevant to the operation of the agreement should prompt an immediate and transparent renegotiation requiring further approval by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

See this speech in context