Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)

I might not use my allotted ten minutes but I wish to retain the option of doing so.

I did not intend to speak on this issue and was not even aware it was on the agenda until the Order of Business. I decided to speak for a number of reasons, primary among which was registering my concern about how this arose. I recall speaking on the issue last October when it was debated in the European Parliament. We were told then by Governments that people may have reservations about the measure but there was not much to worry about because the arrangement was an interim one and work would be completed by the end of July on a more comprehensive agreement with which the European Union would be far happier. People decided to live with the measure on the basis of that assurance and because it was not possible to obstruct the agreement when doing so would impede people from travelling from the EU to the US and cause insurmountable problems for airlines such as Aer Lingus. Therefore, even though we were not overly happy with the measures in the interim agreement, we agreed to them.

I have a problem with the fact that a more substantive and long-term agreement is now being introduced as a done deal and I understand that the European Parliament has not been given an opportunity to debate it. Parliaments representing people across the European Union are being given a fait accompli and we are being told that the timetable for ratification is such that unless we intend to cause absolute carnage for airlines travelling between Ireland and the United States, we will have to live with the agreement. That is not good enough given that we are supposed to be putting together a negotiated agreement between the US and the EU.

I do not share all the concerns expressed by previous speakers regarding civil liberties. Unfortunately, we live in a world where civil liberties and, to a certain extent, human rights have to be compromised at times in an effort to protect people. Changes in attitudes are taking place in the United Kingdom arising from the new challenges faced in terms of doctors trying to cause mass murder in London and Glasgow. As legislators, we have been given the difficult task of trying to ensure we are cognisant of the rights which form the cornerstone of the European Union while also observing our fundamental responsibility to protect innocent people from terrorism, intimidation and fear. The United States takes one approach to that task, while Europe takes another. The US sees itself as at war with terrorism but we see ourselves as trying to fight terrorism in a reasonable and reasoned manner. Therefore, when we try to negotiate an agreement on passenger name records, we have to reconcile the attitudes of the US Department of Homeland Security, which regards it as essential to build a database which protects US citizens from potential terrorists arriving by air, and the EU, which acknowledges the need to collect data on numbers of travellers and their history but prefers a less aggressive approach. For anyone who understands the US mindset on this issue that is the reason the interim agreement was seen as a means for getting us over the hump. However, we all hoped the long-term agreement would take more account of European attitudes towards the issue.

I have not seen the agreement because I have been unable to acquire a copy. I understand it was only lodged in the Oireachtas Library late last night. However, the briefing note which I read regarding some of the changes made to the interim agreement does not offer much solace. The scope of the agreement has been expanded to cover people on the run, that is, flights from warrants or custody, as well as incorporating serious crime and combating terrorism. From that point of view, the scope has expanded rather than retracted. I concede and welcome the fact that the information being gathered by airlines and passed to the Department of Homeland Security is being reduced from 34 to 19 items. I hope those 19 items will focus on specific, relevant issues as opposed to just gathering as much information as physically possible on every passenger that travels, even if that information is irrelevant when it comes to vetting people and assessing whether they pose a terrorist threat.

The crux of the issue is how the data will be used, with whom it will be shared, how it will be stored and for how long. This was the area of real concern expressed in discussions in the European Parliament and here. Who can the Department of Homeland Security share this information with, can other people access it and can it be abused and used in a way that is not consistent with what we would expect in terms of privacy, civil liberties and human rights? We have been told that an exchange of letters between the EU and the US is solving this problem. I would like to see those letters. Are they available as part of the agreement? I see an official from the Department nodding so I assume they are available. Perhaps I will hold my judgment on this matter until I see them.

The retention period for data is increasing, extending the scope from three and a half years to seven. The Americans want all airlines to be required to use a push rather than pull system of information. Essentially, that means the airlines will have to volunteer the information rather than the Department of Homeland Security having to access it. My understanding is that Aer Lingus already does that so this provision will not directly affect our airline, as it is known, but the issue is a much broader one than just how it affects Aer Lingus.

The application of the US Privacy Act is welcome. If court cases arise from this agreement, in terms of the use of data and people accessing data that is being held about them, that Act will hopefully give some legal clarity as to what passengers are entitled to in terms of accessing information that is held on them.

I am a strong supporter of the European Union and welcome its ability to negotiate, en bloc, for 27 different countries and work with partners like the United States on issues like the war on terror. However, if people are not to grow more cynical about the EU and decisions that are being taken in the absence of consultation with national parliaments or the European Parliament, we must ensure that deals like this one are debated and discussed in a meaningful way, rather than what is happening here today, which is essentially a rubber-stamping exercise for work the Commission has done on behalf of the European Council.

See this speech in context