Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputies for their contribution to the debate on what is a very important motion, as Deputy Reilly acknowledged in his contribution. The events of recent days in the United Kingdom have brought home to us that crime and terror do not respect borders but are global phenomena. It is important that Ireland joins in European and international initiatives to make air travel safe for operators and passengers. This is a complex and somewhat sensitive subject. We need to strike a balance between public security considerations and protection of the rights of citizens. European citizens are every bit as concerned as their American counterparts to protect human life and prevent international criminal activity.

This is the third agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on passenger name records. In that context, it is not an unusual agreement or one without precedent. It has a precedent in international practice. From the point of view of the concerns that have been expressed by Deputies, the agreement before the House is a substantial improvement on its predecessors.

Since 2004, Ireland has participated in the adoption of these agreements. Of course it would be preferable if there were no need to collect such data, but it has been accepted by the airlines and passengers that it is necessary and essential to assist in the prevention and combating of terror and international crime.

In the course of the negotiations on this new agreement, the European Commission responded in an effective manner by arranging for the exchange of letters which sets out precisely the scope of the agreement and what assurances were extracted from the United States authorities in regard to the use of the data and its safe custody. I know that Opposition Deputies have expressed reservations but they would have to agree that the efforts made by the European Commission to secure a high level of data protection in the new agreement has had a positive outcome. The comparisons between the current interim agreement and the new agreement are favourable, with the number of data items being reduced from 34 to 19 through a process of rationalisation. Important new protections for data and avenues of redress for persons seeking information about, or correction of, passenger name record data are provided in the new agreement. This is a welcome development for EU citizens. Our participation in adopting this agreement, together with our European partners, will ensure continuity and certainty for airlines and passengers on transatlantic flights.

One of the key criticisms that has been made in this debate is that the matter is being rushed through the House. I want to outline the sequence of events that has led up to our discussion today. The European Union and the United States finalised this agreement last Wednesday. The committee of representatives considered it last Friday. It was brought to the Government for approval and submission to Dáil Éireann yesterday. The Government considered and approved the agreement before lunchtime yesterday. As soon as the decision was confirmed, the agreement was laid before the House in the normal way yesterday afternoon. A briefing note, which covered all the essential points of the agreement, was made available to Opposition spokespersons at approximately teatime yesterday. The Government fulfilled all its obligations concerning this agreement in the most expeditious way and with due respect to the rights of Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. With all due respect to Members, the Minister cannot be expected to proceed with greater expedition.

Deputy Mitchell raised the question of the transactions and proceedings of the committee of permanent representatives of the European Union. Our officers continuously reminded our European colleagues that we had constitutional obligations in this matter requiring the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas, and stressed the need for Members to have time to consider this agreement.

Deputy Shortall raised the question of the appropriate balance between the right to privacy and security issues. In an ideal world measures such as this agreement would not be required. The public, including those travelling, legitimately expect the Government to take appropriate measures to secure their safety, as far as possible. The agreement will enhance the security of the public by enabling law enforcement authorities to counter the threat from terror and other serious crime. In this agreement, it is done in a proportionate manner; any intrusion into personal privacy is no more than is necessary to provide assurance to the public of the commitment to their protection.

I would like to deal with others points raised by Deputy Shortall, but my time is limited. The one fundamental point I wish to make, however, is that this agreement is an improvement on its predecessors. From that point of view, I am glad to recommend it to the House.

Deputy Shortall specifically raised the reservations expressed by the European data protection supervisor. I should point out, however, that the letter to which Deputy Shortall referred, was written without sight of the final agreement and prior to its conclusion. The agreement attempted to address some of the concerns expressed in that correspondence.

See this speech in context