Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

That is a long time if one had a heavy weight on one's toe.

I am glad to have the opportunity to comment on the motion. Like Deputy Broughan, I reiterate the concerns in respect of the way this has been presented to the Opposition. My colleague, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, who is the spokesman on this area, found it impossible to rearrange his schedule to be here today. He received the same notice referred to by Deputy Broughan.

It is extremely dangerous to pursue that line of activity in matters of this nature because they could become sensitive or fundamental issues at some later stage. Given the nature of this proposal, a situation could arise in the future where, under data protection or something else, somebody may raise an issue. Alternatively, it may fail to do the job it was supposed to do and somebody may get through the net despite the fact that this measure is in place.

This type of proposal needs much more consideration by Parliament. I reiterate that it has come to pass in recent times that Parliament means less and less. This is grand for Government. Incidentally, some Departments think the committee system is an extension of Government but it is not. We should recognise once and for all that if Parliament is going to work properly and if we are to have public confidence in the institutions of the State, we must be absolutely clear about the way we treat Parliament, and that means the way Government treats Parliament. I reiterate the reservations made about the Order of Business this morning and more recently by Deputy Broughan.

In respect of the motion itself, I can understand what it proposes to do, notwithstanding the rushed way it is to be put in place. Much depends on the integrity of this system and whether it is effective at all. Much also depends on the degree of information that is retained — I know the Minister of State referred to this in his speech — and how that information is used. I happen to be one of the people who knows from my experience in this House that even though specific restrictions can be laid down as to how something might or might not be disclosed, notwithstanding the existence of the Data Protection Commissioner, it does not necessarily always reflect best practice in the way such information is treated. I would like an assurance from the Minister of State in respect of this country and the EU which also has an interest. We should remember that we are still members of the EU, notwithstanding the recent "No" vote, and, as a result, we have responsibilities to our EU colleagues. Any breach that may take place may find itself in difficulty regarding overall EU law, rules, regulations and directives.

I am very conscious of the security risk and the need for the EU and Ireland as a member of the EU to take protective measures to combat terrorism, money laundering or traffic associated with any of these activities. It is essential from all our points of view that this be done, but it is also essential that we know the information collected and retained for the period set out in the proposal is retained for that purpose only. We must remember that this information is of a sensitive nature and can be extremely beneficial to people who are money launderers, potential or working criminals, for want of a better description, or people who are involved or indulging in illegal or illicit activity.

Unfortunately, modern information technology has made it possible for people to infiltrate the system and gain information they are not supposed to get their hands on. That could have very serious consequences in a matter of this nature. I ask the Minister of State to reassure himself and the House that adequate protection exists and that our Data Protection Commissioner is satisfied with everything contained in the proposal.

We should remember that only a short time ago the Data Protection Commissioner mused aloud that information of a personal nature might not be made available to Members of the House despite the fact that they are elected by the public to represent them and their views. Fortunately, it has not been pursued but if it is pursued, I reiterate that the running of the House and the information available to Members in pursuit of their duties as public representatives shall not be interfered with under any circumstances. Any attempt to intervene in that area undermines the entire democratic system, notwithstanding all recent events.

I have already referred to the EU. The Justice and Home Affairs Council approved the negotiating mandate for the agreement on 28 February last. Again, it is a bit rushed. Given our experience in the Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs and other places, things do not happen that quickly here. We do not adopt these proposals as quickly as we should in most circumstances. Let us presume there is an urgent reason for this proposal. I note that our Slovenian colleagues are anxious to have this provision in place before they leave the Presidency.

The information retained is not supposed to be of a personal nature. Perhaps we need to spell out more precisely what kind of information can be retained and how it is likely to be used. We know it can be retained for five years. To whom will it be released? Will it be released to the Australian and Irish authorities? Will it be released simultaneously or another way? Will it be released to any other authority or institution? Will it be released to anybody else who may not be an authority in the true sense of the word?

This agreement is supposed to prevent and combat terrorism and serious crimes, including organised crime, that are transnational in nature. We have raised that issue in the House until we are blue in the face but we have not received much response, despite the fact that there is a massive amount of international or transnational crime which seems to be taking place outside but not beyond our reach. However, it seems to be taking place outside our reach in so far as legislation is concerned.

The raft of legislation that exists, particularly in the justice area, in respect of this matter can only be marvelled at because it has been threatened for a long time and has not been brought before the House to the greatest extent possible. The fact that this proposal is coming before us now suggests that there is a recognition of a need that has not been filled or addressed in a particular way and this is the attempt to do it. It is an emergency fire brigade action to get ahead of the posse before it goes over the cliff.

It also refers to flight from warrants or custody for various crimes. We are well aware of that issue. From the knowledge I possess and have gleaned from parliamentary questions, there is large-scale international freedom of movement for people who have illicit intentions. It appears their businesses are thriving, be they money laundering or extortion. If this provision addresses that in full, I am in favour of it provided it does not reflect heavily on some poor unfortunate who travels to Australia or from Australia to Ireland to visit their sick relative, for example. Incidentally, some years ago I dealt with the case of a constituent who happened to have the same name and date of birth as a well-known and successful criminal who was alive and well and working at his underworld activities at the time. This reflected badly on my unfortunate constituent, who happened to have the same data. I hope that with regard to this agreement we will not have a similar case, as it would bring the whole scheme into disrepute.

The Minister of State referred to a pull and push system. What he said put in my mind the image of a fellow trying to push a kangaroo up a ladder. It is difficult to envisage how it will work, although I can envisage circumstances in which the system could be used. The pull system will allow the Australian customs service to access data directly from the reservation systems, although only for a limited period. I presume the reverse will apply also, or will it just be one-way traffic? Could we have further clarification on this?

The Minister of State referred to the protection of personal data under the agreement and the rights of individuals to seek access to and correction of their personal data, irrespective of their nationality or the place of residence of the subject. The Data Protection Commissioner here comes into play in this regard. Incidentally, he will have to be more vigilant when dealing with issues under this heading than with issues that might arise with regard to whether Members of the Oireachtas have access to information on behalf of their constituents by way of parliamentary question, freedom of information or any other method. I make no apologies for reiterating this. When Members are elected to public office, they have a mission on behalf of their constituents. Anything that interferes with that, in this particular provision or anywhere else, is out of order. The sooner we recognise that in this House, the better. If we do not, we will shortly be relegated to the status of a regional assembly, which we are not.

The Minister of State said that the Australian customs service would only disclose the EU-sourced PNR data on a case by case basis, in response to a written request from one of the five Australian authorities listed in the Schedule of the agreement. Disclosure, whether to these Australian authorities or to specified authorities of third countries, is subject to the strict purpose limitation of the agreement. How can this be guaranteed?

On the various types of data that may be gathered, the agreement refers to racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious beliefs and trade union membership. Data concerning health or other sensitive data shall be filtered out and deleted by the Australian customs. It is essential that both parties to the agreement honour this element in full in order to protect the integrity of the proposal. As we know from past performance in this House and elsewhere, the integrity of a particular proposal is determined by the degree to which its conditions are respected and implemented and by the degree to which those conditions respect the individual entitlements and rights of the citizenry of the respective countries that are party to the agreement.

I deplore the short advance warning provided to the Opposition of the tabling of this issue. I know the Minister did not intend this to happen, but somebody is responsible for it. Somebody cynically imposed this on the Order Paper at the last minute.

See this speech in context