Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

I propose to share time with Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh. In the increasingly global security conscious environment we are in currently and given the particularly vulnerable nature of air travel, measures to enhance the safety and security of air travel for airline passengers are welcome.

However, I agree with my colleagues that the manner of presentation of this proposal is unacceptable, undemocratic and completely disgraceful. Thanks to our diligent librarian, I got a copy of the agreement at approximately 2.30 p.m. It is a 40-page document and is quite an intricate piece of legislation which refers to Australian legislation. I and Deputy Durkan, therefore, had approximately one hour to prepare for this debate. This is shameful treatment of the Opposition. I admit the Minister of State informed me last night at approximately 6.30 p.m. that the matter was arising today. However, the late announcement of the agenda seems a churlish way to treat the Opposition.

What is even more astonishing is that last year when the original EU-US agreement on PNR was also being rushed through the House, with no proper time allocated for its thorough invigilation, our colleagues, including Deputy Shortall from the Labour Party, protested at the short notice given for that debate. The Minister at the time, Deputy Noel Dempsey, apologised and said he regretted that people did not have enough time to examine the agreement, but that it would not happen again. However, here we are a few months later and it has happened again.

The main document in question is dated Brussels, 10 June. Therefore, it has been available for the past couple of weeks and there was no need for this breakneck last minute performance by the Minister. The briefing note we got appears to say that the Slovenians, who currently hold the EU Presidency, are responsible for getting us to rush this forward before 30 June. I hope no simple public relations mechanism was the reason for us having to go ahead with this rushed debate.

It is amazing, as my colleague mentioned, that given the concerns we had last week about EU legislation and making this House responsible for invigilating it and given what the people decided in the referendum, that the Government comes forward in a cavalier way and again treats the people's representatives on this side of the House with disdain on this issue and refuses to allow us proper study and debate on it.

The agreement states in Article 5 that the purpose of the EU-Australian agreement is to prevent and combat terrorism and related crimes, transnational organised crime and flight from warrants or custody with regard to these crimes. The increased transnational and global nature of organised crime and terrorism has, understandably, given rise to the need for much greater co-operation. I notice, for example, that in recent months the Australian Government has been diligently seeking the return of an alleged drug lord, Mr. Tony Mokbel who fled to Greece and was fighting extradition back to Australia. Close co-operation between Greece and Australia has resulted in this alleged criminal being returned to Australia. Terrorist crimes, particularly since 11 September 2001 and attempted terrorist attacks on European airports, also highlight the need for legislation in this area. A key concern of mine and of all Members of this House is the provision of the highest level of protection for all of our citizens when travelling by air. We must be conscious of the sensitive issues of personal privacy and individual freedom that are involved when developing a system such as the passenger name records system. During the few minutes I had to read the document I noted the reference to the Australian Acts, the Privacy Act 1988 and the Freedom of Information Act 1982, in section 17 of the annexe. How does that complement our rights under our freedom of information and personal rights legislation? There is a reference in section 5 of the annexe to transmission of information to third countries. How can we be referring, given this is an agreement with Australia, to third countries receiving information on European and Irish citizens?

Most citizens will support measures that increase their safety and security when travelling by air but it is critical the Minister provides a clear and detailed account of the operation of this system and that citizens are reassured. What system is in place at present with the Australian authorities for passenger name records?

The impetus for this agreement came from Australia. The impetus for the previous agreement came from the US when the US was threatening to cut air connections between the two continents. Where are we at in respect of European passenger name records security? Will there be a European directive on passenger name records across the EU?

In the previous debate a colleague mentioned that in a briefing session on the operation of passenger name records systems airline operators had been asked how many times an airplane had been diverted or turned back because a passenger had been flagged through the passenger name records system. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, stated this had occurred approximately ten times at that stage, and in each case there was no reason to bring the aircraft back.

Article 7 refers to the correction of records. How could that happen for a European or Irish citizen? We have long, deep and profound family associations with Australia. They follow our cultural, economic and political developments as we follow theirs. How can the record be corrected by Australian authorities? The document refers to the five authorities of the Australian Crime Commission, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. There seems to be much overlap. Will the records of EU citizens be dispersed through a variety of Australian bodies? Why is there a two-year transition period when the Australian customs service will be able to use the so-called pull system, as referred to by Deputy Durkan and the Minister, to access data from reservation systems? Why will it take two years to introduce the new system? Does the Minister of State have any updated information on the use of passenger name records information over the past year and whether it has been successfully used in apprehending any terror or criminal suspects?

The briefing document received last night mentions that the protection for personal data under the agreement applies yet we were given no indication in the briefing document as to how this will operate. Given recent breaches in data security, particularly the spectacular breaches in the UK when the social security records of half the British population were lost, it is critical we have more information on that. We are also told in the briefing document that 19 different data elements can be collected. Some seem quite obscure. What does the reference to split or divided information in section 9 of the annexe refer to?

See this speech in context