Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) A preclearance officer may not be in possession of a firearm or offensive weapon or any other article or thing specified by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection, in the course of exercising any function under this Act.".

This amendment deals with the concerns expressed in the Seanad about the possession of weapons by American preclearance officers. My amendment specifically states, "A preclearance officer may not be in possession of a firearm or offensive weapon or any other article or thing specified by the Minister". While I welcome the tenor of amendment No. 3, the Minister for Transport's proposal does not cover every possible type of weapon which a preclearance officer may possess.

During our debate on Second Stage, issues were raised regarding immunity for preclearance officers. An unusual situation will pertain under section 5 in that people with diplomatic immunity will possess extensive and almost police-like powers. That is why I asked the Minister what information we will be given regarding officials and the procedures they will follow. Will the Dublin Airport Authority and the Garda be given detailed briefings on the kind of resources available to them?

The Minister stated that he met Janet Napolitano yesterday. Anybody who has been to the United States since 11 September 2001 will be aware of the changes that have taken place. People are now becoming used to web clearance procedures. In this context, I feel the Minister should clearly provide that weapons are not acceptable. Amendment No. 3 provides for this through a negative construction by stating, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting a preclearance officer to be in possession of a weapon".

It is important that we be given information on the personnel and the resources they will have under section 5. According to the briefing which departmental officials helpfully supplied, it appears the Canadian authorities have invigilated this matter in a stricter manner than the Bill before us.

The Minister might consider reviewing the legislation on a five year basis. I am unsure of the rules in that regard, although we have come up with amendments on the spot when debating other Bills. It would be useful to review every aspect of the Bill, including the core economic goal of boosting Shannon through the operation of this agreement. I take the points made by my Fine Gael colleagues regarding cargo preclearance.

See this speech in context