Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

Much of this relates to the word "expedient" which has a particular legal connotation. I welcome that the Minister has inserted the words "in the interests of the person being searched" which goes a good part of the way. However, all these qualifications are dependent on each other. If one thinks about the nature of the preclearance area and the fact that people have the right to leave it and so on, it seemed reasonable that the issue of consent should be built into the section. From that point of view, I believe our formulation is a better one but I accept the points the Minister made.

I wish to be clear about the review, consultation and so on. Once the agreement is in place, will there be a similar system to the Canadian one? Will there be constant interaction between all the stakeholders, including the American customs and immigration service so that we can review any issues, not after five years but over the months, and see how this is operating in Shannon over the next couple of years as well as in terminal 2 in Dublin Airport?

My final question arises from what I read about the Canadian experience. What happens to all the information the American preclearance officials collate and gather? I know they already have much information about everybody who travels to the United States. The Bill provides for privilege in regard to information but does this State have any rights to the kind of information collated and collected, even on a statistical basis? What recourse do we have in that regard? I urge the Minister to accept amendment No. 4.

See this speech in context