Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)

During the past decade the EU and countries elsewhere have noted a marked increase in the level of organised and serious crime, including the trafficking of people and drugs. As a response to this threat and the to abolition of internal border controls the European Union has adopted measures for collection and exchange of personal data between law enforcement and other authorities. The Schengen information system, SIS, and the second-generation Schengen information system, SIS II, the visa information system and the entry exit system are examples of such measures. The latest tool the European Union wishes to use in response to this increased threat will result from this latest directive, the passenger name record data proposal.

Sinn Féin believes this proposal marks the commencement of a broader scheme of PNR data collection, retention and assessment by regulating it at EU level. Member states which do not systematically collect and analyse PNR data would be obliged to do so. The result of this directive would mean passengers would be subjected to "extensive tracking, tracing and screening procedures". Proponents of the proposal argue the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" principle but this is a simplified outlook which should not be used as a reason to force through measures that are unnecessarily intrusive into the data and privacy rights of citizens.

In 2007 the scope of the original proposal, which, incidentally, failed to be adopted, was extended to include serious offences which may have attracted custodial sentences of three years. The nature of this proposal, including the systematic collection, storage and assessment of personal information, interferes with the right of citizens to privacy. The proposal also interferes with the protection of personal data guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, ECHR, as well as Articles 7, 8, and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

For state interference with these rights to have any justification a certain level of procedure must be shown to be proportionate and necessary. This proposal does not demonstrate these requirements. The Commission has made no attempt to demonstrate that the proposed measures are necessary other than stating that most organised crime involves international travel. There are also difficulties regarding the Commission's interchangeable use of "terrorist offences", "serious crime" and "serious transnational crime." On the one hand, the Commission attempts to justify the use of PNR data by discussing terrorism and crime involving an element of travel in general and broad terms. On the other, it has failed to present any concrete evidence to demonstrate the usefulness of the collection of PNR data in the prevention of organised or serious crime.

It is fundamental that any encroachment on privacy rights through the increase of surveillance measures on people who have done nothing but book a flight is shown to be proportionate and necessary. Under current Irish law we do not permit our law enforcement agencies to carry out routine systematic searches. However, the current EU proposal requests that we accept the systematic and routine collection, retention and assessment of data in regard to individual citizens as well as a requirement to share this information with other law enforcement agencies. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. The proposal fails to demonstrate exactly how the processing and scrutiny of PNR data will contribute to the overall aim of the directive to guarantee proportionality.

Through this directive, the European Union is trying to legitimise member state policing and scrutiny of citizens through the facade of democratic and harmonised EU action while failing to demonstrate any necessity or proportionality with regard to such intrusion. We all agree that good intelligence is essential for effective policing. However, police intelligence gathering methods, like all other aspects of policing, must be human rights compliant and be governed by the standards in the European Convention on Human Rights.

Sinn Féin is in favour of participating in EU-level and international co-operation in criminal justice matters where it clearly serves the public interest. However, we do not agree with any measures which will cede our national sovereignty, as this proposal will, or the democratic rights of Irish citizens. In particular, we resist any moves towards establishing exclusive EU competence over any area of the Judiciary.

It is our belief that the directive and proposal should be withdrawn. I remind the Government that it has the responsibility, morally and legally, to ensure all EU and international co-operation in criminal justice matters complies fully with human rights standards and that any co-operation or harmonisation works to enhance human rights not trample on them.

There is no doubt this proposal has far-reaching consequences for citizens. However, the Government is attempting to push the proposal through with limited debate. This is an important and serious proposal and the very nature of it warrants further discussion. Since the proposal has far reaching implications not only for data retention, but for the data protection of every citizen who books a flight it will be of considerable concern to a large section of society. An attempt to rush through this motion in the absence of full scrutiny and debate is not how a Government elected to represent the best interests of the people should behave. The allocation of a mere 45 minutes to discuss the proposal is regrettable. I ask the Government to consider allocating more time tomorrow or on Thursday to discuss the proposal further.

Every time a regressive, rights-infringing measure was proposed by the Council of Ministers, the previous Government rushed it through the House. This Government stated a desire to change the old ways of governance but by pressing ahead with this motion today, it is merely picking up where Fianna Fáil left off. This approach is in stark contrast to international measures that are progressive in nature and would add to the rights enjoyed by Irish citizens, such as the anti-discrimination optional protocol or the UN Convention on Trafficking. In both cases, previous Governments were happy to sit back and "analyse the implications" for years to avoid action.

This Parliament must not treated by the Government and the EU as a pre-approving rubber stamp. The Government must not create legal vacuums by giving ever greater powers to unaccountable intelligence agencies without introducing adequate legal safeguards to protect against any unnecessary invasions of privacy. Has the Government stopped to ask if the fundamentally rights-infringing PNR agreement currently in operation has actually contributed to a reduction in organised and serious crime? Has the Government requested evidence to show whether the current arrangement has been effective? If not, why not?

This is the least the Government should be doing before proposing a further agreement and seeking the approval of the House for it. EU member states should not allow themselves to be bullied into applying any agreement which fails to guarantee the data protection rights of its citizens, and neither should this House.

See this speech in context