Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We are told on the one hand that the revised arrangements outlined in the motion will not result in any direct cost to the Exchequer and on the other hand, via the second sentence of the briefing note, that they will result in a cost to the Exchequer. We are here discussing these arrangements in the first instance because public moneys is expended on the DAA and Shannon Airport and if they are being expended on this service it means they will not be spent in other areas. It is clear these arrangements involve the spend of public money.

The DAA aggressively sells Dublin Airport as a transfer hub, particularly for US flights. While the airport authorities, the Government, and most of the Opposition, believe that this is an unmitigated good proposal, I would like to see it examined further. I am not saying it is a bad move. Rather, I am saying that we need a serious examination of the agreement before we commit the State's resources to an extension of it. No more than the next person, I am very happy to visit to America. I like doing so and I very much welcome that when I do so, I can avail of the preclearance facility at Dublin Airport. It is of benefit in that regard. However, there is need for a cost-benefit analysis of the service in the context of climate change emissions and our obligations under the Aircraft Noise (Dublin Airport) Regulation Bill 2018, which is progressing through the Houses, to ensure that residents nearby are mitigated against the impact of aircraft noise. I would also like that cost benefit analysis to examine the likely increased fines in respect of climate change and noise insulation owing to increased flights versus the benefits of extending this facility. Unrelenting air travel is not sustainable in the modern world.

I would also like the Minister to examine other areas. This is not all about money. The agreement between Ireland and the United States on preclearance requires the Garda to provide an appropriate and sufficient law enforcement presence to ensure the security and safety of preclearance officers, travellers and airport staff. These are Garda resources that are being redirected to this area, which, presumably, if they were not there, could be directed elsewhere. We all know of shortages in Garda resources in so many other areas. There have been many stories, verified, of passengers selected for detention and interrogation by US Government agents in the preclearance area and held in a detention room to the extent that they missed their flights to the US. In many instances, this activity was not legal because US border guards are not empowered to imprison persons at Dublin Airport for any length of time. They can only temporarily detain them and must then hand them over to An Garda Síochána. I know of many instances where that did not happen and passengers were upset and traumatised by what had occurred. There are sanctions laid out in the 2009 Act for US preclearance officers who behave badly or cross the line but I am not aware of that provision having ever been invoked in regard to cases of arbitrary detention. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Griffin, will outline if anybody has ever been sanctioned for misbehaviour at Dublin Airport in that regard.

I echo the points made by Deputy Munster. Surrendering some of our airport and our soil to the United States comes with a risk, one highlighted when President Donald Trump tried to implement his Muslim ban on travellers from the seven Muslim majority countries entering the United States. At that time, the Government made no move to immediately suspend preclearance services or to protect the Irish Garda and customs and officials involved in preclearance who might have been pushed, therefore, into illegal activity. There was no instruction to them to down tools, which is not surprising. It is part of a broader context of subservience to the United States in terms of our saying "Yes" its illegal war in Iraq and facilitating rendition. In that context, I thank the efforts of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange in highlighting the role of the Irish Government in that regard. The reaction to the Muslim ban was to kick it into a review in the hope it would go away, which shows a similar lack of backbone. This puts us at risk through preclearance in that we will be forced again into complicity in contravention of international law of the European Court of Human Rights and so on. I am not saying we should not have preclearance. Rather, I am saying we have an obligation to evaluate the benefits and costs of this agreement to our State. It is not simply a one-way track such that everything is wonderful and we are so lucky to get this facility. I do not think the costs have been fully taken into account.

See this speech in context