Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

As the Minister stated, PNR data is the information provided by passengers and collected and held in the reservation systems of the carriers for commercial purposes. The content during book in and check in may also include personal data of people on their own or with other people. This can assist authorities in identifying criminals. Like yesterday’s debate about facial recognition technology or data at the justice committee, the holding of any such data must be necessary, proportionate and subject to strict limitations. We agree it is desirable that Ireland should share and receive PNR data with these three Schengen associated countries. We will not oppose the Government motion. However, these debates are always welcome as they provide an opportunity to tease out some of the issues and assert our subsidiarity as regards decision-making. We should be mindful of how we exercise the State's sovereignty. While co-operation is important, we must retain our own powers, especially where civil liberties are affected. These concerns are balanced against the need to ensure the safety and security of our own citizens, as well as those of other European partner states, regardless of whether they are in the EU.

The Commission states that the transfer of PNR data is key to allowing authorities to strengthen the detection, prosecution and investigation of terrorist and criminal offences. International criminal gangs are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their operation and the methods used to combat them are becoming increasingly transnational. I note in particular the recent remarks by UN Secretary General António Guterres, who said that organised crime leads to "weakened governance, corruption and lawlessness, open violence, death and destruction". He further stated: "Transnational and organized crime and conflict feed off each other. Crime is a catalyst for conflict. And when conflict rages, crime thrives." I also note recent reports as well of remarks by the Garda Commissioner relating to the links between organised crime, gangs and the far-right. Conflict and division is being fostered so that some can profit from it. The solution, at home and abroad, is co-operation to counteract these threats. This is one of three priorities mentioned by the Secretary General, with the others being the rule of law and prevention of crime. The motion and the proposal speak to all of these concerns and the agreements before us will, according to the Commission, set out the conditions for the transfer of PNR data to the authorities of those countries with full respect of data protection safeguards and fundamental rights.

The effectiveness of PNR data was demonstrated by a Commission report in 2020, relating to the applicable EU framework on PNR data, which is EU Directive 2016/681. This report found that the majority of member states established fully operational passenger information units, which are the units responsible for collecting and processing PNR data. I understand Spain was referred to the Court of Justice of the EU for its failure to transpose the directive. These units become the chief units of co-operation to establish good relationships with their equivalents in other member states. This will presumably be the case with the three countries mentioned in the motion, and we should insist on proper co-ordination as much as possible. The report also expanded on the data protection safeguards contained in the directive, which are focused on purpose and proportionality. The purpose limitation ensures that data processing is only carried out for the objectives of fighting terrorism or serious crime. Proportionality is also addressed by the maintenance of records of processing operations as required by the directive, which allows for transparency and lawfulness. The more important guarantor of civil liberties is the actual data that is processed. Under the directive, the processing of PNR data concerns all passengers on inbound and outbound extra-EU flights. The report claims that such broad coverage is strictly necessary to achieve the directive's objectives.

The PNR directive strictly prohibits the processing of sensitive data. While the PNR data can obviously reveal some private details, such information is limited to air travel. As a result of the safeguards employed, only the personal data of a limited number of passengers is transferred to competent authorities for further processing. This again will surely be important in any negotiations with the other states. In terms of the proposals themselves, this data is already collected by commercial airlines and is used for the obvious purposes of directing passengers to their destinations. Iceland, Norway and Switzerland - the Schengen associated countries - are highly interconnected with other EU states. Switzerland aside, they are members of the European Economic Area, EEA. It is fair to say that all three are countries where the rule of law is strong, and respect for civil liberties is paramount. The proposal per sedoes not raise any concerns with us. When it comes to such co-operation, we should bear in mind the usage of the data with opposition activists in Poland or Hungary.

With regard to negotiations and Ireland's role in same, the Government's approach increasingly seems to be to opt in. That the opt-in continues and we continue to exercise it is important, and I do not doubt that there are political considerations as well as policy or legal considerations when it comes to dealing with other European states. At the same time, these guarantees were hard won, and we should continue to exercise them without any presumption that opt-ins are a formality. Each proposal needs to be considered on its own merits. We receive regular updates on these in the justice committee. The merits of the proposal are strong and we will not oppose the passage of the motion.

See this speech in context