Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)

International co-operation in the fight against serious crime and terrorism is vital. No one disputes that, but how we co-operate matters just as much as whether we co-operate. These motions on the conclusion and signing of PNR data-sharing agreements between the EU and South Korea are part of a wider framework that can enhance public safety. I support that objective, but I sound a note of caution.

5 o’clock

When the EU’s PNR regime was tested before the European Court of Justice, the court was unequivocal. PNR systems can only be lawful where robust, enforceable safeguards are in place. As we consider authorising negotiations with South Korea, that principle must guide us. We must have safeguards that are grounded in fundamental rights because we are not just talking about sharing names and passport numbers. We are talking about bulk processing of personal data, often of people who are entirely innocent, who will never come close to any suspicion of wrongdoing.

The European Data Protection Board, EDPB, has said loud and clear that PNR data should only be used in connection with serious crime or terrorism - not for so-called ordinary offences. There must be an objective link between the data and the offence. That link has to be evidence-based, not speculative. Anything less risks undermining the very rights this Union is meant to uphold.

We also need clarity around independent oversight, time limits on data retention and, crucially, data subject rights - the right to know how your information is being used, the right to challenge it where necessary and the right to redress if something goes wrong. Too often, we approach these international PNR agreements on the assumption that every partner country will apply the rules with the same rigour and safeguards that we expect within the EU but even within the Union the EDPB, which is the EU’s own top data protection authority, has warned that many member states have still not aligned their national PNR laws with the European Court of Justice’s requirements. If several EU countries are struggling to meet the court’s standards, it should give us real pause before we authorise negotiations with a third country like South Korea. At the very least, it should prompt us to stop, examine the risks and ensure the safeguards demanded by the court are fully reflected from the very start of those negotiations.

I support the principle of these agreements but I urge the Minister to ensure that our participation is rooted in full compliance with the European Court of Justice ruling, with robust domestic implementation and that transparency, necessity and proportionality are not just buzzwords but, rather, the standards we actually enforce. Security and rights are not in opposition to each other. We get better, safer systems when we protect both.

See this speech in context