Air passenger data deal to continue

Dáil Report:A transatlantic agreement to allow American authorities to continue to collect data on airline passengers travelling to the US includes the possibility of a similar system being implemented by EU member states.

The agreement, originally put in place in May 2004, lasts for another seven years, and includes provisions to allow the US department of homeland security to collect and retain passenger data including finger prints, credit card details and other personal information, on all passengers travelling to and from the US.

The Dáil accepted the controversial agreement without a vote. Sinn Féin's four TDs challenged a division but did not have sufficient numbers for a vote.

Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey expressed his regret at the short notice for the Dáil to debate the issue which has to be agreed by all EU member states by July 31st in order to ensure the legal continuation of the retention of passenger name record (PNR) data.

The Minister said that "identification of potentially high risk passengers through PNR data analysis provides states and aircraft operators with a capacity to improve aviation security, enhance national and border security, prevent and combat terrorist acts and related crimes and other serious crimes that are transnational in nature, including organised crime".

And he told deputies during a two-hour debate that a "reciprocity clause" had been included, in the event that any EU member state implemented a PNR system, so that the department of homeland security "will on the basis of reciprocity, actively promote the co-operation of the airlines within its jurisdiction".

Labour's transport spokeswoman Róisín Shortall said that "at the end of the day the position adopted by the US was that unless the EU accepted its terms, European airlines would not be permitted to fly into the US. That was obviously an unthinkable outcome for any European country but it raises the issue of what power the EU has in the context of negotiations with the US".

Fine Gael spokeswoman Olivia Mitchell supported the agreement "because I agree with its intents". But she described elements of it as a "nonsense" including an agreement to filter out information US security does not need. "I understand the reason they want the information but to pretend that they will not take the information is a nonsense."

There were sharp exchanges earlier when the Opposition objected at the short notice they were given to debate the motion. Tánaiste Brian Cowen said there should be no legal vacuum on the expiry of the current agreement and "since Aer Lingus is the only Irish operator of such services it is important that the company is not put at a disadvantage, which is the implication of not proceeding in this way". He added that "given what we have seen in London and Glasgow, there are security issues of which we must be mindful".

Michael D Higgins, (Lab, Galway-West) claimed the agreement "is being rammed through without the opportunity for debate. No joint committee of the Oireacthas will examine it and no committee will be in session until late autumn. In the usual appalling way it is suggested that those who desire proper parliamentary scrutiny are damaging Aer Lingus or affecting security. This is an outrageous abuse of parliament." He added that "to say this is not anti-American, it is pro-democracy".