Passenger Name Records: Motion

Passenger Name Records: Motion

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister. I also welcome the opportunity to debate the motion which was not going to be forced through.

Senator David Norris: It was going through without debate until I raised the matter.

Senator Ivana Bacik: It had been referred to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, which is the normal procedure. We had a full debate at the committee, in which I participated, and I am delighted that we are having a further debate in the House. The committee scrutinised the motion closely and, as the Minister will recall, I raised two issues with him. This is about ensuring a balance is struck between the right of citizens to travel freely without fear of harm or terrorist attack and their right not to experience undue interference with their privacy while travelling. The disclosure and exchange of information by airlines are the key issues. I raised two issues to ensure the appropriate balance was struck. I asked the Minister whether he was satisfied there would be sufficient oversight and a review of the exchange of data to ensure the balance was maintained. I received a good and fair response on the regular review provided for in the framework decision by the EU and US authorities, which was reassuring.

My second question related to a query raised by Senator David Norris. It would be relatively rare in the exchange of passenger name records to disclose sensitive data. The Senator referred to the exchange of these data and disclosing somebody's religious beliefs or ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Senator David Norris: How is that a threat to the United States?

Senator Ivana Bacik: It is hard to see how this detail would be routinely disclosed during an exchange of passenger name records.

Senator David Norris: Or ever.

Senator Ivana Bacik: The Council decision contains specific additional safeguards for the exchange of such data. Will the Minister set them out? The issue of concern is that personal sensitive information, rather than just one's name and address, could be disclosed.

A useful briefing document was made available before the justice committee met. It would probably be useful if it was made available to Members. It set out clearly the history of the negotiations on the agreement between the European Union and the United States and addressed the concerns raised in the European Parliament, to which Senator David Norris referred. This decision will need to be kept under careful review to ensure there are no undue intrusions into people's privacy and a balance is struck between the need for security, on the one hand, and the right to privacy, on the other.