Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 65 of 84.
“What you are entitled to, however, is a trial by jury when you are being prosecuted on indictment in the Circuit Criminal Court or the Central Criminal Court. Of course, even that right to trial by jury is not absolute because, as many people in this House fully respect and honour and recognise, there is the need for the Special Criminal Court to hear certain serious criminal trials without a jury. That is perfectly constitutionally permissible because the provision in the Constitution states that one should be tried by jury except when the ordinary courts are inadequate to deal effectively with the administration of justice. We know the circumstances when we have trials before the Special Criminal Court.”
“It is important before we start discussing their abolition that we are aware of the current law in respect of the presence of juries in hearings before our courts. When we talk about the constitutional right to a jury, we need to be clear about what we are talking about. We are talking about the fact that there is a constitutional right to a jury under our Constitution when it comes to criminal prosecutions. Not every criminal prosecution will result in the entitlement to a jury. If you are stopped for a driving offence and prosecuted for what is referred to as a summary offence in the District Court, you are not entitled to a jury because it would be untenable for all prosecutions in the District Court, which are criminal prosecutions, to be determined by a jury. It would just be practically impossible to achieve.”
“We cannot simply adopt the viewpoint of people who say the right to freedom of expression is the right that should be given precedence. Similarly, we cannot just adopt the position of individuals who say the right to one's good name has to be sacrosanct and given precedence. That is why any defamation legislation will have to take into account that the persons advocating for freedom of expression will not get everything they want and, similarly, the persons advocating for the protection of the good name will not get everything they want either. It is a balancing act. It is a difficult job. It is the job I, as Minister, am seeking to do and it is the job that this House and the Lower House have to do. The amendment we are discussing concerns the abolition of juries in High Court defamation actions.”
“I thank Senators Ryan and Stephenson for tabling the amendment. I also thank Senator McDowell for his contribution in respect of it. When we are discussing the defamation Bill, as I have said before, we have to have at the centre of our focus and our discussion what are in effect two competing rights. On the one hand, we are trying, as Houses of the Oireachtas, to vindicate and protect the constitutional right that people have to their good name, as protected under Article 40 of Bunreacht na hÉireann. Separately, we are trying to protect and balance the right to freedom of expression, which is also contained within Bunreacht na hÉireann. It is important when we try to introduce legislation that seeks to balance competing rights that we recognise that what we are doing is a balancing act.”
“I cannot start going around saying I will give a couple of gardaí to certain constituencies. I do not get involved in that. It is a matter for the Commissioner. It would be inappropriate if a Minister for justice started going around directing where gardaí should go. Deputy Michael Collins spoke about how we had lost the war on drugs. I disagree with this. The alternative is that we just put up our hands and say we will legalise drugs and let them come in. The addiction levels would increase significantly. We have seen experiments in other parts of the world, such as America and Canada. They have legalised drugs and it has been a disaster for them. The number of psychotic episodes for young people has shot through the roof and addiction levels have increased. It has become a bigger problem. We are better off having it criminalised.”
“It is the practice of CAB after freezing an asset to sell it to liquidate it, if I can use this expression, to get the money. Then there is a dispute about who is entitled to the money, and that is determined by the courts. Deputy Paul Lawless said gardaí in Mayo were struggling. That was not my experience of gardaí in Mayo when I was there doing the Colm Horkan run a couple of weeks ago. I saw a great sense of community spirit from the gardaí in Charlestown and I believe it operates throughout Mayo. Deputy Lawless mentioned, as did Deputy Michael Collins, that he wanted to see more gardaí on the streets. The biggest problem I face as the Minister for justice is that, everywhere I go, people say they want to see more gardaí. I am limited in the numbers I have. It is my job to try to recruit more.”
“When money is available, regrettably, people will fall for the attraction of drugs, although they should not do so. In terms of proceeds of crime applications before the courts, there are very many of them. It is not a case that there is a small number of applications. I had a look at the legal diary as I was listening to colleagues and today there was a proceeds of crime list in the High Court with 22 items. A lot of work is going on in respect of the Criminal Assets Bureau. Deputy Gogarty welcomed the Bill and asked whether the properties that were frozen could be rented out. In practical terms, when a section 3 freezing order is made, the property is sold. Then the money is collected by the receiver and the money becomes the issue in dispute.”
“It has had disastrous consequences for young people who get caught up in addiction. I regret to say, however, that no part of the country is immune to this addiction and every constituency of every TD in the House has addiction issues. I have seen it myself from visiting addiction services. Deputy Gannon also spoke about having a mini-CAB. I repeat the point I made in response to Deputy Mark Ward, namely, that CAB goes after small amounts of assets if it believes they are the proceeds of crime. Deputy Kenny mentioned how people in Ireland feared crime. This is true but we need to be balanced in our understanding of it. Ireland is, relative to other countries, a safe country. There will be crime in a country with a successful economy.”
“Much of this legislation was tested in the Supreme Court shortly after its enactment in 1996 and it was found to be constitutional. Deputy Ó Murchú echoed the point made by Deputy Kelly on trying to use the legislation for the purpose of human rights abuses. The best way to deal with issues such as this is through the sanctions imposed at EU level. That is how we deal with sanctions and freezing of assets belonging to certain persons from Russia. It can only be done when there is agreement at EU level. Deputy Ó Murchú also mentioned the issue of cocaine that, regrettably, is prevalent throughout our society. Deputy Gannon welcomed the Bill. He referred to it as a smart piece of legislation. He spoke about addiction. Addiction is the real consequence of the criminal activity of people delivering and dealing in drugs.”
“Deputy Barry Ward mentioned we needed a consolidated version of Bills that come before the House. It is difficult enough to prepare a Bill without having a consolidated version of very large legislation. If people are looking for this, the Law Reform Commission frequently publishes consolidated updated versions of legislation. The Proceeds of Crime Act on the Law Reform Commission's website includes all the most recent amendments. If they are enacted into law, these amendments will be included also. Deputy Ward also said we had to exercise caution when it came to freezing orders. Certainly when we look at the legislation, fair procedures are built into it. It has withstood constitutional challenge by various persons.”
“However, I look forward to seeing the amendment Deputy Kelly said he would bring forward in respect of it and, to use Civil Service speak, I would say it will be a very challenging amendment. We will look at it in due course. I thank Deputy Devlin for his contribution. Something I thought about when I was listening to him was the fact that, earlier this week, there was the decision of the Supreme Court on Routeback. This was a situation where the Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Court of Appeal that refused to allow new evidence to be heard in respect of a proceeds of crime application. From a brief perusal of it, I think the reason was that the Supreme Court said there was new evidence. We are entitled statutorily to change the rules, as we are doing, to say the matter cannot be opened up again.”
“I have not had an opportunity to look at it. I would have thought it would be fairly difficult to try to transpose a provision such as this into Irish law. My understanding from listening to Deputy Kelly is that it is legislation that would permit the Criminal Assets Bureau to seize assets belonging to other countries present in this jurisdiction if those countries were involved in an abuse of human rights. The legislation dealing with seizing assets from criminals in this country is difficult enough, as we can see from the complexity of it, and I am not in a position to start going around seizing assets in respect of human rights abuses around the world.”
“The important thing is that the Garda will be on their case and CAB will be following them closely after that. The message should go out that it is a pointless activity getting involved in crime. It may generate money in the short term but in the long term it will result in imprisonment and a person's assets being seized and a very negative reflection on their life. Deputy Kelly made some comments about the role of Ruairí Quinn in the proceeds of crime legislation. I am beginning to see now that success has many fathers. I mentioned John O'Donoghue and Deputy Ward mentioned Nora Owen. I commend the Government and Members of the Oireachtas back in 1996 for coming up with this innovative idea. Deputy Kelly also spoke about Brendan Howlin's legislation from some years ago, the Proceeds of Crime (Gross Human Rights Abuses) Bill 2020.”
“CAB does a lot of observation work and it looks at people's lifestyles. A lot of work goes on under the surface that we do not hear about or discuss in this House. Deputy Ward also spoke about youth diversion. We need to ensure that we have as many youth diversion programmes operating as possible. Later this year, I hope to be in a situation where every area will have a functioning youth diversion programme, powered by the Probation Service. Deputy Quinlivan referred to the feuds in Limerick. It is worth noting that there were significant feuds in Limerick before and the gardaí got on top of them and dealt with them. CAB played a significant role in that as well. Regrettably, it is probably always the case that when one crime gang is got rid of, someone else will rise up and take their place.”
“There is a desire for the money to go back into the areas that are most affected by it and there is an application process. It may be the case that some communities are better informed when it comes to filling out application forms. That could be a legitimate comment in respect of the matter. If that is so, those communities need to be informed about the fund. People in this House and elsewhere would be happy to assist them in filling out the application forms. Deputy Ward also asked about a mini-CAB. In fairness, to CAB, it goes after people in terms of assets which are the proceeds of crime, even if they are amounts in the low thousands of euro. CAB does not have a hierarchy that says it should only go after the millionaire criminals. It does target the lifestyle of rich criminals.”
“I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. It is also notable and unusual that everyone who spoke is very much in favour of the legislation, with full support across the House. I welcome that. It is important that people who are involved in criminality and generating wealth from it, know that there is unanimity in this House in our opposition to them and in our desire to combat them. I will deal with some of the issues that were raised by colleagues. Deputy Mark Ward spoke about white-collar crime. It is the case that CAB does go after this type of crime. CAB does not only go after people involved in drug dealing or other such activities. Deputy Ward also spoke about the community safety fund, as did many other colleagues.”
“It means that, even if we cannot get criminal convictions against criminals who are destroying our communities, we can bring them before the civil courts and seize the assets they secured through their criminal activity. These proceeds of crime should be taken off them and invested in the communities they are trying to destroy. Everyone in the House will agree this is a commendable purpose, and that is why I commend this legislation to the House.”
“I am also considering further expansion of the assets held in accounts that may fall under the restraint provisions introduced in section 5. There are several further, more technical provisions that I will not go into now, but these are also under consideration. Many details will merit debate and I look forward to working constructively with Members as the Bill progresses. We will have an opportunity on Committee Stage to look at a number of matters in terms of what the Bill does or does not cover. I know there is general acceptance across the House of the success of the proceeds of crime legislation and the Criminal Assets Bureau legislation as they have operated in the country for the past 30 years. This Bill is a significant and important development.”
“The community safety fund is a powerful example of how money taken from organised crime is channelled directly into local projects which enhance safety and well-being across the country. There are several matters I intend to return to on Committee Stage and I will flag the most notable of these for the information of the House now, so colleagues are aware. The first concerns the information exchange with independent domestic statutory agencies, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions. Consultation is continuing on the data protection aspects of this matter and I expect to introduce a provision allowing for designation of appropriate bodies to receive relevant information from CAB. I expect to introduce a provision in respect of the publication of tax defaulter information in relation to CAB settlements.”
“By cutting the waiting period for final seizures from seven years to two and by empowering receivers to take immediate control of assets, we are sending a clear message: the proceeds of crime will be swiftly and completely removed from those who have wronged our society. We have seen already the success of this with large, organised crime gangs which were based in Ireland and which left because of the pressure from An Garda Síochána, because they were being brought before the courts and because of the powers available to CAB. Additionally, this Bill is not merely about taking from criminals; it is also about giving back to our communities who have been targeted by them. The funds seized through this enhanced process will be returned to the Exchequer and reinvested for the public good.”
“Second, it extends the anonymity protections for CAB officers to cover them even after they have left the bureau. This is essential and I commend the diligence and bravery of CAB officers who are sometimes involved in potentially dangerous work. The threats these officers may face do not stop on their leaving CAB. Section 17 is a technical provision to ensure anti-corruption laws are aligned with the changes we are making here. Let us be clear on what these measures will achieve. The Bill is not just about legal processes or receiverships; it is about delivering real-world impact by ensuring the benefits of a criminal lifestyle are not just delayed but denied.”
“Within Part 2 there are several more technical and consequential amendments to align definitions and procedures with the more substantial changes introduced elsewhere in the Bill. Part 3 addresses other Acts to ensure the framework is aligned and effective. Section 15 harmonises the definition of "cash" in section 43 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 with Regulation 2018/1672, which is the EU cash control regulation. It also makes a practical change to the rules on property seized in an interest-bearing account. Section 16 enhances the operational capacity of the bureau. First, it allows non-Garda experts in the bureau, tax inspectors and social welfare officers to sit in on interviews of detained persons for a wider range of serious offences. This brings their vital expertise right into the interview room.”
“Section 9 is a consequential amendment which supports this new, more robust approach to the final seizure of assets. It provides flexibility by removing the time limit on consent disposal orders. This allows CAB and a respondent to agree to the forfeiture of an asset at any stage, again avoiding needless litigation. Section 11 strengthens the powers of receivership. It creates a presumption in favour of the immediate appointment of a receiver once an interlocutory order is made. The receiver's purpose is now explicitly stated as being "to deprive the respondent of the ongoing benefit and use of the property." This ensures immediate possession of assets may be secured and the incentive to frustrate the process is removed. Again, this power is subject to avoidance of a serious risk of injustice.”
“Furthermore, to bring finality and efficiency to the process, this section introduces measures to ensure issues which have already been litigated when a section 3 order is made are not re-argued. This has happened frequently in the past in situations where the freezing application is being made, arguments are made in respect of assets not being proceeds of crime and then subsequently - several years later - the issue is relitigated when it comes to the permanent seizure of the assets. There is no necessity for that relitigation. It is noteworthy there was a Supreme Court decision yesterday which partially dealt with this and saw no issue in respect of it. Crucially, however, the necessity to hear all parties is protected, as is the court's power to avoid a serious risk of injustice.”
“The District Court may make a similar order for a period of up to 90 days where it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to suspect the funds in the account are the proceeds of crime; there is a risk of the dissipation of those funds; and freezing is necessary and proportionate. Again, appropriate safeguards are in place and provision is made for the order to be challenged and revoked or varied as necessary. Section 8 cuts the waiting time for the final seizure of criminal assets from seven years down to two, as I indicated earlier. This reform sends a clear message: once the court has decided your assets are derived from crime, you will lose them and lose them quickly.”
“I will take the House briefly through those different Parts and sections. Part 1 comprises sections 1 and 2, which contain the standard preliminary provisions. Part 2 amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. Section 1A of the 1996 Act allows the seizure by a CAB officer of moveable property for an initial 24-hour period. This may be extended by the chief bureau officer for a further 21-day period. Section 4 of the Bill will amend this provision to allow an application to the District Court be made thereafter for further extensions, up to a maximum of 90 days in aggregate with appropriate safeguards. Section 5 creates a power to freeze financial accounts. A senior bureau officer can issue a seven-day administrative freeze on an account where it is necessary to conduct preliminary investigations.”
“The State will be better equipped to quickly deprive criminals of their wealth, disrupt their operations and return those funds to the Exchequer for the benefit of all citizens. CAB's successes are actively reflected in the reinvestment of the proceeds of crime into the community. The community safety fund is a tangible example of how this works in practice, ensuring money taken from criminal networks is reinvested in local projects that improve safety, well-being and opportunity. This year, €4 million is available through the fund, which is double the allocation from its first year. This demonstrates our commitment to returning these resources to the public and allowing communities to benefit directly from our success in tackling organised crime. The Bill comprises 17 sections across three Parts.”
“This allows CAB to act immediately on intelligence, preventing money from being moved or dissipated while a full investigation is under way. I am acutely aware of the importance of balancing these enhanced powers with the protection of fundamental rights and I want to provide reassurance on this point. It is crucial to emphasise this Bill is built upon a foundation of robust judicial oversight. The new powers for asset detention and freezing of accounts are supervised by the District Court, while the more significant powers of appointing a receiver and ordering the final forfeiture of assets remain reserved for the High Court. At every stage, a judge must be satisfied the actions taken are reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. Ultimately, these changes will pave the way for a more efficient and effective asset seizure process.”
“The second is that, once a court has determined assets are the proceeds of crime, a receiver will be appointed to those assets specifically for the purpose of depriving those holding them of their benefit. Furthermore, the Bill introduces new tools to freeze funds reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime at the earliest stages of an investigation. These are designed specifically for CAB and reflect the complexity of its investigations. A new administrative "payment freezing direction" can be issued by a senior Bureau officer for up to seven days, while a "payment freezing order" may be made by the District Court for a period of up to 90 days and may be renewed by the court for as long as it is necessary and proportionate to do so.”
“This Bill introduces crucial updates to confront these modern challenges, enabling faster and more efficient seizure of criminal assets whether they are gained from drug trafficking or other forms of organised crime. Two central reforms ensure when the evidence is there of the illicit origin of assets, the State will move quickly to ensure those in possession of them cannot continue to benefit. The first is the reduction of the time required to permanently seize assets. Under current law, once the High Court has determined an asset is derived from crime, the State must wait seven years before taking final ownership. This Bill reduces that period to two years, a change designed to prevent criminals from continuing to enjoy the benefits of their illicitly gained assets long after they have been frozen by the courts.”
“The first is a system of civil forfeiture which, rather than prosecuting offences and trying to trace the proceeds of those crimes, starts from the assets and builds the case that those assets have an unlawful origin. The second is a specialised agency - the Criminal Assets Bureau - bringing together gardaí, Revenue and social protection officers, along with other specialist staff, to link their intelligence and investigations, allowing them to target sophisticated and profit-driven criminality. These building blocks have undoubtedly been effective and successful. As I said, since its inception, CAB has seized and returned more than €220 million to the Exchequer. As crime and the methods criminals use to hide their wealth continue to evolve, however, so too must our response.”
“As established in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996, the State's objective is to deprive or deny those persons of the assets or the benefits of such assets. This is crucial for restoring public confidence and demonstrating that the State is committed to justice and fairness. By removing the symbols of their power, we undermine the influence of criminals and protect communities from intimidation and exploitation. Ireland's existing laws, particularly the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and the Criminal Assets Bureau Act 1996 have established an internationally recognised and internationally influential model for seizing illicit assets. The proceeds of crime model is built on two foundational elements.”
“We really need to repeat that consistently so that people are aware that if they start experimenting with drugs, there is a serious threat that this will have a devastating impact on their lives. The people who are pushing drugs to them are doing it for one reason and one reason only: they want to make money so they can use that wealth for their own private enjoyment. I can assure people that they will never allow themselves to become addicted in the same way as their victims have become addicted. The wealth generated by criminal conduct is often flaunted, creating a corrosive culture where law-abiding citizens feel that the system is failing, while criminals appear to operate beyond the reach of the law.”
“If we have difficulties in getting criminal convictions before the courts, we should still nonetheless use the civil courts and proceeds of crime legislation to ensure we can seize their assets. That has been done very effectively in the past. If we look at the success of the Criminal Assets Bureau, Members will see it has denied criminals over €220 million since its establishment. That is a testament to its success and the importance of introducing that new statutory body. As I said, the impact of organised crime extends far beyond financial loss. It inflicts profound social harm and erodes the fabric of our communities. Everyone in this House will be aware of the devastation that drug addiction has on young people. It destroys their lives.”
“That was the great achievement of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and, indeed, the corresponding Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, legislation, which was enacted in the same year. I commend the excellent work done by the Criminal Assets Bureau and in particular detective chief superintendent Michael Gubbins, who is the head of CAB, for the very important work it does on an ongoing basis. The legislation before the House this afternoon is for the purpose of amending the proceeds of crime legislation and to ensure it is more effective in seeking to pursue organised crime gangs that have made a lot of money out of criminal activity. Those proceeds of crime should not be permitted to remain with them.”
“In fairness to the Government of the day, it subsequently adopted it through the then Minister for Justice, Nora Owen, and it has had a very significant impact on the activities of criminals operating in Ireland. When I get the opportunity, as I have had in the past, to meet justice ministers and home affairs ministers from other European countries, one of the things they wish to talk about is the proceeds of crime legislation that was introduced in Ireland and that has been operating now for 30 years. What fascinates and interests them is the fact that we have a system whereby we can have a non-criminal conviction process of attaching assets that have been generated by criminals.”
“Of course, we need to keep at the forefront of our minds that we need to keep updating and changing our laws to ensure we can remain on top of these organised crime gangs so that we never get them in a situation where they feel comfortable about their accumulation of wealth. As I stated at the outset, the legislation that was introduced in the aftermath of Veronica Guerin's murder was revolutionary legislation. I went back and had a look at the legislation that was introduced in the summer of 1996. It was, interestingly, a Private Members' Bill in its first incarnation through the then Opposition spokesperson for Fianna Fáil, John O'Donoghue.”
“Even yesterday, we would have seen that a very significant drug dealer pleaded guilty to very serious offences before the Circuit Criminal Court in respect of the type of drug activity in which he was involved in terms of being a multi-millionaire euro cocaine, cannabis and ketamine dealer. At the outset, I want to commend An Garda Síochána on the excellent work it did in apprehending that serious criminal and bringing him to trial and getting a conviction arising from his own admission of guilt. I commend the Dublin crime response team. I commend assistant Commissioner Paul Cleary and detective inspector Ken Holohan on the excellent work the Dublin crime response team did yesterday in apprehending what was a significant drug dealer in this country.”
“We can also see throughout our communities the damage and devastation that organised drug crime gangs heap on society. We see it in terms of the damage done to young people who become addicted to drugs - drugs that have been dealt to them because of the greed of those organised crime gangs. Obviously, the motivator for all these organised crime gangs when it comes to the dealing of drugs is money. They get involved in organised crime and the dealing of drugs because they want to make money from this pursuit. Let us never lose sight of the fact that what motivates them is where we should continue to hit them.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to introduce this afternoon to Dáil Éireann the Proceeds of Crime and Related Matters Bill 2025. This Bill is a significant and necessary step forward in our efforts to ensure that Ireland's framework for tackling organised crime is robust and effective. The Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Ardagh, will recall that 29 years ago last month, the very brave journalist Veronica Guerin was murdered. In the aftermath of her murder, there were very significant legislative changes made by the Houses of the Oireachtas to ensure that we could combat the organised crime gangs that had such violence and influence at that time. It was apparently the case, and it still is the case, regrettably, that those crime gangs in different guises continue to exist.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure: Proposal for a Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Iceland on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 30th June, 2025.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure: Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Iceland on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute terrorist offences and serious crime, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 30th June, 2025.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure: Proposal for a Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 30th June, 2025.”
“I also commend and thank Deputies Barry Ward and Cormac Devlin on their contributions. Clearly, this is a proposal that should be supported by the House.”
“We cannot because the PNR directive from 2016 sets down the rules on the use of PNR data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crimes. We cannot extend it to deportation orders and keeping an overview of whether people who have been part of the international protection system have left the country. That is a point that was also raised by Deputy Gogarty. That Deputy raised the issue as to whether that can be done; it cannot. He also asked if air travel providers could have an obligation on them to provide further information. That could happen but there are many doorstops at the airport where individuals are required to produce documentation. If they do not, they are not allowed into the country. If they claim international protection, they are entitled to have that considered.”
“He is correct in stating they do not; they only relate to air travel information. The European Commission has published feasibility studies that examine the possible use of advanced passenger information from land and maritime travel operators. Ireland does not have the applicable long-distance rail or road routes but will continue to monitor developments on maritime travel arising from these studies. It is an issue we will have to look at because if it is the case there is an easier route in with less surveillance by way of ferry, that is something one would have thought has an influence on persons seeking to come here. Deputy Carthy also asked whether we can rely upon the PNR data for the purpose of getting information on whether deportation orders have been enforced.”
“I will always recommend to the Government and advocate to this House the proposal that is in the best interests of Ireland. Deputy Carthy also talked about how privacy rights must be respected and recognised. Of course that is the case but sometimes the collective rights of the community and the public have to be given precedence over individuals' privacy rights. When it comes to fighting crime, we have to ensure, notwithstanding the fact that it may have an impact on privacy, that we have sufficient information available to vindicate and protect the rights of individuals not to be attacked and for them to be able to live peaceful lives without being subjected to serious criminal activity. Deputy Carthy also raised the point about whether these agreements will apply to ferries.”
“There are advantages and disadvantages to both. There is no basis for saying Article 4 is always the preferable way to go in. The benefit of Article 3 is if you go in under Article 3, you can then try to mould and influence the discussion and outcome. There is a disadvantage to it in that you are stuck with it and with the qualified majority voting outcome. Article 4, however, has its advantages. You can just make your decision to opt in but the disadvantage with Article 4 is that you do not have an opportunity to mould the proposal. You are asked if you want to opt in to a proposal that has been agreed and designed by other member states. You have not had a role in participating in the moulding of it so you are limited in that respect. Of course, there is also the option of deciding not to opt in at all.”
“That is the sole basis upon which I ever make a decision to opt in or not opt in to a provision that comes under Protocol 21. I am not doing it for the sake of the EU. I am doing it because I believe it is in the best interests of Ireland. As Deputy Carthy indicated, there are three options available to me and the Government, and, indeed, the Houses of the Oireachtas, when it comes to determining whether or not to consider if we should become part of a Protocol 21 proposal. We can opt in under Article 3, we can opt in under Article 4 or, as Deputy Carthy says, we can decide not to opt in. All those options are available to us and the decision to go for one of those three options is based on what is in the best interests of Ireland. Deputy Carthy and I have had debates before about the differences between Article 3 and Article 4.”
“I thank Members for their contributions. I will reply to some of the important issues that have been raised by colleagues in the debate. First, I welcome that Deputy Carthy indicated that Sinn Féin will not be opposing these motions. I ask him to give consideration to supporting them. I do not see any reason they would not be supported. They are there for the purpose of trying to assist the State in combating people who are keen to commit serious criminal offences and terrorist offences and I ask that he give his consideration to recommending that they be supported. Deputy Carthy also said that when it comes to opt-ins under Protocol 21, the decisions that need to be made must obviously be made in Ireland's best interest.”