Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

See this speech in context