John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Members that there are four separate motions being debated in this slot, namely, the motion regarding the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on the transfer of passenger name record, PNR, data; the motion regarding the signing of the agreement between the EU and the Kingdom of Norway on the transfer of passenger name record, PNR, data; the motion regarding conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and Iceland on the transfer of passenger name record, PNR, data; and the motion regarding the signing of the agreement between the European Union and Iceland on the transfer of passenger name record, PNR, data. The motions will be moved separately, but will be debated together and decided by separate questions.

I call on the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, to move the first motion and open the debate.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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 the Kingdom of Norway 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.

Like the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I had the opportunity to listen to the very interesting and passionate debate on Pride that took place over the past number of hours. Regrettably, the topic we are now proceeding to is neither interesting nor passionate. It is a fairly mundane series of motions that are seeking and Article 3 opt-in under Protocol 21, which deals with justice and home affairs matters, in order to enable Ireland to become part of the signing and conclusion of agreements between the European Union and Norway, and the European Union and Iceland on the transfer of passenger name record, better known as the acronym, PNR. It relates to information that is provided when individuals arrive in ports, so an identity can be kept on whom those persons are.

Ireland opted into the negotiation of these agreements in February 2024. The agreements have two main aims and components, one relating to the necessity of ensuring public security by means of exchanging PNR data with Norway and with Iceland, and the other relating to the protection of privacy and other fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals.

The proposed Council decisions have a Title V legal basis in the area of police co-operation. Their publication by the Commission on 12 June 2025 started a three-month window for Ireland to exercise an opt-in under Article 3 of Protocol 21, which is annexed to the Lisbon treaty. However, this window has effectively been shortened by the timing of the proposals' publication and the imminent summer recess of the Houses. The collection and analysis of PNR data is a widely used law enforcement tool in the EU and in other countries for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. PNR data is the booking information provided by passengers and collected by air carriers for their own commercial purposes, such as names, dates of travel or travel itineraries. The collection and analysis of PNR data can provide the authorities with important elements allowing them to detect suspicious travel patterns and identify associates of criminals and terrorists, particularly those previously unknown to law enforcement authorities.

The use of PNR data is governed by the PNR directive, which was transposed into national law via the European Union (Passenger Name Record) Regulations 2018. The Irish passenger information unit within my Department is the body responsible for processing PNR data in Ireland. It is not foreseen that additional cost implications will arise from Ireland’s participation in these agreements, save from the potential addition of new flight routes or air carriers. The Irish passenger information unit is funded through the Vote of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. No legal or practical impediment has been identified precluding Ireland from opting into these proposals.

No legal or practical impediment has been identified precluding Ireland from opting in to these proposals. We have already opted in to similar EU PNR agreements with Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom.

When we opted in last year to the negotiation of the agreements before us today, we also opted in to negotiate a PNR agreement with Switzerland. I am advised that proposals on the signing and conclusion of this agreement with Switzerland are expected to be published by the European Commission in the coming weeks. Therefore, I would expect to be back before the Houses after the summer recess with similar motions on exercising an Article 3 opt-in in respect of the European Commission agreement with Switzerland.

In operational and policy terms, it is considered desirable that Ireland exercises an Article 3 opt-in to these proposals so that Ireland can participate in the agreed exchange of PNR data with Iceland and Norway when the agreements have been concluded. I commend these proposals to the House to consider the exercise of Ireland’s right to opt in under Article 3 of Protocol 21 and seek the approval of the House for the motions for both the signing and conclusion of the agreements concerned.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The sharing of passenger name record data is important for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of serious crimes, such as drug-related offences and human trafficking, as the Minister has outlined. This information forms part of the broader management of our borders. International co-operation in the fight against crime is crucial. The sharing of this information is a key aspect of that. These motions relate to agreements between the EU and the Schengen-associated countries of Iceland and Norway on the transfer of passenger name record data for law enforcement purposes. Sinn Féin will not be opposing these motions.

I note, however, that while it may be appropriate in this case to opt in under Article 3, it is crucial that the Protocol 21 annexe to the Lisbon treaty is not abandoned or watered down by always opting in under Article 3, as it appears the Minister has got into the habit of doing, when the option of Article 4 is available to Ireland. Indeed, the option of not opting in is there too and may sometimes be in our best interest. While this particular proposal may be clear and straightforward, we have seen the Government push through many Article 3 opt-ins where it is not clear that the final proposal will actually be in our best interests. I will make no apologies for saying that Ireland's national interests must always take precedence over whatever the wider EU interest may be. In the areas of freedom, security and justice, Protocol 21 allows us to opt in or out based on our national interests. It is crucial that we do so.

When passenger name record information is shared, it is also crucial that there is the right balance between the protection of privacy and other fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals alongside the important rationale for these data-sharing agreements in the first place. The holding of any such data must be necessary, proportionate and subject to limitations. It is also important to note - and I will ask the Minister some questions that he may answer in his closing remarks - that Ireland is an island nation. We know that there is considerable travel in and out of the Irish State by ferry as well as by air. Given that the sharing of passenger name record data is designed to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute serious crimes, it appears to be an anomaly that this does not apply in the same manner to ferry passengers. It could be argued that this may in fact encourage those seeking to evade PNR to take the ferry. Does the Minister have any detail on whether this anomaly is having an impact on what PNR is designed to address, namely, as part of efforts to disrupt and catch those involved in criminality? Does he have any concerns that those involved in these activities are actually more likely to enter or exit the State by ferry in order to avoid monitoring through the collection of this data? Are there any plans at a national level for the collection of passenger name record data of those travelling in and out of the country by ferry?

The discussion on passenger name record data is a good opportunity to address the ongoing systemic failure of our migration system when it comes to dealing with those who do not have an entitlement to remain in the State, our ability to ensure that they leave and, just as important, to know that they have left. Passenger recognition data is used at present as part of the process to verify whether a person who is not entitled to remain in the State as a result of a negative decision in the international protection system or upon the expiration of visitor permission has left the jurisdiction. They are important questions because we have a significant problem whereby authorities do not know how many of those who are not entitled to remain in the State have left and how many are still here. This is a significant problem. While the situation is undoubtedly complicated by the common travel area, it is an issue that still needs to be addressed. We have had a lot of discussions with the Minister. He has spoken about the number of measures that he has taken, but the truth is that the system remains chaotic and crisis-ridden.

This week, we saw shocking revelations about the connections between criminality and some of those profiteering from the provision of IPAS accommodation. While 2,403 deportation orders were issued in 2024, just 162 deportations proceeded. This year, 2,330 deportation orders have been issued, while just 202 deportations have occurred. We are told that a total of 1,045 people departed from the State under various mechanisms such as enforced deportation or voluntary returns so far this year, but this is less than half of the number of deportation orders that have actually been issued to date.

Last week, I received a reply from the Minister to a parliamentary question stating, "it is not possible to accurately provide the number of people who are currently in Ireland subject to deportation orders." That is a problem. While there are no routine exit checks at Irish borders, PNR data should be available to give authorities in this State a clearer idea of who has left the State and the island of Ireland. It is my understanding that PNR data is used by Irish and British authorities when co-operating to maintain the security of the common travel area and to track cross-border criminality. Is PNR data being used and shared to help get a clearer position of who of those subject to deportation orders have actually left the island of Ireland, particularly given the statement from the Minister in reply to my question that it is "not possible" to know the number of people who have left subject to deportation orders?

Sinn Féin will not be opposing these motions, but I would like to see the Minister address the other related issues that I have raised.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his contribution. In some ways, this is necessary legislation. In other ways, it is a bit like watching paint dry, especially when talking about going through the motions. I am not sure whether I will be here when we get around to the motions on Switzerland in a while.

I wanted to discuss the wider issues of all this booking information that is provided by passengers and collected and held in reservation systems. We know the content of the PNR data varies depending on the information given during the booking and check-in process, but it would include passenger names at all stages. Whether or not the travel itinerary of the passenger is included in the PNR data is another story. It makes sense in terms of trying to figure out where suspected criminals and terrorists are coming and going, if they are going to drug havens, etc. That is all well and good, and I could see why would opt in to have that.

I will start at the end first and support what Deputy Carthy said regarding people with deportation orders. Presumably, the standard PNR data should be able to be used because it talks about certain types of circumstances and certain situations where privacy is being protected. In a situation where someone has been told they have to vacate the country and do not have leave to remain in Ireland, surely it is in our national interest to find out whether the people are still in the State or whether they have tried to leave the country or travelled onwards through other countries to the final destination.

However, I want to go back to the starting point. As we know, someone can arrive in Ireland without a passport under United Nations rules, claim they are fleeing persecution and it can take a long time to go through the asylum process. I commended the Minister before on his statement to the effect that we can try to get through the whole process much quicker than previously. If the Minister is able to comment on this, I ask him to please do so. My understanding is that Ireland is not always happy with some of our EU partners in terms of the information they pass on when people travel through European Union member states and then arrive here with no passport and claim asylum. I would like to know whether we have the right, or the means in legislation to get the right, to ask companies like Ryanair to take routine scans of passports as people are going through and retain that information for up to 60 minutes after a plane lands. I know the Minister mentioned that there are sometimes checks at the point of disembarking but some people come without a passport, claim asylum and say they are from a particular state or are fleeing persecution in a particular country. There is no way of verifying that and the process drags on with appeals, etc. Surely, if it is possible to get this information, either through PNR data or by means of a mechanism requiring the likes of Ryanair and Aer Lingus to provide a simple scan of a passport, we could then say to such persons that they may have arrived without a passport but we have a picture that looks a lot like them and a document that says they are coming from a certain jurisdiction or country. That would help in identifying the individual. While the person could say the passport is forged and they got it from X, Y or Z, at the same time it provides more pertinent information than we had previously. In the context of the opportunity provided by this PNR debate, is there any way PNR data can be used when people arrive without a passport to get information that might have been provided to the carriers or is there a separate mechanism whereby the carriers can be requested to provide it? Given the large numbers who have come here claiming asylum, some of whom are genuine, while others are not, is there a way of getting that information so that we can process claims faster?

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have been following this proposal from the European Commission since June. Honestly, when I first read of it I was surprised it was not in place already. Iceland and Norway are two functional members of the wider European community that are associated with Schengen. We deal with them regularly and we can have great faith in their systems, rule of law, respect for rules around data protection and those kinds of things. We are dealing with two countries and the notion that there are passenger flights or other transport from Ireland to Iceland or Norway and that we are prohibiting those jurisdictions from collecting passenger data seemed to be very strange. We all know how much information we share with air carriers. They are obliged to collect that information because of other instruments that have been put in place. It is not just names and dates of birth. It is also passport numbers, nationality and other information that airlines have about people. While the airlines are bound by the general data protection regulation and other instruments, the notion that they would not share that information and those data with other allied countries is, to my mind, nonsense.

I absolutely welcome this proposal. It makes perfect sense. Again, these are two countries with which we co-operate on lots of different levels and I welcome the fact that we will now be sharing this information with them or, rather, we will be allowing the air carriers to share that information with them. We know in real terms that this will help prevent and detect crime and help the agencies that deal with human trafficking, drug trafficking and all the other crimes we know take place across transport networks. It will help to detect these crimes and solve them when the time comes to bring about prosecutions in respect of them. It is a perfectly sensible measure that I welcome. As I say, I am almost a small bit surprised it has not happened already. Most importantly, however, these countries are allies of ours with which we deal all the time and it is right and proper that we should have enough trust in them to share this information. There is almost no instance I can think of when Ireland, as a member of the European Union, has not benefited from data-sharing arrangements with other countries in the European Union. As a small country in Europe, we benefit enormously from the data and the co-operation that are shared between us and other member states, often countries that have much bigger apparatuses and much greater access to resources. When, as a small country, we form part of those networks, we always benefit. Therefore, I have no real concerns about this proposal. It makes perfect sense and I am very happy to welcome it.

Cormac Devlin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak in support of these two important motions, which authorise Ireland to opt in to two EU agreements with Iceland and Norway on the transfer of passenger name record data. These agreements are more than just legal instruments. They are vital tools in our shared European effort to prevent terrorism and combat serious transnational crime. In a world where organised crime networks and terrorist threats are increasingly international in nature, the ability to share key data across borders is essential. Passenger name record data includes basic booking information collected by airlines, namely, travel dates, itineraries, contact details and payment methods. On its own, it might not seem significant but when analysed systematically and lawfully, it can help identify suspicious travel patterns, uncover sleeper cells and support real-time investigation.

Ireland is already bound by the EU’s PNR directive and operates a dedicated passenger information unit within the Department of Justice. However, our current arrangements with Iceland and Norway rely on an ad hoc, case-by-case data-sharing system. This is cumbersome and reactive. By opting in to these agreements, we enable more efficient, secure and rights-compliant data exchange, benefiting not only our own national security but also that of our European partners.

These agreements are built on a strong legal foundation. They uphold the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and incorporate stringent safeguards around data use, retention and privacy. Personal data must be depersonalised after six months and deleted within five years. Sensitive information is strictly excluded. Importantly, no automated decision-making can occur without human oversight. Ireland has already opted in to similar PNR agreements with Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and, most recently, Canada. I have spoken on these before in the House. These agreements have proven their value and it is both consistent and prudent that we extend the same co-operation to two close EEA neighbours, Iceland and Norway. I acknowledge the proactive stance taken by the Minister in bringing these motions forward. I commend him on the concrete steps he has already taken to secure and strengthen our borders and rebuild public confidence in that system.

There are no legal or operational barriers to Ireland’s participation and it is right that we approve this opt-in ahead of the summer recess, within, as the Minister has stated, the Article 3 deadline under Protocol 21. In conclusion, this is about protecting lives, defending democracy and upholding our obligations under European law in a proportionate and transparent way. I support these motions and I urge the House to do the same.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Anois, ar deireadh thiar, an tAire.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.