2026-06-17

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 DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences and amending Directive (EU) 2024/1260 of the European Parliament and of the Council, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 18th March, 2026. I thank the House for facilitating this motion. I welcome the opportunity to address the Dáil on Ireland's opt-in to a new EU proposal for a directive on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences. Ireland has an option, provided for in Article 3.1 of Protocol 21 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, to opt in to individual proposals in the area of freedom, security and justice. The protocol provides that Ireland has three months from the date a proposal is presented to the Council to notify the Presidency of the Council of its wish to take part in the negotiation, adoption and application of the measure. The three-month period for this proposal ends on 23 June 2026. The exercise of the opt-in is subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas, so it has been necessary to bring this proposal to the Houses as swiftly as possible. Ireland can accept a proposal at any time after it has been adopted but in such cases Ireland will not have been in a position to vote on the final content of the proposal. It must also be noted that Ireland made a declaration appended to the Treaty of Lisbon of its intention to opt in to measures in the area of freedom, security and justice to the maximum extent it deems possible. The EU has previously adopted several instruments regulating the legal acquisition and possession of firearms. Opting in to this measure in relation to firearms trafficking provides an important opportunity for Ireland to reiterate our commitment to tackling illicit firearms, the trafficking of which poses a serious threat to both our and our European neighbours’ security, and beyond. On 26 February, the European Commission put forward this proposal with the intention to combat firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences. The aim is to introduce a EU-wide framework with common definitions of firearms offences and penalties, support stronger co-operation between member states and improve the collection and use of data. The proposal also closes the gap when it comes to the misuse of 3D printing for illicit weapons production and includes an obligation for member states to establish a national firearms focal point to better enable operational co-operation between member states. Illicit firearms pose a serious threat to the security of all EU citizens. They enable a wide range of serious and organised crimes, including drug trafficking, extortion, robbery and gang violence. The issue has intensified due to geopolitical events in geographical proximity to the Union. There is a high risk that the surplus of weapons from ongoing conflict, such as the one in the Ukraine, will leak into illegal markets. Key challenges that have been identified that further the facilitation of illicit firearms trafficking are the technological shifts creating the possibility of online dissemination of 3D-printing blueprints. The large gap in data and reliable, comprehensive statistics also make it more challenging for law enforcement and policymakers to assess the scale of this threat and identify possible solutions. Firearms trafficking has been consistently identified as a major internal security threat to the EU. The necessity for harmonisation of criminal standards has been highlighted in both the 2025 ProtectEU internal security strategy and the new counter-terrorism agenda. However, there are significant differences in how firearms-related crimes are defined and punished across the member states. This lack of harmonisation hinders cross-border co-operation, complicates investigations and prosecutions, and reduces the overall effectiveness of law enforcement against firearms trafficking and its related offences. I will provide more detail about the specific elements of the measure that is under discussion. The directive aims to protect EU citizens from the threat of illicit firearms by reducing the number of illegal weapons and related criminal activities, harmonising firearms offences and penalties and improving data quality and availability. The proposal targets intentional acts involving illicit firearms and does not propose to change existing EU rules on the legal acquisition, possession and cross-border movement of licit firearms. The proposal will harmonise the definitions and penalties of criminal offences to include the trafficking, manufacturing or possession of illicit firearms, the falsifying or illicitly removing or altering of mandatory firearm markings, and the illicit creation, acquisition, possession and dissemination of 3D printing of firearms. Under this proposed directive, each member state will be obliged to establish a national firearms focal point to facilitate co-ordination and co-operation between the competent authorities. This directive will also strengthen data collection on seized firearms, which will enhance the capabilities of law enforcement officers and policymakers. It will allow for better resource allocation and it will enhance threat and policy evaluation. Harmonised EU-level action will also support broader security goals, as firearms crimes are closely linked to terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking and other types of organised crimes. As firearms trafficking continues to worsen, we are committed to combating this challenge through a co-ordinated and coherent approach. To do this, we must ensure our legislative measures are fit for purpose. In Ireland, we have robust legislation safeguarding the use of firearms through the Firearms Act 1925. However, this represents the first firearms trafficking measure at EU level. This legislation will remove the fragmentation that exists across the European Union to provide for harmonisation, thus enhancing cross-border co-operation, criminal investigations and prosecutions. The ultimate goal is to safeguard citizens and ensure that serious criminality is disrupted and punished. The views of the Office of the Attorney General have been sought on this directive. The legal advice confirmed that there are no legal or constitutional obstacles to Ireland opting in to this directive. Naturally, given the importance of this issue, officials from my Department will continue to participate actively in the negotiations at working party meetings and engage with other Departments and agencies to ensure the final text of the directive works well for Ireland and the EU as a whole. As part of Ireland's Presidency responsibilities, senior officials in my Department will be leading on the negotiation of the measure as it progresses in Brussels. By opting in to the measure, we will join our European colleagues to help fight this collective challenge. The Government has no hesitation in commending this motion to the House.

I am sure the Government has no hesitation at all. There is a serious issue in terms of how the Minister for justice is dealing with some incredibly important Bills that will have implications for years to come, and that is his inability to engage with the Houses of the Oireachtas regarding EU matters in a timely manner. I have lost count of the number of times that a Minister from the Department of justice has come in here with a proposal and said that time is of the essence and we have to adopt it within the following number of weeks. The question is: whose fault is that? It is certainly not the fault of Opposition Members who are told that there is an urgency. This is particularly the case with this proposal. The briefing note circulated by the Department highlights the particular urgency and lists 23 June, less than a week from now, as the deadline. That is the timeframe the Houses have to consider it. The Minister might consider me to be naive but I would have thought that the purpose of debates in this House was to scrutinise proposals, identify issues and suggest improvements or other beneficial courses of action, but the truth of the matter is that these motions have become a rubber-stamping exercise that have become the hallmark of how he approaches this. The least that the Houses of the Oireachtas deserve is an adequate timeline. I am told that for all the lack of notice we got in this House, the Seanad was give 24 hours' notice in respect of this motion. The Minister of State referred to the deadline of 23 June. She stated this is because of the pressures of Article 3 of protocol 21 and it is important that we go back to the basis of where protocol 21 came from. It provided an opt-out for Ireland and Britain at the time in respect of matters concerning security, freedom and of that nature. There are two provisions in it. The first, Article 3, that the Minister of State cites, essentially allows the Government to opt in at an early stage of the deliberative process and within which comes a very tight deadline, but I am astounded that her contribution never mentioned Article 4 because Article 4 provides a different mechanism for Ireland to opt in, if that is the considered view of the Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas. That allows us to sign in at any stage after the enactment of the proposal. Of course, the Government will cite that Article 3 brings us to the table, allows us to be part of the deliberations and the decision-making process but it also forces us to accept whatever decision is made, even if we oppose it and are in a minority in a qualified majority voting situation. Two questions arise from that. Do we have faith in the Ministers to defend and fight for the positions of the Oireachtas behind closed doors when they treat the Oireachtas with such contempt on an ongoing basis in relation to these motions? Do we trust the Minister at a time he is signing us up under protocol 21 to probably the greatest number of EU proposals ever? He has given up opt-outs where we have always had them and opted in and he is increasingly using Article 3 rather than Article 4, which was the primary mechanism used by previous Governments to sign up. This is all too familiar. We saw the furore in recent weeks when members of the public became aware in respect of the EU migration and asylum pact that we are locked in not only through this Government but future governments to an EU framework that takes no account of the unique circumstances and challenges that this particular island nation, divided as it is, faces. In the Seanad earlier, the Minister misrepresented, or at least misunderstood, Sinn Féin's position because we have always acknowledged that there are areas where there is a need for EU collaboration. It is absolutely the case that combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences could be one of them but that should be done on the basis of considered discussion in this House. That should have been done as a result of debates at the Oireachtas joint committee on justice in the first instance where we have thoughtful detailed conversations as to what precisely it means for Ireland to opt in, what provisions of sovereignty precisely are being handed over and what the value for this State is in handing over that sovereignty, then a considered debate in this House and then moving forward, but instead what happens is decisions are made behind closed doors to opt in. I have the briefing note here. That is what has been provided to the Oireachtas by way of considered deliberation by the Department by way of briefing and then we are being asked at short notice to opt in under Article 3 and trust the Ministers to have our back as a state in EU negotiations. It does not matter after that whether they do have our backs, because we are locked in anyway. This is not at all the way to do business. There is a particular issue when it comes to firearms. When we are dealing with terrorism and serious firearms trafficking, I fully accept there is a need for, and merit in, operating on an EU basis. However, game clubs and hunting organisations, for example, have highlighted to us that when previous Governments signed us up under Article 4 to firearms legislation at EU level, there was no consideration for the impact on those types of local organisations and, subsequently, no real engagement on the part of the Department. I will be voting against this motion. I do so on the basis of standing up for the rights of the Houses of the Oireachtas to have full and proper consideration of these matters, not to be subjected to a rubber-stamping exercise and not to be treated with what I consider to be absolute and utter disdain in terms of proper accountability. The Minister of State can say these are democratic decisions. Yes, this will be a democratic decision in that Members will vote on it, but nobody can argue in any way that there has been democratic consideration, accountability and discussion in respect of this motion. That absolutely has not happened.

The Social Democrats will support this motion because we want Ireland to opt in to the EU directive on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences. We do so because firearms trafficking, by its very nature, is a cross-border criminal activity. Organised criminal networks do not respect borders. The firearms used by criminal gangs across the country do not magically appear here. They are trafficked across jurisdictions, moved through criminal supply chains and exploited by organised crime groups operating across Europe. We accept that co-operation between member states is essential, as is information sharing between law enforcement agencies to enable them to work together effectively. However, supporting the opt-in should not mean suspending scrutiny. We have major concerns about how the Department of justice, led by the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, is continuously undermining democratic and parliamentary norms in this House. We will support the measure because we believe it is an important one but we do so while highlighting the failure of the Department once again to apply the required level of scrutiny. The EU's Regulatory Scrutiny Board has itself raised concerns about the level of analysis applied to this proposal, with a report noting that it was moving through the system without the level of detailed examination such a significant criminal justice measure deserves. That concern is very well founded. When Ireland chooses to opt in to a justice and home affairs measure, it is not a routine administrative exercise. Rather, it is a significant policy decision that means accepting that European legislation will shape part of our criminal justice framework. That should always be done carefully, deliberately and on the basis of evidence, particularly at a time when security concerns across Europe are becoming increasingly more complex. We are living through a period of significant geopolitical instability. We have seen organised crime become more sophisticated, growing security concerns across the Continent, conflict on Europe's borders and increasing pressure on law enforcement agencies in many member states. In that environment, it is entirely reasonable that the EU would seek to strengthen co-operation against firearms trafficking. It it equally reasonable for this House to ask questions. The central question I have for the Minister of State and the Government she represents is a simple one. What specific gaps in Irish law does this directive close? When we examine our existing legislation, we find that Ireland already has some of the strongest firearm laws in Europe. We already provide for severe penalties for unlawful possession of firearms and significant penalties where firearms are possessed in suspicious circumstances. We already provide for sentences up to and including life imprisonment for the most serious firearm offences. If we are being asked to opt in to this measure, the Government should be able to clearly identify where the deficiencies lie but I did not hear that addressed in the Minister of State's contribution. Is the benefit primarily to do with information sharing, tracing firearms, intelligence co-operation or offences relating to the illicit manufacture of 3D-printed weapons, or is there a more substantive gap that has not yet been outlined to the House? Those questions are not arguments against the directive. They are arguments for proper scrutiny and they are questions that should have been debated at committee level. The directive contains provisions on minimum and maximum penalties and a sentencing framework. If we are introducing new sentencing approaches, they should be justified by facts, evidence and a clear understanding of what actually reduces organised crime. Too often in politics, there is a temptation to assume that longer sentences automatically produce better outcomes. The evidence internationally is far more mixed. The objective must not simply be to increase penalties for the sake of it. The objective must be to reduce firearms trafficking, reduce gun violence and improve public safety. What bothers me most about a discussion like this in the Chamber specifically about firearms offences is that we very rarely discuss one of the major issues occurring across Irish society right now, which is the pernicious nature of gang violence and all the tentacles that surround it. The Minister of State represents Dublin South-Central, which is a constituency very similar to mine. Surely she must see the level of child grooming into criminality that is happening. My eyes almost rolled back into my head a couple of months ago when the Minister talked about the fact we have not had a death by firearms as a consequence of gangland criminality in the past year. Yet, as I walk home via O'Connell Street and Dorset Street, the level of coercion of children into criminality I see there is something many of us have not seen in our lifetime. This directive does not counter that but nor have I seen anything from the Government that does so. Drug-related intimidation is no longer happening only in inner-city communities. It is a nationwide problem. Rural and farm-based communities are experiencing it. The drug-related intimidation and violence engagement, DRIVE, programme is funded to the tune of some €240,000 each year. The level of drug-related intimidation far exceeds what that funding could possibly do. We have a multitude of disparate but better organised gangs emerging every single week in this country. Inevitably, somebody will say we need an initiative like the inner-city task force for Ballymun, Blanchardstown or Limerick, rather than accepting this is a national problem that requires manifold interventions. I consistently hear that the Minister at the Department of justice is doing the best work in the country. When I look at the outcomes, I just do not see it. I will vote for this motion on the EU directive because co-operation matters. Scrutiny also matters, however, and it has not been applied in this instance. I genuinely do not believe the Department of justice is taking any degree of interest in the people who hold the firearms and the people who are coercing children and young people in this country into carrying out the type of intimidation of which we have been seeing the evidence since 2001. There have been 2,600 incidences of drug-related intimidation in the past two years and arson attacks have increased manyfold. We are not getting to grips with a problem that used to be under the radar but about which we now simply do not talk. This directive lacks proper parliamentary oversight. The problems it is trying to solve will not be addressed unless the Government actually takes the issues seriously.

The next slot is for the Independent and Parties Technical Group but there are no Members from that group present. Therefore, we will move on to the Independent Technical Group, with Deputy Gogarty up first.

Like previous speakers, I do not like the short notice given for this debate but I otherwise broadly welcome the Government motion on Ireland opting in to the proposed EU directive on combating firearms trafficking under Protocol 21. It makes sense because it aligns us with newer EU-wide rules on tracing, information and data sharing and penalties. The directive is focused on tackling the illegal movement of firearms, which is an activity that crosses all sorts of national borders in different jurisdictions with different rules. The criminal networks exploit those differences between legal systems across Europe. By joining this measure, Ireland strengthens its ability to work with other member states. It will improve information sharing and, we hope, will strengthen penalties. Some people have concerns about the directive. In terms of the sovereignty argument, there is always an element of trade-off. There is an aspect of swings and roundabouts. Other people fear that it might affect people who use firearms responsibly for sport or farming. We should discuss it more because the short period is not desirable. In general, I think this is essential legislation and I will be supporting it because it strengthens An Garda Síochána's work.

We have a big problem with gun crime in this country. It is important that we work collectively with other countries to stop that. Crime is causing enormous stress for rural communities, in towns and villages right across the country. It is important that we have a serious conversation about what happens to people when they are released from prison. Over the past five years, more than 3,500 persons have been released from prison with no fixed abode. Many go straight into emergency accommodation, with no plan, no supports and no oversight. What is effectively happening in rural communities is that some local authorities are sending individuals into Mayo, in places like Knock, Balla and Crossmolina, and placing them into the hands of private landlords without any professional support structures, risk assessment or rehabilitation pathways whatsoever. In this model, the only beneficiary is the landlord itself. I have been reliably informed that Roscommon County Council is sending persons released from prison to landlords in Mayo. Worryingly, one of these landlords has plans to expand his enterprise into Claremorris, into a location beside schools. Mayo should not be used as a dumping ground in relation to this. I have spoken to professionals, addiction counsellors, psychologists and many other specialists, and they have all agreed that you cannot place recently released offenders into privately run, profit-led facilities without any oversight. When you take a man who may have burgled a house and place him alongside a man who may have burgled a car, that is not a rehabilitation centre. You are effectively creating a school of crime. When one person can learn from another, it is the reverse of Batman and Robin. This is happening in Knock, Balla and Crossmolina. It is causing devastating consequences for the individuals, where no rehabilitation is happening, for the community, who have to live with the effects of this, and for the gardaí, who are massively stretched and yet have to deal with such difficult circumstances as well. There is a better way. If you look at how Galway County Council operates its model, people who are released from prison go to a professionally run service with counselling and risk assessment protocols. It is effectively operating a step-down facility and COPE charity is managing that for the council. It protects individuals, promotes rehabilitation, protects communities, and, crucially, it protects the gardaí too. Instead of funnelling public money into the hands and pockets of landlords, we should be investing properly in rehabilitation and step-down facilities. The model is there and I call on the Minister of State to end this failed experiment. It is causing devastating consequences in Mayo in particular. I want the Minister of State to put proper structures in place. No one should be released from prison with no fixed abode and effectively shoved into a large accommodation centre with other people who have recently been released from prison. It is a dynamite combination and it must be ended. I call on the Minister of State to look into this issue in Mayo, Knock, Balla and Crossmolina. I ask her to come back to me on it.

I raise a matter that has caused huge concern among farmers, hunters and licensed firearms owners right across rural Ireland. This is about the proposed EU restrictions on lead ammunition and, more important, the complete lack of information and engagement by this Government. This issue did not appear yesterday. Concerns about these proposals have been voiced over the past number of years. Representative organisations have been looking for meetings and meaningful engagement with the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Dillon, and officials in his Department, and they have got virtually nothing back. In many cases, they have got nothing at all. That is simply not acceptable. The people affected by this are farmers protecting livestock, people carrying out vermin control, hunters, sporting shooters, and ordinary licence-holders who obey the law and pay their taxes like everyone else. Many of them who live in rural Ireland feel they are being ignored, and I can see why. There has been no meaningful consultation, no proper stakeholder engagement, no effort to bring people around the table and no effort to explain what Ireland's position actually is. That is just shocking. The Government talks endlessly about stakeholders' engagement and consultation, but when it comes to rural stakeholder groups, too often they seem to be the last people anyone wants to listen to. That is exactly the impression being created here. The REACH vote is due on Thursday week, yet here we are, days away from a hugely important decision, and stakeholders still do not know which way Ireland intends to vote. How is this acceptable to this Government? There are over 150,000 licensed firearms owners in this country. Many have serious concerns about the practical consequences of these proposals. There are concerns about availability, the suitability of existing firearms, safety, cost and supply. What is Ireland's position? Will we vote against or in favour of this proposal? The Health and Safety Authority under the Department of enterprise will cast a vote. Which way do we plan to vote?

I begin by briefly addressing the motion concerning Ireland's opt-in to the proposed EU directive on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences. I have no difficulty with supporting proportionate, targeted measures that genuinely strengthen our capacity to tackle the illegal trafficking of weapons, particularly those entering the EU from conflict zones or through organised criminal networks. I do want to be absolutely clear, however, that this directive is about criminal law harmonisation and not about the lawful, responsible and highly regulated community of licensed firearms holders in this State. It is certainly not about ammunition standards or hunting practices. However, it is precisely because this directive is not about those issues that I must take this opportunity to highlight a real and growing concern among rural communities, sports shooters and hunting organisations, concerns that I have raised repeatedly through parliamentary questions. Only last year, I submitted a series of parliamentary questions to the Ministers for agriculture and for the environment, seeking clarity on the European Chemicals Agency's proposals under REACH to further restrict or effectively phase out the use of lead ammunition, including for shotguns used in hunting and pest control. I specifically asked the Minister at that time to outline the Government's engagement with the National Association of Regional Game Councils, NARGC, with local gun clubs and with the tens of thousands of responsible firearm holders who will be directly affected. The replies, unfortunately, were very vague, non-committal and in some cases outright dismissive of the scale of the impact. Now we see NARGC again calling for clarity and sounding the alarm. This time, it is warning that the proposed EU restrictions could have serious, disproportionate and unnecessary consequences for rural gun owners, clay pigeon clubs, wildlife management and farmers who rely on shotguns as a practical tool. NARGC is absolutely right to highlight that many of the alternatives to lead shot are more expensive, less effective and in some cases unsafe in older firearms that were never designed for high-pressure steel loads. I have raised this repeatedly and we are not seeing any action on it or engagement with the game council.

I wish the Minister of State well in her new role. I am concerned about these opt-ins. We are opting in very often without any proper legal scrutiny or impact analysis. None of us can say there is not a huge problem with gun crime. The availability of and activity involving guns is outrageous. We can have all the opt-ins and European agreements we like, but we do not have the Garda Síochána on the ground to deal with it. I commend the ABGN Gun Club in four parishes in my area, and also the many gun clubs around the country that do excellent work in nurturing species that are in in danger, habitats and everything else. They have huge concerns here. There was absolutely no consultation with the national organisation or those clubs. They are concerned as are the farmers who, for instance, cannot farm potatoes, which are coming up now, because of crows. They have to have a shotgun. They can have these bangers and everything else. They also need them for deer hunting and for shooting vermin. These people are not being consulted and the worry is that this is the thin end of the wedge. If we opt in to this, we do not know what it is and where it might end up when it comes down on top of us. I also have huge issues with the Prison Service at the moment. Our prisons have double the number of prisoners that they can hold and they are releasing prisoners on a regular basis to unscrupulous landlords, some of whom have IPAS centres. I attended a briefing in the audiovisual room this morning. The money that is being paid to some greedy developers here is shocking. They have friends in high places and involves literally billions in money overall. As Deputy Paul Lawless said, it is just shocking. They are putting in one, two and three different criminals who have been released here without any rehabilitation. It is only a cocktail for more crime, more gun crime and all kinds of heinous crimes. We can come in here and rush through legislation to opt in to this, that and the other with the EU. We are forgetting about the ordinary people who look after our country, our land, our heritage and, of course, our habitats. Yet we do not know the impact of what we are passing will have on them and on those in the farming community who are trying to survive, eke out a living, protect their crops and above all, protect their people. This is wide open for abuse from the EU afterwards.

I, too, wish the Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, the very best in her new position. I am concerned. Every one of us would support the objective of protecting people from the threat that guns or illicit firearms pose to people’s lives. To reach this general objective, it is important to reduce the number of illicit firearms and the activity of the illegal firearms market in the EU, to reduce the discrepancies between EU member states, to harmonise firearms-related offences and penalties across member states, and to enhance the overall picture of the threat posed by firearms by improving the availability and quality of data. However, I am very concerned about the ordinary people in Ireland who hold firearms, whether rifles, shotguns or whatever, for the protection of their farms and to keep wildlife a reasonable distance away. All parts of Kerry are completely overrun by deer. If we were to hurt those who are trying to keep the numbers down - we really appreciate the great work they are doing - it would be very wrong. I believe we have not had enough debate on this motion and I am very concerned about it. We all know the great work the gun clubs do and they are completely above board. I am also worried about the change relating to lead bullets and that this would in some way speed up getting rid of the lead cartridges we have had for years and years. I am very concerned about how little debate we are having on it this evening. As I said at the start, we are all worried about drug lords, the use of guns and the deaths especially here in the capital and also in other parts of the country. I am very concerned that we might in some way hurt the users of legally held guns in the countryside for the protection of farms and their livelihoods.

I also congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Ardagh, and I wish her well in her new role.

I thank the House for facilitating this motion today. I thank colleagues from across the House for their contributions. I would like to address some specific questions raised. Deputies Nolan, Michael Collins, Danny Healy-Rae and Carthy raised the issue of the legal acquisition and use of firearms particularly in rural areas. Their points were well made in relation to the use of hunting rifles and rifles used to protect property from animals. However, this proposal will not redefine the rules on legal ownership of firearms. The proposal only targets intentional acts involving illicit firearms, fully preserving legitimate activities by authorised dealers, industry and citizens. It does not change or affect in any way the existing EU rules on the legal acquisition, possession and cross-border movement of hunting rifles and those types of firearms. Many Deputies expressed dismay over the timelines. I assure the House that this measure was laid before the Oireachtas one month after its publication. There is some urgency in relation to it given that we have so much legislation going through the Houses and I ask them to bear with us. I note all the positive support for the proposal today. At the outset, Deputy Carthy spoke about the difference between Article 3 and Article 4 in respect of the opt-in. Under Protocol 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Ireland has two avenues in relation to opting into EU proposals. Under Article 3, Ireland can notify the EU institutions within three months of a proposal being published that it wishes to participate from the outset. This gives Ireland a seat at the negotiation table during the Council working groups and ministerial discussions, allowing it to influence the final wording and operation of the legislation. Under Article 4, Ireland can wait until after the EU measure has been adopted and then decide whether to opt in to the final instrument. However, at that stage Ireland has no role in shaping the legislation and must effectively accept the measure as negotiated by other member states. An opt-in under Article 3 of Protocol 21 therefore ensures that Ireland is at the table and involved in the discussions and negotiations with other European partners. It is stated Government policy that Ireland participate in the justice and home affairs measures by default, opting out only where concrete and well-defined legal impediments can be identified. This issue was also mentioned by Deputy Gary Gannon. Deputies Gannon and Carthy also asked why we are now deciding to opt in. The Government is supportive of the proposal and views it as a valuable instrument in combating serious and organised crime, particularly in terms of the increased sophistication and technological advancement in the modus operandi used to commit such crimes. It should be noted that it is the Government's stated policy that Ireland participate in justice and home affairs measures by default, opting out only where concrete and well-defined national interests are at stake. In policy and procedural terms, it is considered desirable that Ireland opt in to this measure pursuant to Article 3. In light of legal advice received from the Attorney General on 27 May that this measure provides no legal or constitutional impediments to Ireland’s participation, Ireland should opt in to this proposal. Opting in now will allow Ireland to stay in step with other European partners and strengthen our efforts to fight trafficking of illicit firearms. As part of Ireland’s Presidency responsibilities, senior officials in my Department will lead the negotiation of the measure as it progresses through the House. Deputy Gannon also raised the status of the negotiations. Negotiations are currently under way and have been ongoing since the first working party meeting took place in March 2026. As part of Ireland’s Presidency responsibilities, senior officials in my Department will be leading on the negotiation of the measure as it progresses in Brussels. It is anticipated a general approach will be reached during the Irish Presidency. Opting in now will ensure the likelihood that Ireland can take a role in these negotiations, which will be really important so as to ensure the final measure be transposed in a manner compatible with Ireland’s common law legal system. Another huge issue that is very important to me as a representative for Dublin South-Central relates to drug-related intimidation. The Department of justice on the DRIVE oversight board is hugely supportive of this programme to tackle drug-related intimidation at community level. I have delegated responsibility for youth diversion. I look forward to working with Deputy Gannon and other Members of the House in relation to early intervention to ensure that young people do not end up in the justice system and are diverted before it becomes more serious and before they are recruited by criminal gangs. I thank the Deputies for contributing today. The EU strategy to tackle organised crime and the renewed impact framework are alike in recognising firearms trafficking as a priority. The Government has no hesitation in commending to the House the motion that we opt in to this proposal. By doing so now under the Article 3 opt-in, it will ensure we are at the table with our European partners and can be involved in the detailed discussions. For all of these reasons, I commend the motion to the House.