2026-01-28

Before I call on the Minister to open the debate, I remind Members that two separate motions are being debated in this slot, namely, the motion regarding the proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the signing of the agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the transfer of passenger name record, PNR, data; and the motion regarding the proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the transfer of PNR data. The motions will be moved separately, but debated together and decided by separate questions.

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 of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation 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 11th December, 2025. As the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach identified in his introductory comments, I am seeking the approval of the Dáil to opt in to two European Commission proposals. I am seeking the approval of the Dáil to opt in under Article 3 of Protocol 21 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. The first proposal is for a Council decision authorising the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the transfer of PNR data. The second proposal for which I am seeking the approval of the Dáil to opt in to is in respect of a decision authorising the signing of an agreement between the EU and the Swiss Confederation on the transfer of PNR data. The reason we are here seeking to opt in is that the proposed Council decisions have a Title V legal basis in the area of police co-operation. Their publication by the Commission on the 13 November 2025 triggered a three-month window for Ireland to exercise its opt-in option under Article 3 of Protocol 21, as I mentioned. Deputies may recall that Ireland opted in to the negotiation of this agreement in February 2024. This process of coming before Dáil and Seanad Éireann for the purpose of getting approval for the negotiation, conclusion and signing of the agreement between the European Union and Swiss Confederation signifies the extent to which there is democratic input into decisions proposed by the European Commission that need the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The negotiated agreement has two main aims and components, one relating to the necessity of ensuring public security by means of exchanging PNR data with the Swiss Confederation, and the other relating to the protection of privacy and other fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. It also includes a joint declaration between the EU and the Swiss Confederation, which will promote mutual co-operation and exchanges of best practice and developments in the field of PNR data between the parties. The collection and analysis of PNR data is a widely used law enforcement tool in the EU and 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 commercial purposes. It includes such information as names, dates of travel and travel itineraries. It is true that at present we do not have the same ability for people travelling by ferry, but that is being worked on in the European Union. 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 Data) Regulations 2018. The Irish passenger information unit in my Department is the body responsible for processing PNR data in Ireland. We have already opted in under Protocol 21, as colleagues will be aware, to similar PNR agreements with non-EU countries such as Iceland, Norway, Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. In operational and policy terms, it is considered desirable that Ireland exercise an Article 3 opt-in to these proposals so we can participate in the agreed exchange of PNR data when the agreement has been concluded. That would not be available to us if we proceeded with the option of opting in under Article 4, which is an option that can arise after the agreements are concluded by the EU and the Swiss Confederation. I commend these proposals to the House and seek the approval of the motions for the signing and conclusion of the agreement concerned.

I thank the Minister for outlining the detail of these proposals. He is certainly keeping us busy this week. As I have said when we previously debated motions on the sharing of PNR data, this data is important for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of serious crimes and terrorist offences, including drug-related offences and human trafficking. This information forms part of the broader management of our borders, although there are limitations to what the data can be used for. International co-operation in the fight against crime is crucial and the sharing of this information is a key aspect of that. I will put on the record again that the application of PNR data collection to ports and ferries needs to be examined, although I concede it will probably not be relevant to travel to Switzerland. These motions relate to a Council decision to sign and conclude an agreement between the EU and the Swiss Confederation. Sinn Féin is not opposing this motion. As we are here again to discuss an opt-in under Protocol 21, I want to make a number of general points on the matter. In standing up for the democratic will of the Irish people, the Oireachtas has a responsibility to be on guard at all times against anything that could potentially undermine our sovereignty. We also have to be on guard against attempts to undermine the protections which were crucial for Ireland signing up to treaties that involved further and deeper EU integration. Whenever the Irish people have voted on EU treaties, protecting and maximising Irish sovereignty have been to the fore of many people's concerns. It was for this reason, and of course to protect the common travel area, that Protocol 21 of the Lisbon treaty was put in place. There now needs to be a more comprehensive debate about where this State stands on the European Union and the areas described as freedom, security and justice. The regularity in which we faced opt-in motions and the comments of the Minister previously, following the review of Protocol 21 last year, suggest there is a move towards an ever greater ceding of sovereignty to the European Union in these areas. It would be useful if the Minister could outline, following the review, what measures Ireland is currently considering opting in to which we had previously opted out of. Individually, some of these matters might seem minor but the cumulative effect of a drift towards opting in to such measures is not always seen or understood by the public. There is no awareness that we are travelling in the direction of handing more and more powers over to the European Union, with little rationale in some instances. There is no discussion of the far-reaching implications of handing over increased powers in the areas of freedom, security and justice. There needs to be more concern about the ability of the people in this State to make decisions here in Ireland around matters in this area and less concern, in my view, about demonstrating our commitment to protecting and strengthening the EU's control over these areas. More and more people are alive to the dangers inherent in ceding sovereignty as the practical implications become clear. We lost our veto over international trade deals as a result of the Lisbon treaty. We see now the impact of that with the Mercosur agreement, which is clearly not in Ireland's interests as a trade agreement. It poses serious threats to Irish agriculture, the environment and food safety standards, yet it appears we could be locked in if the European Court of Justice does not intervene. We see it with regard to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, which provides for an investor court system and exposes this State to the risk of being sued by foreign investors where State actions could be perceived as affecting negatively on their investments. There will be other trade deals, some of which will be in Ireland's interests, and we will support them, while others may not be in our interests. The truth of the matter is that because we have ceded absolute control to a European framework which only provides for a qualified majority, there are likely to be instances where a deal is clearly not in the best interest of the Irish people and while an Irish Government may robustly oppose it, it will be implemented. For example, we know the EU is embarking on a free trade agreement with India. We do not know what the implications of that will be yet. There needs to be a full debate, which has not been the case in most respects. All of this reminds us that, even when we make decisions technically or theoretically for the right reasons, any time a decision is made to hand over and cede power to the European Union, that has implications. I fear that the discussions we have are not sufficiently robust or considered and we generally deal with motions that are rushed through the House. There are of course areas where co-operation or collective EU processes are the best and most effective approach. Passenger name recognition is one of those areas, which is why we will not be opposing this motion. We need to move beyond the simplistic argument that you are either pro-EU, and that means you support every single measure and proposal to cede sovereignty to the EU, or, as I would contend, you can be pro-EU but recognise there are consequences that have to be properly teased out. That is particularly the case in respect of areas where, under Protocol 21, we have opt-outs. Those opt-outs were secured for valid reasons and those reasons must be respected.

The motion before us asks the Dáil to decide whether Ireland should exercise its opt-in, under Protocol 21, to participate in an EU agreement governing the transfer of passenger name record data between the European Union and Switzerland, for the purposes of counterterrorism and serious crime. Obviously, this is a decision that matters, not because co-operation with Switzerland is in any way controversial on its own but because passenger name record systems are, by design, a form of bulk data processing. They apply to the entire travelling populations, not solely to people suspected of an offence. The House is being asked to approve this opt-in against a backdrop where European courts have repeatedly warned against general and indiscriminate data collection, where EU-level reviews accept the effectiveness of PNR is difficult to measure with precision and where the legal justification for these systems depends on continuous demonstration of necessity and proportionality. While the motion is presented as technical, it is certainly not neutral in its effect. Once adopted, it extends the reach of a surveillance framework beyond the Union to a third country and does so in a way that is legally binding on the State. That does not necessarily mean it is wrong, but it does mean it deserves more than a cursory nod through. I accept the basic premise that co-operation between states is essential in tackling terrorism and serious organised crime. I also accept that Switzerland occupies a particular position, participating in Schengen co-operation while not being bound by the EU passenger name record directive in the same way as member states. I understand why an agreement is proposed and Ireland is being asked to exercise its opt-in under Protocol 21. However, understanding the rationale is not the same as switching off scrutiny. Passenger name record data is extensive. It includes not just names and flight numbers, but patterns of movement, payment details and associations. It is bulk data relating to the vast numbers of people who are not suspected of any offence. That fact alone places responsibility on the House to ask questions about necessity and proportionality. We are told correctly that safeguards exist, that the agreement limits processing to terrorism and serious crime and restricts the use of sensitive data. It provides for depersonalisation oversight by independent authorities and judicial or equivalent authorisation for onward disclosure. Those protections absolutely matter and should be acknowledged. However, safeguards on paper are not the end of a conversation; they should be the starting point. European institutions acknowledge that assessing the effectiveness of PNR systems is not straightforward. The Commission's review described PNR as contributing to investigation, while also conceding that the data can be inconsistent. Outcomes are difficult to isolate and success is often measured in contribution, rather than in clear causation. That is not a criticism; it is just part of reality. However, it means legislators are entitled to ask whether bulk data collection remains justified as a generalised tool, rather than something more targeted and intelligence-led. This question becomes more important in light of the direction of travel in European case law. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against general and indiscriminate data collection. While PNR has not been struck down, it exists in a narrowing legal space, one in which necessity and proportionality must be continuously justified, not simply assumed. My concern is not specific to Switzerland; it is about accumulation. Each individual opt-in looks modest and technical. Taken together, however, these measures expand the reach of surveillance gradually, often without sustained public debate. Again, that is not an argument against co-operation but an argument for vigilance. There is also a democratic point here. Motions of this kind are often framed as routine but, once adopted, they become binding. That makes it all the more important that Members use this moment to place concerns and questions on the record, rather than treating the vote as simply a formality. The Social Democrats will not oppose this motion but we are approaching it with the required level of scepticism. If we are confident in the framework, then confidence should be accommodated by clarity, clear evidence of effectiveness, clear explanation of how rights are protected once data leaves EU systems, and clear reassurances of what is lawful today will continue to be justified tomorrow, particularly as technology and analytical capacity evolve. Public trust in law enforcement does not rest on secrecy or scale; it should rest on restraint, transparency and proportionality. Those principles should guide how we assess measures like this, even when they are presented as technical and even when the objectives are ones we will share.

I thank Deputies Carthy and Gannon for their contributions. Deputy Carthy raised several issues in respect of Ireland's sovereignty. The fact these issues are being debated in this House, and subsequently will be debated and voted on in the Seanad, indicates Irish democracy is very much at the heart of the consideration of these proposals. There have been three parts to the PNR agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation. First of all, there was a vote by both Houses of the Oireachtas back in 2024 in terms of determining whether we would enter into negotiations between the EU and the Swiss Confederation. Both Houses voted on that and both Houses agreed that we wanted to opt in to the negotiation. Today we are voting on whether we wish to approve the conclusion of that negotiation and then subsequently the signing of the agreement between the EU and the Swiss Confederation. There have been at least six debates in the Houses of the Oireachtas in respect of this ultimate agreement between the EU and the Swiss Confederation. As I mentioned earlier, the EU has entered into PNR agreements with other non-EU countries and, in respect of each or most of them, there has been similar democratic underpinning within Ireland's Houses of the Oireachtas so I think that is very clear evidence that the elected representatives of the Irish people have had a very significant say and vote in respect of each of these stages of these agreements. I listened to what Deputy Carthy had to say on the ceding of sovereignty. I disagree with Deputy Carthy on this. I think the strength of Ireland derives from the fact that we recognise that in order to have strength and influence in this world, one really needs to be part of a multilateral arrangement. That is why Ireland's membership of the EU makes us strong. I do not believe that by becoming a member of the EU, Ireland has in some way reduced its sovereignty. In fact, I think that our sovereignty is as strong as ever but we certainly have increased our influence. We have seen a very recent example on this island and the island beside us, where people decided that they wanted to leave the EU because they thought they would be able to exercise greater sovereignty and greater control over their own affairs. That did not happen. I am very confident that the proposal here has a democratic mandate and I believe the sovereignty of Ireland has been increased and strengthened by our continued support for the EU. Deputy Gannon mentioned issues in respect of PNR data agreements. Obviously, as he will be aware, there are specific rules in respect of the retention of PNR data. It is procured and collected in the first instance solely for the purpose of fighting terrorism and serious crime. He will also be aware that this data has to be processed and controlled in accordance with fundamental human rights. He may be aware that a case was brought to the Court of Justice of the European Union, CJEU, back in 2022 by the Human Rights League in Belgium challenging the PNR directive that had been brought in by the EU. The CJEU upheld the PNR directive. Issues concerning fundamental rights are at the heart of the PNR directive. It has gone to the CJEU and the court has recognised the validity of it because it is consistent in protecting the fundamental rights of individuals. When it comes to the agreements between the EU and other entities around the world, we have to be able to enter into agreements with countries such as Switzerland and Canada. If we cannot enter into agreements with countries as benign as those two countries, we are going to find ourselves in a very difficult position. I appreciate and welcome the fact that Deputies Gannon and Carthy are supporting this proposed conclusion and signing of the agreement with the Swiss Confederation. I would also look for them to express similar support when it comes to the agreement between the EU and Canada, which is really a fundamental agreement. We should be able to enter into an agreement with a country as benign as Canada when it comes to ensuring that trade operates effectively between the EU and Canada.

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 Swiss Confederation 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 11th December, 2025.