European Regulations and Directives: Motions

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 application of the following measure: Regulation (EU) 2025/2082 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 2025 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 as regards the extension of the timeframe for the establishment of the Eurojust case management system, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 21st September, 2026. I ask the House to approve Ireland's participation in three important EU justice and security measures. I am seeking that we approve them under Article 4 of Protocol No. 21 on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The three European measures I am seeking the House's permission to opt in to are: a directive from 2017, No. 541 on combating terrorism; a regulation from 2023, No. 2131 on digital information exchange in terrorism cases; and a regulation from 2025, No. 2082 concerning the Eurojust case management system. These motions are brought pursuant to Article 29.4.7° of Bunreacht na hÉireann which requires the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas before Ireland may exercise its discretion under Article 4, Protocol No. 21 to participate in justice and home affairs measures after their adoption. The first measure, the 2017 counterterrorism directive, is the European Union's principal legislative instrument in the fight against terrorism. It establishes common rules on terrorist offences and strengthens protections for victims of terrorism. While it re-articulated much of the existing EU counterterrorism framework, in which Ireland already participates, it also introduced new offences relating to receiving training for terrorism, travelling for terrorism and organising or facilitating such travel. It was developed in response to the threat posed by foreign terrorist fighters travelling to and from conflict zones. The remaining necessary domestic legislation to give effect to it has been put in place through the Criminal Justice Terrorist Offences (Amendment) Act 2026, enabling Ireland to proceed with participation in the directive. The second measure, the 2023 Eurojust regulation, relates to Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, and strengthens judicial co-operation across Europe in terrorism cases. It provides a stronger legal basis for Eurojust's counterterrorism register and introduces a new digital case management system. These are designed to improve information-sharing and enable links between terrorism cases across member states to be identified more effectively. The third measure is the 2025 regulation. It is a technical amendment extending the timeline for the transition to the new Eurojust case management system. It ensures continuity while technical development of the system is completed. Ireland is currently the only EU member state not participating in the 2023 regulation. The new Eurojust case management system is expected to become operational in December 2026 and Ireland's continued participation in Eurojust could be jeopardised if we remain outside this new framework. Such an outcome would have significant implications for our ability to co-operate with European partners in combating serious cross-border crime and terrorism. Approval of these motions does not itself complete the opt-in process. Rather, it authorises the Government to notify the European Commission and the Council of the European Union of Ireland's intention to participate under Article 4 of Protocol No. 21. The Commission will then assess Ireland's request and determine the conditions and date from which participation will take effect. These measures will strengthen Ireland's security, enable full European counterterrorism co-operation, support effective collaboration with our EU partners and protect Ireland's position within Eurojust. I commend the motions to the House and ask Members to support their adoption.

The manner in which these motions are being brought before the House is wholly unsatisfactory. Once again Members have been given just two days' notice to consider measures arising from significant EU instruments. Once again, we are told they must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. This approach does little to inspire public confidence. It helps explain why many people feel disconnected from the decision-making at European level. Measures with implications for our criminal justice system, our sovereignty and our relationship with the EU institutions deserve proper scrutiny. Instead, the Oireachtas is repeatedly presented with complex proposals and asked to wave them through. Ireland occupies a unique position in this area. Unlike most other EU member states, Ireland secured the right under Protocol No. 21 during the Lisbon treaty negotiations to choose whether to participate in measures relating to justice and home affairs. That safeguard was presented to the Irish people as an important protection of national sovereignty. It gave Ireland the ability to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether participation was in our interests. As Sinn Féin has pointed out on numerous occasions, however, the Government is increasingly choosing to opt in to measures where an opt-out exists. That raises legitimate questions about whether the spirit of the guarantee provided to Irish voters is being respected. The measures before us relate to a 2017 directive on combating terrorism and two subsequent regulations concerning the operation of Eurojust, the EU agency responsible for co-ordinating cross-border criminal investigations and prosecutions. The 2017 directive strengthened counterterrorism laws by creating offences relating to terrorist training and travel for terrorism purposes. It also expanded the concept of public provocation to commit terrorism and clarified that in certain circumstances the glorification of terrorism could constitute a criminal offence. Indeed, the Government already legislated to give effect to this directive through the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2026. During consideration of that legislation, Sinn Féin opposed the provisions relating to the criminalisation of public provocation and glorification. We did so because of concerns about how such provisions may be interpreted and applied, including to undermine political expression. The two Eurojust regulations before us today strengthen information-sharing, establish a new digital case-management system, expand the counterterrorism register and deepen co-operation between national authorities. However, it would be wrong to suggest that there are no sovereignty implications. By opting in to these measures, Ireland becomes further integrated into an EU-wide framework for counterterrorism and judicial co-operation. The 2017 directive requires the State to maintain criminal offences defined at EU level. The 2023 regulation increases obligations to share information through Eurojust structures. It expands the role of EU institutions in the co-ordination of investigations and requires greater participation in shared systems and databases. While prosecutions remain a matter for national authorities and while Eurojust itself does not prosecute cases, these measures undoubtedly increase interdependence between member states and EU agencies in the area of criminal justice. There is also a broader point. Across Europe, there are different approaches to questions of political expression, national movements and the definition of terrorism. Different states can take very different views on where legitimate political advocacy ends and unlawful support for terrorism begins. Given that the 2017 directive deals with public provocation and the glorification of terrorism, it is entirely reasonable to ask how such provisions might be interpreted in different jurisdictions and what safeguards exist to ensure that legitimate political expression is protected. These are important questions; they deserve debate, scrutiny and more than a rushed process justified on the basis that urgency leaves us with no alternative. To be clear: my concern is not with the objective of combating terrorism or facilitating international co-operation. My concern is with a process that repeatedly asks the Oireachtas to consider significant EU measures at short notice without the level of scrutiny such matters warrant.

As the Minister will know from my colleague, Sinn Féin supports effective international co-operation to tackle terrorism and serious crime. However, measures with implications for our justice system and sovereignty must receive proper scrutiny from the Oireachtas. This is never more important than now. Co-operation between EU member states is particularly important when it comes to organised crime. We know drug gangs do not respect borders. Those directing the drugs trade, orchestrating intimidation and ordering violence in communities across Ireland may be based, and oftentimes are based, in other EU member states. We need to see effective intelligence-sharing between police forces and judicial authorities and no EU member state should be a safe haven for those who direct criminal activity in Ireland from abroad. We must target those at the top of these organisations, the people who direct, oversee and profit from this criminality. It is not enough to arrest those carrying out orders on the ground while the people giving those orders remain beyond reach, oftentimes in European Union member states. That means working together to track suspects, share evidence, pursue prosecutions and seize criminal assets. We must strip these gangs of the money and resources that allow them to operate and ensure those responsible can be brought to justice, regardless of where they are based. Drug-related intimidation and violence are devastating families and communities across Ireland. Our response must recognise that these criminal networks operate internationally and tackling them requires cross-border action. European co-operation must deliver practical results, better intelligence, stronger investigations and accountability for those who direct and profit from organised crime.

I begin by making it clear that the Social Democrats support European co-operation when it comes to tackling terrorism. We support the objectives of these measures. We support countries working together, sharing information and ensuring that those who engage in terrorist activity can be investigated and prosecuted wherever they may be. It need not even have been said. That is why we are going to support the first two motions relating to Eurojust. However, we will not be supporting the third motion on the EU counterterrorism directive. I will explain why. When the domestic legislation underpinning our participation in the directive came before the Oireachtas previously, we had an opportunity to strengthen it and ensure the legislation contained the strongest possible protections for fundamental rights, including the right to protest and the freedom of political expression. Important amendments were put forward but were not approved or accepted. Ultimately, we voted against that legislation. I want to be very clear that this is not about opposing measures to tackle terrorism. It is about ensuring that legislation designed to protect people from terrorism can never be used to criminalise people for exercising their democratic right. We have to be extraordinarily careful about powers we give to the State, particularly when it comes to something as fundamental as a right to protest. I do not believe individual members of this Government are fundamentally opposed to free speech or anything of the like. I do not believe they are sitting around a Cabinet table looking for ways to criminalise peaceful protest. I am grateful we live in a country where people can take to the streets every single week to express their horror at atrocities or their opposition to legislation or the Government, but legislation cannot simply rely on the goodwill of the people who happen to be in government on that day. We cannot legislate on the assumption that every future Government will exercise these powers in the same way. If you look at the previous Dáil session, we have good reason to be gravely concerned about how quickly political commitments have changed when it comes to the triple lock. For decades, various Governments told the people of Ireland that the triple lock was a fundamental protection of Irish neutrality. It was used to pass two referendums. It was an essential safeguard and then it was taken away by a forced vote. I am told we should trust the assurances given today about how counterterrorism legislation will be used tomorrow. I think we are entitled to ask some serious questions because we have seen how quickly these assurances can change. We do not even have to imagine what it might look like when it comes to the right to protest; we only have to look across the sea to our nearest neighbours. We are all still in disbelief at the decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom. We all genuinely struggle to comprehend how we arrived at a point where elderly women holding placards expressing support for the Palestinian cause are being led away in handcuffs by police officers. We have all seen those images. People who spent their lives participating in peaceful democratic protests are finding themselves arrested under terrorism legislation. We all should not only be disturbed by that but cautious as we move to advance our own legislation that does not seek to provide the appropriate safeguards. We will be voting against option 3 for the reasons outlined. There were opportunities to present safeguards and I do not think those opportunities were met. We will be opposing the third option based on the lack of assurances given.

Protocol 21 works case by case. Each measure needs to be opted in in its own right and approved by both Houses under Article 29.4.7°. Each motion is a specific EU measure. We will support these but as I have said in front of this House many times before, the way in which these are brought forward leaves a lot to be desired. The amount of time given to them, the haphazard way in which they are brought forward, the level of notice given and the way in which the Minister's Department brings them forward at the last minute leaves a lot to be desired. It is not the first time I have said this. I know it is a big Department and the Minister has taken on a lot more as well, to be fair, but it is a real issue. We did not opt in to Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism when it was adopted in 2017. However, the implementing Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Act 2026 was signed in July. It creates the offences of travelling for terrorism, facilitating such travel and receiving terrorist training. The Department's position has been that the legislation must be in place before the Commission confirms participation. Regulation (EU) 2023/2131 amends the Eurojust regulation to require structured, secure digital sharing of terrorism case information in Eurojust. The second Eurojust amendment, also in place, extended the timeframe for establishing the Eurojust case management system. Ireland is already in Eurojust. The first and second motions keep us aligned with amendments to it, so that we do not risk falling out of its newer systems. I have some questions, which the Minister may address in reply. When will the 2026 Act I referenced earlier be fully commenced? Which authority will be Ireland's Eurojust national correspondent for terrorism, and what data protection safeguards will apply to the new information flows that will come as a result of this? How will the directive's victim support obligations be met?

I thank all colleagues for their contributions, to which I have listened closely. A number of issues were raised by Deputy Ward, and Deputy Kelly also raised concerns about the speed with which these motions have come before the House. I will try in future to see if there is a mechanism whereby I will be able to provide more time to colleagues to deal with such opt-ins. That is certainly the case when it comes to Article 3 opt-ins, as there is time pressure in respect of them and, as Deputy Kelly outlined, there is time pressure in respect of one of the opt-ins this evening as well. Ultimately, however, these are political decisions to be made. I am conscious that there is a lot on the political agenda but the three proposals this evening are relatively straightforward in what they seek to do, namely, to assist us in combating terrorism on a united basis across the European Union and to ensure we continue our alignment and co-operation with Eurojust. Deputy Ward said the opt-out is automatic but we have achieved that already in what was contained in Protocol 21. We managed to achieve that in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union so that if a justice and home affairs measure is agreed by the European Union, we automatically do not participate in it. There is that automatic opt-out. We decided that. The Irish people voted for it. At the same time, we are entitled to consider and decide whether we want to opt in to these measures. There are some measures that we do not opt into. One was brought to my attention by officials last week and I decided that we would not opt in to it. It is appropriate for us to opt into these provisions because they are important for our continuing alignment and co-operation with Eurojust and to ensure that we have a co-ordinated response across the European Union in respect of terrorism. Deputies Ward and Gannon mentioned concerns about the spread and ambit of terrorism legislation. I, too, share the concerns expressed about the legislation that exists at present in the UK - the Terrorism Act. That is extraordinarily broad legislation. Under that legislation, it is a criminal offence for people to wear an emblem suggestive that they are supportive of a proscribed organisation. We discussed this when the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Act 2026 was going through this House. I specifically ensured the legislation would not replicate or imitate the legislation enacted in the UK, which I believe goes too far. The legislation that was enacted in Ireland, the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Act 2026, does not, in my opinion, undermine political expression or free speech. On what Deputy Ward said about sovereignty being impacted, we are making the decision here, in the elected House of the Irish people, to share sovereignty in a number of areas. That is a sovereign decision being made by the Irish people. Deputy McGuinness spoke about how we need international co-operation. That is apparent from the horrific criminal events we have seen recently, not just in Ireland but in other countries. Crime is now international. It does not recognise borders. If we want to get suspects back from other EU countries to ensure they face the law here, we need to have co-operation. That is why it is important that we align ourselves on co-operation across the EU. I note what Deputy Gannon said about the Social Democrats being supportive of two of the three motions but he made the point that legislation cannot be used to criticise or to restrict people expressing their right to protest. Nobody is doing this, and anything that we opt into this evening will not have an impact in respect of that. Deputy Kelly was correct when he said that Protocol 21 issues should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As I said at the outset, there will always be a decision as to whether a party wishes to support the opt-in. Deputy Kelly asked me when the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Act 2026 will be commenced. I am anxious to commence it promptly but I cannot give the Deputy a specific date yet. I will engage with him on it. Another question Deputy Kelly asked was about who has access to operational personal data processed by Eurojust and what the data protection measures are. Access to such information is limited to national members, their deputies and assistants, seconded national experts and members of the national co-ordination system under Article 34 of the 2018 Eurojust regulation. On Eurojust, it is important to emphasise that it is an important body for the purpose of co-operation across the European Union on criminal justice.

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 application of the following measure: Regulation (EU) 2023/2131 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 October 2023 amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Decision 2005/671/JHA, as regards digital information exchange in terrorism cases, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 21st September, 2026.

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 application of the following measure: Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 21st September, 2026.