I move:

That Seanad 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 Seanad Éireann on 18th March, 2026.

I thank the Seanad for facilitating this motion today. I am here to address the Seanad with respect to Ireland's proposed opt-in to a new EU proposal for a directive on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences. Ireland has an option to opt in to individual proposals in the area of freedom, security and justice, as provided for in Article 3 of Protocol 21, annexe to the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. An Article 3 opt-in must be done within three months of publication. The advantage of Article 3 as opposed to Article 4 is that it gives us an opportunity to be party to and part of the negotiations, whereas Article 4 is an opt-in after it has been adopted, so we cannot have any say in respect of how the legal instrument develops.

Protocol 21 provides that Ireland has three months from the date a proposal is presented to the Council to notify the Presidency of its wish to take part in the negotiation, adoption and application of the measure. The exercise of this opt-in is subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas, with the three-month period for this proposal ending on 23 June 2026. We have brought this proposal to the Houses for consideration as swiftly as has been possible. Ireland can also accept a proposal at any time after it has been adopted - that is under Article 4 - 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. Opting in to this proposal now represents an important opportunity for Ireland to reiterate our commitment to the importance of tackling illicit firearms, the trafficking of which poses a serious threat to both our own and our European neighbours' security and beyond.

The aim of this proposal is to create a common EU criminal law framework to combat the illicit trafficking, manufacture, possession and distribution of firearms. It has been proposed as a measure to counter the threat posed by organised crime, terrorism and emerging technologies, such as 3D-printed weapons. The European Commission's proposal will introduce common definitions of firearms offences and penalties, support stronger co-operation and improve the collection and use of data.

As we are all aware, illicit firearms pose a serious threat to the safety of all EU citizens. They enable a wide range of serious and organised crimes, including drug trafficking, 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 conflicts, such as the one in Ukraine, will leak into illegal markets. An Garda Síochána has discussed this matter with me. It is an issue we have to be constantly vigilant for.

Key challenges that have been identified and which further the facilitation of illicit firearms trafficking include the technological shifts creating the possibility of online dissemination of 3D printing blueprints and the large gap in data and reliable comprehensive statistics making it more challenging for law enforcement and policymakers to assess the scale of this threat. Despite this, firearms trafficking has been consistently identified as a major internal security threat to the EU. As well as the need for harmonisation of criminal standards being highlighted in the 2025 ProtectEU internal security strategy, 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 and complicates investigations.

The proposal I am bringing before the Seanad today seeks to target intentional acts involving illicit firearms and does not propose to change existing EU rules on the legal acquisition, possession and cross-border movement of legal firearms. The directive aims to protect EU citizens from the threat of illicit firearms by reducing the number of illegal weapons and related criminal activities. The proposal will harmonise definitions and penalties in respect of criminal offences, including the trafficking, manufacturing and possession of illicit firearms. Under the 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. 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.

In Ireland, we already have robust legislation safeguarding the use of firearms through the Firearms Act 1925, although that Act could probably do with modernisation. However, this directive represents the first firearms trafficking measure at EU level. This legislation will remove the fragmentation that exists across the EU to provide for harmonisation. The views of the Attorney General have been sought on this directive. The advice has confirmed that there are no legal or constitutional obstacles to Ireland opting in to this directive. In light of this, I urge Members of the Seanad to support this proposed opt-in.

Before we proceed, I welcome members of the Roscommon Older People's Council executive, who are guests of Deputy Martin Daly and Senator Gareth Scahill, their local Senator. I will also pass on commiserations to Paddy Joe Burke on Roscommon's loss.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I welcome our good friends from Roscommon to the House this afternoon. I promise that I will not mention the football match against Monaghan last weekend. Beidh lá eile acu.

On behalf of Fianna Fáil, I welcome and support the motion the Minister has put forward. The proposed firearms trafficking directive aims to introduce an EU-wide framework with common definitions for firearm offences and penalties, support stronger co-operation between member states and improve the collection and use of data. The proposal is intended to combat illicit firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences across the EU.

While existing EU legislation regulates the lawful acquisition, possession, import and export of firearms, there is currently no EU-wide framework establishing common criminal offences and penalties for illegal firearms activity. The Commission noted that illicit firearms continue to pose a significant threat to public security, facilitating organised crime, drug trafficking, robbery and gang violence. Emerging risks include the spread of 3D printing technology, which can be used to manufacture firearms, and the potential diversion of weapons from conflicts near the EU into criminal markets.

As the Minister has outlined, the directive aims to harmonise criminal offences and penalties across member states, improve law enforcement and judicial co-operation, strengthen information sharing and address gaps in data collection relating to firearms crime. Key offences covered include the illicit trafficking and manufacturing of firearms, the possession of illicit firearms and ammunition, tampering with firearms markings, and the illegal creation, possession or dissemination of 3D printing blueprints for firearms. Member states will be required to provide for maximum penalties, ranging from at least two years for certain blueprint-related offences to at least eight years for firearms trafficking and illicit manufacture.

As the Minister has outlined, Ireland must decide by 23 June 2026 whether it will opt in and participate in the adoption and application of this directive. The proposal does not alter the existing EU rules governing lawful firearms ownership. It focuses exclusively on criminal offences involving illicit firearms and strengthening the EU's response to firearms trafficking and related criminal activity. As the Minister outlined, we need co-operation across all EU states in order to tackle the threats that exist today. I look forward to this directive moving forward swiftly.

I welcome the Minister. In principle, I have no problem with the directive proposed in the European Parliament. We should do everything necessary to avoid trafficking in firearms, including trafficking in 3D-printed firearms. However, I have one question, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer. By opting in to the negotiation process, do we bind ourselves to opt in to the outcome, no matter what it is? That is an issue about which the House should be informed. Are we effectively opting in to something whose exact nature is not known? Can we legally opt out if we do not like the measures proposed? I fully accept that, in this case, that is an unlikely scenario but it could be the case nonetheless.

It should be put on the record that the directive is a very lengthy document. Directives should be circulated to all Members of the House in advance of motions of this kind. Apart from criminalising certain activities, it is proposed to create liabilities and penalties for legal persons, that is, companies. The proposed directive sets out aggravating circumstances, in respect of which penalties are to be agreed. There is a definition of what amounts to mitigating circumstances. There are provisions in relation to special investigative tools. I would like to know what that actually means. There is provision for limitation periods for the prosecution of offences. These are things that do not really apply in Ireland and yet, for some reason, it is thought that these have to be standardised across the European Union.

Then, it states "that Member States establish jurisdiction for offences covered by the proposal and that they inform the Commission if they ... [wish] to extend this jurisdiction in specific cases where the offence is committed outside their territory." All of those issues are significant and they should be examined carefully by this House when we make a decision to opt in or not to opt in, whether it is on a preliminary basis to enable us to participate in negotiation or it is to opt in after the adoption of the measure.

I want to indicate my feeling that we are being presented with this motion days before the limit for opting in to the negotiation process is concerned and Members of this House have not been circulated with the text of the directive. The Minister has very limited time to describe what is involved but he has done so in fairly brief and concise form. When we look at the document, which I have in my hand now, it is very substantial. We have to reform our processes in these Houses. If this is what we are opting in to, it should be known to every Member of both Houses. They should have an opportunity to study it before being asked to simply rubber-stamp an opt-in or opt-out decision. They should be in a position to express views about the desirability of not merely the outline principle of the directive but every single aspect of the proposed directive, so that the wishes of the elected representatives of the Irish people can be fed into the process as to whether Ireland does or does not opt in to these types of measures on an informed, intelligent basis.

I am not opposing the Minister's motion but I am protesting that this is a substantial piece of work. To tell us, with a couple of days to go to either opt in or opt out without actually showing every Member what is involved and without going to the justice committee of the Houses and saying this is what is in issue and giving the Members of these Houses who sit on committees the opportunity to consider what is happening on a European level, is indicative of a very lax approach to the interaction of national parliaments of EU member states and the legislative process of the European Union itself.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. Mar atá ráite aige, is riachtanach an rud é a bheith ag obair lenár gcomhghleacaithe san Aontas Eorpach i réimse na coireachta idirnáisiúnta. Tá sé tábhachtach go n-úsáidfí na téarmaí céanna i ndlíthe na hÉireann is atá á húsáid ag baill stáit eile an Aontais Eorpaigh. On behalf of the Fine Gael group, I welcome the proposal to opt in to the directive on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms related offences. This is a progressive and important step that will enable us to achieve the four specific objectives outlined by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and Senator Gallagher. Having spent time many years ago working on a task force in the European Commission, which involved liaising closely with all of the then member states to ensure that channels of co-operation were in place to deal with possible external security and public health risks, I am very aware of the importance of co-ordination and co-operation among member states when it comes to security and justice. The concerns and threats that exist in the area of firearms trafficking are far better combated in conjunction with our international partners than on our own. The proposed amendment, COM/2026(102), to the existing Directive 2024/1260 is an important step in this regard and we in the Fine Gael Group fully support the proposal to opt in.

Before we move on to the next speaker, I welcome to the House Alan Del Rio and Aoife Larkin, who are guests of my colleague, Deputy Devlin.

Sinn Féin will oppose this motion on the basis that the Government has unnecessarily chosen to opt in on an Article 4 basis rather than Article 3. Sinn Féin supports robust measures to combat firearms trafficking - of course we do - but we will not support a broken-down legislative process that surrenders democratic scrutiny and strips future Governments of their legislative scrutiny and legislative sovereignty. Once again, the Government is rushing to opt in to an EU measure under Article 3 of Protocol 21 when a perfectly viable, flexible alternative exists under Article 4.

References to urgency here are completely baseless. Let us be completely clear about the difference. The Minister claims there is an urgent deadline next week. The deadline is entirely self-inflicted. An Article 3 opt-in forces to bind ourselves to this text right now during negotiation, whereas Article 4 allows Ireland to opt in at any point in the future. Why then do we need to do this? This issue is replicated across a plethora of legislative proposals the Minister has brought forward since his appointment. Why does this Government refuse to preserve Ireland's flexibility or facilitate meaningful scrutiny of his proposals? Why do Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Ministers have such an appetite for tying the hands of future Irish Governments? We saw it with the EU asylum and migration pact and we are seeing it again today with the firearms trafficking directive. I think it is an attempt by Ministers to cede authority to Brussels so that when things go wrong down the line, they can look the Irish public in the eye and say, "Our hands are tied; blame the European Union", whereas what the Minister should be fostering is an open, transparent process where the public can see their political institutions openly considering and debating proposals.

This motion was added to the Seanad schedule on Monday evening. It is common for us to witness entire proposals being rushed through with sometimes virtually no scrutiny, especially in the case where the Minister extends provisions of Bills multiple times at various stages. Let us be very clear: if the Minister had a solid, robust justification setting out why an immediate Article 3 opt-in was necessary, he could have brought the proposal forward months ago. Instead, we are dealing with a manufactured urgency. This really undermines the democratic process. It is part of a wider, deeply concerning pattern of poor legislative practice, rushed Bills, guillotined debates and missed transposition deadlines.

It is the responsibility of this House to scrutinise proposals from the Minister. I put on the record my utter disgust at this repeated poor parliamentary practice. Sinn Féin will not support this motion. The Irish people have been losing respect for the democratic process in recent times. It is completely unacceptable that there has not been proper scrutiny here.

I thank Senators for their contributions. I will point out an important statistic in respect of firearms in Ireland. Last year, 2025, and to date this year, there has not been one gun-related homicide in Ireland. That is a fairly extraordinary statistic. I am slightly reticent about stating it because once you say something like this, inevitably, something happens but for the past 18 months, there has not been one gun-related killing in Ireland. In fact, it could be longer than 18 months. That does not happen by accident. It happens because of the very effective and professional work of An Garda Síochána in seeking to confiscate illegally held weapons in Ireland, but also in seeking to prevent the importation of illicit weaponry into Ireland. I just want to make that point at the outset.

It very nearly happened in Rathkeale last week.

It may have nearly happened but it did not happen, which is another thing. It is still a fairly remarkable statistic that we find ourselves in a situation where last year and this year to date, there has not been a gun-related homicide. It is something to be extremely welcomed.

Senator McDowell raised a question about what happens if we opt in under Article 3 and then, let us say, we go into negotiations and they do not work out for us and we do not want to be bound by it. That is provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of Protocol 21, which states: "If after a reasonable period of time a measure ... cannot be adopted with the United Kingdom or Ireland taking part, the Council may [still] adopt such measure" without Ireland taking part.

The Council may still adopt it without Ireland taking part. What happens then is that the provisions of Article 2 of protocol 21 apply, which means we are not covered by it.

That brings me to the issue that was raised by Senator McCormack who complained about the fact that we are opting in under Article 3 as opposed to opting in under Article 4. As I have said previously, there is a difference between the two. If we opt in under Article 4, I come to the House once a directive has been agreed and adopted by the EU. All I can say to the House is we can either accept it or leave it and ask whether we want to opt in or not. The benefit of opting in under Article 3 is that we are opting into a proposal. As Senator McDowell mentioned, the large document he has with him is a proposal to amend Directive 2024/1260. If we opt into that proposal, we can at least try to fashion and direct the final legal instrument which will be the directive. There is, therefore, a clear benefit to being a party to the negotiation of the directive as opposed to just standing at the end asking whether we take it or not. That is the reason we adopted in that way. How long do I have?

As long as you want.

There is a significant difference between the two articles.

Senator McDowell also referred to the lengthy document. Obviously, he was able to get it. I have it and I assume other Members are able to read the proposal when it comes to an Article 3 opt-in proposal or an Article 4 directive. If that is not the case, they should be informed that there is a substantive document behind it but that is something the Houses could work on to ensure that, when it comes to an opt-in, Senators and Deputies have the legal instrument it is proposed we opt in to or proposed to adopt in due course. That is information readily available but, notwithstanding that, I hear the point Senator McDowell is making.

We received legal advice on 27 May on the opt-in procedures. Time limits are imposed on us as well. We have a three-month period. The proposal is published and we then need to get legal advice in respect of it. The legal advice was received on 27 May and we then need time to consider the advice and bring the motion. There is always going to be a tight period if we proceed down the route of an Article 3 opt in but there are benefits to opting in. If we opted in under Article 4, Ireland would not have a vote on the final negotiations. It is to our advantage to have a vote on the final negotiations.

Senator McCormack seemed to suggest this was in some respect an undermining of sovereignty. This is Irish sovereignty. This is the House of the Irish Parliament, a House of the Oireachtas. We will be in the Dáil later with this proposal. The elected Members of the Seanad and the Dáil will decide whether we opt into this. There is no diminution or undermining of Irish sovereignty. This is Irish sovereignty and if we do not want to opt into it, we do not have to opt into it.

The Senator also sought to compare this to the migration pact. I must remind her that Sinn Féin voted for two of the directives in the European Parliament in the migration pact. It is now the mantra of Sinn Féin when it comes to the migration pact that we need to opt out and Europe is forcing these rules upon us. The UK tried to do the same. The UK decided it would go it alone on migration and now it needs the assistance of the European Union. The only way to resolve issues in terms of irregular or intermitted migration is through a co-ordinated European approach. It is a European-wide and global issue. It requires a European and global response. That is why the British wish to have more co-operation with the EU in respect of it. The migration pact went through the Houses of the Oireachtas and the elected representatives of the people of Ireland decided to vote for it and the elected representatives of both Houses voted for the International Protection Act 2026 on which I spent many days here, and that is democracy in operation.

Is the motion agreed?

Not agreed.