I welcome the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, to the House. We are going to discuss three motions together, but they will be decided upon individually.

The first motion is regarding the proposed approval by Seanad Éireann of EU Regulation No. 2025/2082 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 October 2025 amending EU Regulation No. 2018/1727 as regards the extension of the timeframe for the establishment of the Eurojust case management system.

The second motion is regarding the proposed approval by Seanad Éireann of EU Regulation No. 2023/2131 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 October 2023 amending EU Regulation No. 2018/1727 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council decision 2005/671/JHA, as regards digital information exchange in terrorism cases.

The third motion is regarding the proposed approval by Seanad Éireann of EU Directive No. 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.

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 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 Seanad Éireann on 21st September, 2026.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for taking the time to set out the full titles of the three legal instruments that bring me before the House today. I am seeking the approval of the Upper House for Ireland's participation, under Article 4 of Protocol No. 21 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the three legislative instruments the Leas-Chathaoirleach has identified in detail. 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 of Protocol No. 21 to participate in justice and home affairs measures after their adoption.

The first measure is the 2017 counterterrorism directive. It 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 rearticulated much of the existing EU counterterrorism framework, one 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 now been put in place through the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Act 2026, which enables Ireland to proceed with participation in the directive. I am pleased to tell the Upper House that Act was commenced on 8 July.

The second measure, the 2023 Eurojust regulation, which relates to Eurojust, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation, 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, all designed to improve information sharing and enable links between terrorism cases across member states to be identified more effectively. The third measure, the 2025 regulation, 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 this year 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.

The 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 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 in Eurojust. I therefore commend the motion to the House and ask Members to support its adoption.

I welcome the Minister. I thank him for the work he does. Fianna Fáil welcomes this debate and supports the motions. The motions relate to: proposed approval by Seanad Éireann of the extension of the timeframe for the establishment of the Eurojust case management system and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1727; proposed approval by Seanad Éireann as regards digital information exchange in terrorism cases and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1727; and proposed approval by Seanad Éireann on combating terrorism, replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA.

Eurojust is the EU agency for criminal justice co-operation. The new Eurojust case management system is expected to become operational in December of this year. Ireland is the only member state not participating in the 2023 regulation, which provides for this system, and concerns have been raised that our continued participation in Eurojust could be jeopardised if we have not opted in by the time the system goes live. There is a real risk that Ireland will be effectively removed from Eurojust. In addition to the obvious security ramifications this would have, given that we currently hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, it would be damaging for Ireland. Therefore, the Minister is seeking to begin the opt-in process.

I will give a bit of background to the motion. As the proposal is a measure under Title 5 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, commonly referred to as the Lisbon treaty, Protocol 21 of the TFEU applies and Oireachtas approval under Article 29.4.7 of the Constitution is required for Ireland to opt in. This requires the moving of the necessary motion in both Houses of the Oireachtas. If approved by the Oireachtas, Ireland will be seeking to participate in these measures under Article 4 of Protocol 21. Protocol 21 states that Ireland shall not take part in the adoption by the Council of proposed measures pursuant to Title 5 of Part 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. However, it provides for opt-in mechanisms. Under Article 3 of Protocol 21, Ireland can opt in to a regulation within three months of its presentation by the European Commission to the European Council. Under Article 4, Ireland may, at any time after the adoption of a measure by the Council, notify the Council and the Commission that it wishes to accept the measure. The Commission will then assess the request under the procedure outlined in Article 331(1) of the TFEU. The assessment will essentially determine whether Ireland can practically participate in the measure, what technical or legal conditions are needed and from what date participation should take effect. If the Commission approves the request, Ireland becomes bound by and participates in the measure. The Commission has four months from the date of receipt of the notification to confirm the participation of the member state concerned.

Before the Minister leaves, I congratulate him on the decision he made earlier on that nonsense video.

I support these motions regarding EU counterterrorism co-ordination and the Eurojust digital information network. On a purely operational level, there is little to dispute here. This is a technical framework designed to ensure that data flows seamlessly across borders so that cross-border threats can be monitored. When it comes to basic law and order, our authorities must have access to the same digital tracking tools as our European peers. However, let us be entirely honest in this Chamber today. A state-of-the-art European database is completely useless if the domestic government using it is paralysed by systemic complacency. We can vote to join every digital network in Brussels, but it will not mask the fact that this Government has spent years treating the threat of Islamic extremism within our own borders with a hands-off, blind-eye approach.

For years, multiple international security observatories and counter-extremism experts have issued stark, unambiguous warnings about Ireland. They have stated clearly that the Ikhwān, the Muslim Brotherhood, has established a quiet, deeply entrenched presence right here in our Republic, utilising this State as a safe haven and a European base for its operations. Yet, what has the response of our political establishment been? It has been absolute silence and a total refusal to confront the infrastructure of radicalism. Our security elite manage this threat with the same passive bureaucratic box-ticking that we see across the entire justice system, which treats radical extremism as a distant, abstract foreign policy issue rather than a clear and present domestic security concern.

The sheer scale of this complacency was laid bare for the entire world to see when it took until the recent historic conviction of Lisa Smith for this State to record its first conviction for Islamic terrorism in the history of the nation. It took a high-profile, undeniable case of an individual travelling to a war zone for our legal framework to finally secure a single conviction. This is not a sign of a proactive, robust security apparatus. This is a symptom of an establishment that only acts when a crisis becomes too loud to ignore. We are living in an Ireland where radical actors feel they can operate with a sense of comfort precisely because they know the State lacks the political will to aggressively investigate, disrupt and dismantle their networks.

The primary, non-negotiable duty of any sovereign government is the physical protection of its citizens and the defence of its territory. I support these technical EU motions today because co-ordination is practical, but I call on the Minister for justice and the Government to wake up to the reality of what is happening on our own side. When the United Arab Emirates is pulling its scholarship students from universities in this country because of the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood within these campuses, we know we have a serious problem and it is time we woke up. We must stop policing the periphery with hollow assurances while allowing radical networks to use our Republic as a logistical playground.

The complacency must end. However, I support this legislation. The Minister of State might give me some comfort by indicating how many members of An Garda Síochána work in the anti-terrorism unit today.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, to the Chamber for the continuation of this debate.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Brophy, agus gabhaim buíochas leis agus leis an Aire, an Teachta O’Callaghan, as ucht teacht isteach chugainn chun na hábhair seo maidir le frithsceimhlitheoireacht idirnáisiúnta a phlé.

On behalf of the Fine Gael group, I welcome the three proposals before us today. They follow on from our enactment of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Act last year. They are very important for the reasons outlined by the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and Senator Murphy O'Mahony, as well as Senator Keogan in her contribution.

At a general level, international co-operation is crucially important for Ireland in the area of security, justice and counterterrorism. As somebody who once spent time working on a task force in the European Commission on bioterrorism and the threats posed to Europe a little over two decades ago, the importance of international co-operation and having co-ordinated national responses to threats cannot be understated.

The proposals before us are a logical progression. For the reasons outlined by Senator Murphy O'Mahony, the possible implications for us with regard to continuing with Eurojust are of crucial importance. That is not an area we want to go down. On balance, the three legislative instruments being proposed are steps in the right direction with respect to closer international co-operation in the area of counterterrorism. On behalf of the Fine Gael group, I recommend and support the proposals.

Sinn Féin also supports the motions, but I have to register some significant concerns. First, with regard to the manner in which they have been brought forward, we have had two days' notice to consider measures arising from significant EU instruments and, once again, we are told they must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Measures with implications for our criminal justice system, our sovereignty and our relationship with the EU institutions deserve proper scrutiny, but instead, the Oireachtas has repeatedly presented complex proposals and asked for them to be simply waved through.

We occupy a unique position in this area. Unlike most other EU member states, Ireland secured, under Protocol 21 during the Lisbon treaty negotiations, the right 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 and it gave Ireland the ability to decide on a case-by-case basis whether participation was in our interest. The measures before us relate to a 2017 directive on combating terrorism and strengthening counterterrorism laws by creating offences relating to terrorist training and travel for terrorist purposes. However, they also expand the concept of public provocation to commit terrorism and clarify that in certain circumstances, the glorification of terrorism could constitute a criminal offence. While prosecutions remain a matter for national authorities, and Eurojust does not prosecute cases itself, 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 differing approaches to questions of political expression, national liberation movements and the definition of terrorism. Different states can take different views on where legitimate political advocacy ends and unlawful support for terrorism begins. Given that the 2017 directive deals with public provocation or 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 legitimate political expression is protected.

These are important questions and 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 the process of the Oireachtas repeatedly asking that we consider significant EU measures at short notice without the levels of scrutiny such matters warrant.

I acknowledge and welcome the fact that all parties are supporting the opt-in of these measures. The measures form part of a closely connected EU counterterrorism framework which strengthens information-sharing and judicial co-operation between member states in terrorism cases. They complement rather than replace existing Irish law by streamlining terrorist offences, improving co-operation with our European partners, facilitating information-sharing and enabling Irish authorities to identify and respond to cross-border threats more effectively.

Regarding Senator Murphy's comments, I cannot accept that the House has not had sufficient time to scrutinise these EU measures or that they are rushed. The three EU measures were laid before the House when first proposed by the European Commission some time ago, and were laid again as adopted measures in advance of this motion in September of this year. The legislation transposing the 2017 terrorism directive, the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Act 2026, was extensively debated and ultimately passed by this House. During those debates, the Minister clearly stated that the passage of the Bill would allow Ireland to opt in to the terrorism directive and would allow it to opt in to further EU counterterrorism measures, including those pertaining to Eurojust.

Senator Keogan raised a couple of points. It is important to note the Minister, the Government and An Garda Síochána take very seriously terrorism and security threats. As the Senator said, opting in to these measures strengthens our ability to deal with those threats. While the information she has asked for regarding An Garda Síochána is important, I do not have the numbers to hand and I am not sure discussing those numbers openly would be of benefit to the Garda's operations in this area.

Progressing the opt-ins together provides a coherent and practical approach to Ireland's participation in the EU's counterterrorism architecture and ensures that Ireland can benefit fully from the complementary legal and operational measures now in place.

If the Leas-Chathaoirleach does not mind, I will come back in on that. For clarity and to respond to the Minister of State's point on numbers in the Garda's anti-terrorism unit, this is an important matter. I know for a fact that there are only 16 gardaí in the human trafficking unit. Having those numbers available is not a big ask. The Minister of State may not have them today, but I might put down a Commencement matter on that going forward.

The Senator might address it with the Minister of State later.

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 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 Seanad Éireann on 21st September, 2026.

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 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 Seanad Éireann on 21st September, 2026.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 November.

Is that agreed? Agreed.