Before I call on the Minister to open the debate, I remind Members that there are two separate motions being debated in this slot: the motion regarding the proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a Council decision on the signing of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea; and the motion regarding the proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a Council decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea on passenger name record data. The motions will be moved separately but will be debated together. They will be 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 signing of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea 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 24th August, 2026.

As the Ceann Comhairle indicated, I am seeking the approval of Dáil Éireann to opt into two proposals for Council decisions to sign and conclude an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea, also known as South Korea, on the transfer of passenger name record, PNR, data.

The proposals have two main aims. The first relates to the necessity of ensuring public security by means of exchanging PNR data between the EU and the Republic of Korea. The second relates to the protection of privacy and other fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. The proposed Council decisions have a Title V legal basis in the area of police co-operation. Their publication on 24 July 2026 started the three-month window for Ireland to exercise an Article 3 opt-in under Protocol 21 annexed to the Lisbon Treaty. This window ends on 24 October 2026.

The collection and analysis of PNR data is a widely used law enforcement tool in the EU and in 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 their own commercial purposes, including names, dates of travel or travel itineraries. 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 EU PNR directive, which was transposed into national law via the European Union (Passenger Name Record) Regulations 2018. The Irish passenger information unit within my Department is the body responsible for processing PNR data in Ireland. No legal or practical impediment precluding Ireland from opting in to these proposals has been identified by the Attorney General's office.

Deputies will recall that the Oireachtas gave approval to an Article 3 opt-in to the negotiation of this agreement in November of last year. Today, I am simply asking them to approve Ireland's participation in the final negotiated agreement once it enters into operation. Deputies will recall that we have already opted into similar EU PNR agreements with other third countries such as Canada, Australia, the United States and, indeed, the United Kingdom. We have also entered into agreements with Schengen associated countries such as Norway, Iceland and, most recently, Switzerland. In operational and policy terms, it is considered desirable that Ireland exercise an Article 3 opt-in to these proposals, so I commend these proposals to the House to consider the exercise of Ireland's right to opt in under Article 3 of Protocol 21 and seek the approval of the motion to participate in these Council decisions to sign and conclude the agreement. I will conclude by stating that I moved these motions in Seanad Éireann last night, where all parties agreed to support this opt-in.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt ar an tairiscint seo. Ardóidh mé roinnt nithe gaolmhara leis an Aire. As I have stated repeatedly in this House, proposals to opt into measures under Protocol 21 should always be subject to careful consideration. While Sinn Féin is not opposed to this proposal and believes it is appropriate to opt in on this occasion, it is important to recognise that Ireland's national interests must always take precedence over wider EU considerations. In relation to matters governing the areas of freedom, security and justice, Protocol 21 provides Ireland with the important flexibility to opt in or to opt out on the basis of our national interests and the necessity of protecting Irish sovereignty. There should be no dilution of what the protocol represents and there should be no drift towards a position where opting in becomes almost automatic. If that were to happen, it would undermine an important protection that was secured as part of the Lisbon treaty.

Sinn Féin has previously supported motions for Ireland to participate in the adoption and application of passenger name record agreements between the EU and a number of third countries. We also supported Ireland's decisions to opt into negotiations on this agreement with Korea. The sharing of PNR data is an important tool in the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of serious crime and terrorist offences, including drug trafficking and human trafficking. It forms part of the broader framework for managing borders. International co-operation in tackling organised crime is essential and the sharing of this information is an important component of that effort.

It would be appropriate and helpful if the Minister could provide an update on whether consideration has been given to extending the PNR requirements to ferry travel, as I have asked for on a number of occasions. Given that the purpose of PNR data sharing is to assist in preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting serious crimes and offences, it makes little sense that equivalent requirements do not apply to ferry passengers. It arguably creates a potential gap that may actually encourage those seeking to evade PNR monitoring to opt for ferry travel instead.

I will also take the opportunity afforded by this debate on passenger name recognition data to raise a number of related issues with the Minister. While PNR data is collected, there are significant gaps relevant to the management of migration in terms of entry and exit. Even though PNR data is considered part of the framework of managing borders, particularly in terms of serious crime, the data is not actually used for migration purposes. The reality is that there are huge gaps in terms of publicly available information regarding the information collected. In some cases, data is not collected. In other cases, it is not collated in a way that allows for proper scrutiny. This includes information on those who overstay legal permissions and accurate data on individuals subject to deportation orders, where assumptions are often made that people have left the State despite no verification whatsoever that this is, in fact, the case.

I have asked the Minister a number of times about how many of those who entered the State legally, whether it be on education, work or tourist permits, subsequently went on to overstay their visas or to make international protection applications. To date, he has not been in a position to provide any information in that regard. Such information is crucial to our understanding of how people who seek international protection enter the State. Equally, we have no way of knowing whether the percentages often cited by Ministers regarding the proportion of international protection applicants who entered the State from Britain via the North are accurate, given that we do not have the detail on those who entered legally and who go on to make applications for international protection. It is clear that the most effective way to manage migration and accurately track entry and exit movements would be on an all-Ireland basis. That is how we can protect our national interests, protect our sovereignty and safeguard the common travel area. This approach would be far more effective than the decision, for example, to sign up to the EU migration and asylum pact in its entirety that takes no account of the fact that the common travel area exists at all or that we have a unique circumstance as an EU member state on an island that is partitioned or that part of the island is operating outside of the EU against the democratic wishes of its people.

As an island, Ireland has unique advantages when it comes to managing migration on a fair and an understandable basis that can build public confidence. However, we are not capitalising on those advantages. I again ask the Minister whether he and his Department have given consideration to moving towards a system of migration management based on monitoring entry and exit to the island of Ireland as a whole, whether his Department has examined the establishment of an island-wide entry and exit system and whether there have been any discussions with the British authorities on this. The logic of that type of approach will make sense to most people. In fact, investment in such a system would make absolute sense in the longer term because an all-Ireland exit and entry registration system modelled on the EU Schengen system to allow for checks on individuals entering and leaving the island at ports and airports would allow for a much better streamlined migration management system. It would ensure that we have improved data collection, as well as allowing both administrations, North and South, and Ireland and Britain to cater for those who are in genuine need of international protection. Does the Minister accept the logic of this approach? It is important that we recognise the potential benefits that it could bring in ensuring that we have an accurate picture at all times as to who is entering and leaving and who is on the island of Ireland.

If the Minister has time, I ask him to provide an update on the progress that has been made regarding a bilateral returns agreement with Britain. I have raised this on a number of occasions. It would be helpful if he could provide an update on any discussions that he has had with his British counterparts.

Our party will support Ireland opting into the Council decision on signing the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea on the transfer of passenger name record data. Co-operation in the fight against serious crime and terrorism is clearly necessary, and we realise the important role that data plays in supporting investigations into serious crime and terrorism. Ireland already participates in similar PNR agreements with the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. South Korea has also had an EU data protection adequacy decision since 2021, which is an important consideration when assessing the protections that will apply to European citizens' data. As I have said ad nauseam when discussing the PNR arrangements in this House, support for the agreement should not mean that we should not mean that we stop scrutinising how these systems operate. The Government's briefing acknowledges that the transfer and use of PNR data by a third country constitutes an interference with the fundamental rights of EU citizens. That is important to note. We are talking about the large-scale processing and transfer of personal information overwhelmingly to ordinary people who are suspected of absolutely nothing. European courts have repeatedly made clear that systems of this nature must be accompanied by meaningful and enforceable safeguards that should mean limitations around the purposes for which information can be used, proper limits on retention and independent oversight.

I ask the Minister to ensure that Ireland continues to monitor the operation of this agreement and that as these arrangements develop, fundamental rights and data protection remain central to our participation. There is a broader principle here, which brings me to something that relates to the Minister. Safeguards are only meaningful if the institutions responsible for enforcing them can be trusted to do so. In that regard, it has been over a week since the "RTÉ Investigates" programme concerning the treatment of protected disclosures within An Garda Síochána. The Minister spoke on RTÉ 1 earlier. He has not yet addressed the Dáil on the many questions that Members have.

I am afraid that it is not relevant to the motions. I am sorry. It is not appropriate for the Minister to comment at this time.

I can explain the relevance.

I appreciate that.

I support the motions. This agreement lets airlines share booking data with the Republic of Korea in order to fight terrorism and serious crime. Korea is the first Asian country to agree such a deal with the European Union. The safeguards are strong. PNR data, as the Minister outlined, is depersonalised after six months, held for five years at most and passed on only with independent approval. Opting in also lets Korea share its findings with our passenger information unit and with Europol. These motions form one part of a wider effort to secure our borders, and the Minister deserves credit for this. He is extending our own passenger data checks to flights within the EU.

Since 12 June, every new applicant for protection is being screened with identity, security and biometric checks and the law is being enforced. Last year, 4,700 deportation orders were signed - almost double the year before. This year, 3,381 have been signed up to 18 September. The progress on processing has also been sped up. Early last year, a standard case waited a median of 18 months for a first decision. In 2025, the International Protection Office issued more than 20,000 first decisions, up from 13,000 the year before. The new International Protection Act sets six months for a standard case, and three months for accelerated and border cases. Since the pact began, average daily applications have fallen from 53 to 32. Irish people are generous. They want a system that is fair, fast and firm. I welcome the Minister’s efforts to deliver progress and, indeed, to reform the system. I also welcome the motions.

I thank the three Deputies for their contributions. I welcome that all parties in the House are supporting the opt-in to the proposal in terms of the signing and execution of the agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea. It is clearly the case that PNR data is extremely important in combating serious crime. When we look at the agreements with third countries that have been opted into by Ireland, we can see that it is effective for us to ensure that we are at the forefront of combating such crime.

Deputy Carthy referred to how what is proposed will apply to ferries. He is correct in stating that it only applies to air travel passengers at present. Obviously, neither I nor Ireland can, of our own accord, decide that we are going to extend it to boats or maritime travel. That requires an agreement by the European Union and a measure being put in place by the European Union. The European Commission has published feasibility studies that examine the possible use of advanced passenger information from land and maritime travel operators. Ireland does not have the applicable long-distance rail or road routes. We will continue to monitor developments on maritime travel arising from these studies. The Commission may make proposals in the future following the evaluation of the current PNR directive. It would be appropriate that we extend it to maritime travel.

Deputy Carthy also spoke about a PNR not being available for migration. That is correct; it is only available for the investigation of serious offences, terrorist offences. If I was here saying that PNR data was going to be used for the purpose of migration, I suspect it would not have the level of agreement that we have in the House in respect of the PNR data.

I agree with the Deputy that it would be much easier for me, as Minister for justice, to manage migration and immigration into Ireland if we had a united island. The practicality of it is we do not. Because there are two jurisdictions on the island and because we all want there to be an open border between those two jurisdictions, it means that people can come and go freely. That is the way it is and there is nothing that can be done in respect of that. I agree with him that if we had a reunified Ireland, it would be easier for everyone North and South to be able to manage migration in the way that other countries such as Australia are able to manage it.

The Deputy referred to the returns agreement. I will be meeting the British Home Secretary on Saturday. I have spoken to her on many occasions. The issue of returns is an item that will be on the agenda. However, when we look at the statistics that have arisen since we signed up to the International Protection Act which commenced on 12 June, there has been a significant reduction in the number of people claiming asylum in Ireland. I will give the Deputy the statistics. For the first six months of this year, over 1,000 people applied for international protection in Ireland in each month with the exception of March when it was 920. For the other five months it was over 1,000. In July it was 722, in August it was 756 and for this month up to 20 September it is 496. Since the International Protection Act, or the migration pact as the Deputy calls it, commenced on 12 June, the numbers coming in have reduced. It shows that the only way to effectively respond to illegal or irregular migration is through international co-operation.

I also thank Deputy Gannon for his support. I have no difficulty coming into the Dáil to talk about protected disclosures. This has been said. There is Government time and there is Opposition time. If he wants to use Social Democrats time to discuss it, I will be here. I do not know if I will be here on Wednesday and Thursday of next week because I have European commitments. However, if he tables it on Tuesday, I will be here. Part of the issue with projected disclosures is - this is not a makey-uppy issue - section 16 of the Act states that it is a criminal offence for a person to whom a protected disclosure is made to reveal the identity of the person making it. That applies even if the person has decided to reveal their own identity. The only exception is if I have the explicit consent of the individual concerned. That is something I am looking at in light of an interview that took place yesterday. I am seeking legal advice in respect of it. I am happy to give as much information as I can.