The Social Democrats will support this motion because we want Ireland to opt in to the EU directive on combating firearms trafficking and other firearms-related offences. We do so because firearms trafficking, by its very nature, is a cross-border criminal activity. Organised criminal networks do not respect borders. The firearms used by criminal gangs across the country do not magically appear here. They are trafficked across jurisdictions, moved through criminal supply chains and exploited by organised crime groups operating across Europe. We accept that co-operation between member states is essential, as is information sharing between law enforcement agencies to enable them to work together effectively. However, supporting the opt-in should not mean suspending scrutiny. We have major concerns about how the Department of justice, led by the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, is continuously undermining democratic and parliamentary norms in this House. We will support the measure because we believe it is an important one but we do so while highlighting the failure of the Department once again to apply the required level of scrutiny. The EU's Regulatory Scrutiny Board has itself raised concerns about the level of analysis applied to this proposal, with a report noting that it was moving through the system without the level of detailed examination such a significant criminal justice measure deserves. That concern is very well founded. When Ireland chooses to opt in to a justice and home affairs measure, it is not a routine administrative exercise. Rather, it is a significant policy decision that means accepting that European legislation will shape part of our criminal justice framework. That should always be done carefully, deliberately and on the basis of evidence, particularly at a time when security concerns across Europe are becoming increasingly more complex. We are living through a period of significant geopolitical instability. We have seen organised crime become more sophisticated, growing security concerns across the Continent, conflict on Europe's borders and increasing pressure on law enforcement agencies in many member states. In that environment, it is entirely reasonable that the EU would seek to strengthen co-operation against firearms trafficking. It it equally reasonable for this House to ask questions. The central question I have for the Minister of State and the Government she represents is a simple one. What specific gaps in Irish law does this directive close? When we examine our existing legislation, we find that Ireland already has some of the strongest firearm laws in Europe. We already provide for severe penalties for unlawful possession of firearms and significant penalties where firearms are possessed in suspicious circumstances. We already provide for sentences up to and including life imprisonment for the most serious firearm offences. If we are being asked to opt in to this measure, the Government should be able to clearly identify where the deficiencies lie but I did not hear that addressed in the Minister of State's contribution. Is the benefit primarily to do with information sharing, tracing firearms, intelligence co-operation or offences relating to the illicit manufacture of 3D-printed weapons, or is there a more substantive gap that has not yet been outlined to the House? Those questions are not arguments against the directive. They are arguments for proper scrutiny and they are questions that should have been debated at committee level. The directive contains provisions on minimum and maximum penalties and a sentencing framework. If we are introducing new sentencing approaches, they should be justified by facts, evidence and a clear understanding of what actually reduces organised crime. Too often in politics, there is a temptation to assume that longer sentences automatically produce better outcomes. The evidence internationally is far more mixed. The objective must not simply be to increase penalties for the sake of it. The objective must be to reduce firearms trafficking, reduce gun violence and improve public safety. What bothers me most about a discussion like this in the Chamber specifically about firearms offences is that we very rarely discuss one of the major issues occurring across Irish society right now, which is the pernicious nature of gang violence and all the tentacles that surround it. The Minister of State represents Dublin South-Central, which is a constituency very similar to mine. Surely she must see the level of child grooming into criminality that is happening. My eyes almost rolled back into my head a couple of months ago when the Minister talked about the fact we have not had a death by firearms as a consequence of gangland criminality in the past year. Yet, as I walk home via O'Connell Street and Dorset Street, the level of coercion of children into criminality I see there is something many of us have not seen in our lifetime. This directive does not counter that but nor have I seen anything from the Government that does so. Drug-related intimidation is no longer happening only in inner-city communities. It is a nationwide problem. Rural and farm-based communities are experiencing it. The drug-related intimidation and violence engagement, DRIVE, programme is funded to the tune of some €240,000 each year. The level of drug-related intimidation far exceeds what that funding could possibly do. We have a multitude of disparate but better organised gangs emerging every single week in this country. Inevitably, somebody will say we need an initiative like the inner-city task force for Ballymun, Blanchardstown or Limerick, rather than accepting this is a national problem that requires manifold interventions. I consistently hear that the Minister at the Department of justice is doing the best work in the country. When I look at the outcomes, I just do not see it. I will vote for this motion on the EU directive because co-operation matters. Scrutiny also matters, however, and it has not been applied in this instance. I genuinely do not believe the Department of justice is taking any degree of interest in the people who hold the firearms and the people who are coercing children and young people in this country into carrying out the type of intimidation of which we have been seeing the evidence since 2001. There have been 2,600 incidences of drug-related intimidation in the past two years and arson attacks have increased manyfold. We are not getting to grips with a problem that used to be under the radar but about which we now simply do not talk. This directive lacks proper parliamentary oversight. The problems it is trying to solve will not be addressed unless the Government actually takes the issues seriously.

Sentiment score: 0.02