Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Before I address the substance of this proposal, the importance of co-operation between states, Governments, police forces and security organisations is evident if we are going to tackle serious crime, threats to society and international terrorist organisations. There is scope for significant co-operation. While there has not been an incident of this nature in Ireland in recent years, we would be naive to believe that Ireland could not be subject to an attack or to threats on Irish life.

The proposal before the House has two different elements. The first portion of the overall pot of €2.5 billion is a fund from which governments will have discretion to draw down money. In the case of Ireland, An Garda Síochána will be able to draw down money from this fund to aid its operations and resources, etc. This is reasonable and I do not have a particular difficulty with it. As I am agreeable to this proposal, we will not oppose it. However, we will not support it because we have significant reservations about the second aspect of it. The Minister has outlined on two occasions that he has reservations and concerns about the second part of this proposal, which relates to a €1 billion thematic fund, and I have similar concerns. This fund differs from the previous ISF proposal - the ongoing project - insofar as it proposes to increase the flexibility of the fund to accommodate targeted actions agreed by the European Commission. Clarity is still required in respect of this aspect of the matter. If the Minister can address it, he should do so. Will member states be required to go to the Commission with proposals for approval, or will proposals be initiated by the Commission? There is a significant difference between those two approaches.

I would also like to raise questions about the overlap between this part of the fund and the Common Security and Defence Policy, Frontex and the integrated border management fund. As a political party, Sinn Féin has reservations about areas of the Common Security and Defence Policy, which would have implications for Irish political and military neutrality. Such issues need to be addressed. I hope the Minister follows through on the reservations and concerns he has expressed about them. There will be negotiations, as the Minister outlined. I hope he takes a robust position in ensuring this fund is applied in a discrete manner and is not used to further whatever end the Commission desires. I refer, for example, to the possibility that a much broader remit will be sought for defence or common security and military ends. That needs to be avoided.

I have set out my reservations about the second part of this proposal, which is inadequately fleshed out. There is a need for further clarity and transparency. However, we will not oppose this measure because the first part of it is important so that An Garda Síochána is able to draw down the resources it requires to tackle domestic and international crime and co-operate with other relevant international policing and security organisations. It is in that context that we have decided not to oppose the motion before the House. The Minister needs to address the concerns I have raised on the floor of the House and in Europe.

See this speech in context