Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Ba mhaith liom leithscéal a ghabháil toisc nach raibh mé anseo nuair a thosaigh an tAire ag labhairt. Mar gheall ar sin, b'fhéidir go bhfuil roinnt de na ceisteanna atá le cur agam freagraithe aige cheana, ach measaim nach bhfuil.

Any measure that promotes better co-operation and greater mutual recognition between members states of the European Union can be positive if the underlying tenet of it is the promotion not of either human or state security but both. The European Union project and the free movement of people and goods between member states have presented a host of challenges with regard to the security and integrity of external and internal borders. The only way we can effectively deal with the subject of security while maintaining such an open relationship with other nations in the EU is through the development of the concept of human security alongside multilateral co-operation and effective information sharing.

Regrettably, much of what passes as security in the EU is an enhancement of the fortress Europe concept rather than seeing that no matter how high barriers are built unless the underlying causes of poverty, exclusion, inequality and the denial of national and human rights are addressed, conflict will persist and insecurity will exist. The concentration on the type of security that we have to date increases insecurity in the long run and possibly in the short term.

With the passing of the Lisbon treaty at the second attempt, this State signed up to the establishment of this committee. Under the terms of the treaty the committee was intended to ensure operational co-operation by facilitating co-ordination of the action of member states' competent authorities. Issues relating to the working, philosophy and accountability of the committee have not been fully addressed and this motion should not be passed without a fuller debate on its remit and the drift towards more EU competency in the area of justice and home affairs. I understand that we are behind on this but that is not an excuse to rush through such a major change in European oversight, co-operation and sharing of information.

I wish to take this opportunity to express some of the concerns we have as a party and that others have shared with me about the adoption of the motion and the formation of the standing committee. What is the remit and function of the proposed standing committee? The Lisbon treaty stated that the committee would co-ordinate member states' relevant authorities but it does not state whether this means it will be a purely technical operational brief or whether it will also have some type of legislative function. Therefore, this has the potential to lead to a conflict of interest, especially if the committee is accountable to itself or to the Council with regard to legislation governing its practical operational functions.

With this in mind, it is important that we oppose any move to bestow on this committee a legislative function now or in the future. Its remit should be defined and limited to having a technical function to co-ordinate the efforts of the relevant authorities in the areas of prevention and combatting international crime and terrorism, and the co-ordination of intelligence exchange. I do not know whether the Minister can guarantee at this stage that this is its full remit and nothing more. All legislative functions should remain with national parliaments and, where it has competence, the EU Council should also deal with issues.

Concerns have been expressed that the process of establishing the remit and operational outlook of the committee took place behind closed doors and there is a lack of direction on this in the Lisbon treaty because the pertinent articles do not specify it. Many believe that the vagueness of the wording in the treaty would allow the committee in time to develop into the equivalent of an EU home office or, in theory, ministry without proper democratic control or even a debate on its future decisions. Some even go so far as to express concern that this is a gradual move towards a full-scale home office with authority over member states' police and security services and all that entails. This is the big brother conspiracy theory. It is not my theory and I do not agree with those who believe it but there can be some justification for conspiracy theorists because often they are not too far from the truth.

One must consider the history of the agencies and governments involved in this field and the capabilities of the information systems we are discussing. They are Europol, Interpol and the Schengen security database, SIRENE. There is the potential that it could be abused or misused. All decisions relating to the establishment of the standing committee must therefore be agreed by national parliaments to ensure greater legitimacy and that it does not move towards that securocrat stream and the big brother theory. The possible lack of openness and transparency in key decision-making by EU institutions was one of the main concerns expressed by the people of this country on both occasions that ratification of the Lisbon treaty was being debated. We must be vigilant and oppose anything that would undermine the required move towards transparency and accountability in the workings of the European Union.

We are also concerned that the overall policy of the European Union towards internal security is unsatisfactory. My party believes that at present an EU strategy on security is ill-defined. There is too much focus on military and policing measures as the main means of promoting security within the EU. This type of thinking ignores the reality that deprivation, poverty, inequality and injustice are the driving force behind many of the problems that the EU will be required to address. Many of these underlying problems have led to internal and external threats to the EU. Offences such as people trafficking, illegal immigration, theft and fraud often stem from poverty and the lack of opportunity, and a lack of resources in underdeveloped areas, as well as from a view that the EU is a land of plenty.

We would like to see a comparable amount of the vast resources the EU intends to spend on military equipment, border security and other controls diverted to Third World development projects, improving the standard of living for those in countries that were previously raped and pillaged by their former colonial masters. Many of these former colonial powers are now EU member states, and I believe that the EU will suffer the consequences of the evils of its imperialist member states.

The comprehensive strategy to combat the root causes of crime and anti-EU terrorism must be an important part of any strategy to promote security within the EU. One of our concerns is with the over-reliance on military and policing solutions, which could further alienate the very people who have been marginalised and make the EU a greater target for those extremists who wish to perpetrate acts of violence against it. The rise of international terrorism in the past decade has been seen largely to be fuelled by inequality and injustice in world politics. Unresolved issues such as the illegal war in Iraq, the plight of the Palestinians, the occupation of Afghanistan and the failure of developed nations to deal with the problems of poverty in the Third World have become emotive. They are justifications for some groups and individuals to engage in those activities. Focusing on military and policing solutions to cope with the potential terrorist threat, without also putting appropriate funds and efforts into dealing with the underlying problems, could further alienate those people. This could have the effect of making European countries a greater target.

If the same amount of effort, time and resources were spent on combating the causes of crime, we would be in a much better and safer place. I call for a debate in this House and across the EU on the concept of human security as it has evolved and as it has been promoted by the likes of Kofi Annan and many others in the UN. In conjunction with human security, state security can develop and we would be in a much safer place than we are at the moment.

See this speech in context