Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party supports the adoption of this regulation. CEPOL is the acronym for the European Police College, which continues to be a useful training device for police. In the international world of criminal activity, we need to have the expertise gathered from one nation shared. The European Police College was based in Bramshill in Hampshire up to September 2014, when it was then relocated to Budapest. Efforts were made at the time to have it relocated to Templemore but that did not come to pass and the college is now located in Budapest. It would have been useful to have the centre located here.

The European Police College is an important training centre and we support it. The aim of Europol is to share best policing practice. Its close cousin, CEPOL, is not as well known but is also really important as a training element to support the objectives of Europol. The original council proposal was to merge Europol and CEPOL but that was resisted by a number of member states at the time. What have now is a stand-alone proposal in relation to CEPOL, which is better.

I would like to raise a couple of issues with the Minister of State in relation to how we do this type of business. I am minded by the comments of the two previous speakers. The fact that we are exercising a protocol on the position of the UK and Ireland to opt into a regulation in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice indicates that we were hangers on to a UK position when Article 4 of Protocol 21 was annexed to the Treaty of the European Union. In light of our co-operation with Britain on security matters, it was determined that we should have the same opt-in or opt-out mechanism as the UK. What will be the impact of the British decision to exit the European Union on this protocol, our continued co-operation in police and justice matters on an all-island basis and on an east-west basis with the United Kingdom? Have these issues been explored? I presume we can continue to use the existing protocol for future opt-ins or opt-outs or will it be necessary to modify it subsequent to the exit of the UK from the European Union? All of these things add a complication.

My second point relates to the way we do our business. In the United Kingdom, the European Affairs Committee deals with these matters and makes recommendations in the blind of the attitude of Government, such that when the committee brings its proposals to parliament the attitude of Government is not known. If we are to have respect for the new politics, that is the way this business should be done here too. In other words, these matters should in the first instance be referred to the appropriate committee of the Houses for it to shape an opinion, following which the Government can partner in the decision-making.

In regard to the general reforms in An Garda Síochána, training is critical. I strongly endorse the views of my Fianna Fáil colleague, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, in relation to the recruitment area. I have raised this issue many times. The only way a person can join An Garda Síochána is as a new recruit. I was approached by a young man who was a commander in the Singapore police force and has great experience but he is unwilling to return here to join An Garda Síochána as a recruit. There are many people who have years of experience internationally who will not come back here to join An Garda Síochána as a recruit. Even if the age limit allowed for this, it is not the way to go. This issue needs to be examined.

I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's views on the status of the protocol post-Brexit, the mechanism for ratification in this jurisdiction and whether we should look to model ourselves in the British system in terms of giving more autonomy to the committees to do this business rather than bring it before the House and on the issue of recruitment.

See this speech in context