Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We are talking about updating and expanding the remit of CEPOL, the European police training body. We are told that the measure will succeed in improving EU security through enhanced training and co-operation, particularly in the areas of serious crime and terrorism.

The idea of police authorities working across borders to combat serious crime is obviously welcome, but there is a certain irony in that. When we went through the annual pantomime of passing the Emergency Powers Act and the Offences Against the State Act earlier this year, I made the point that the Criminal Justice (Joint Investigation Teams) Act, which has been on our Statute Book since 2004, allows the Garda Commissioner to engage in joint policing operations with other members of the EU to combat serious crime, but we have never invoked that measure. Instead, we have repeatedly introduced violations of human rights by signing up to the Offences Against the State Act and so on and have continued to criminalise the victims of drug abuse and poverty. Meanwhile, the people the measures was supposed to target - the big boys - are living it up on the Costa del Sol. Everybody would welcome any measures involving co-operation across borders in dealing with serious crime. However, the reality is that many measures are already there and have not been invoked.

Whatever about a certain legitimacy in the area of serious crime, where such measures really fall down is in areas such as supposedly helping in the fight against terrorism. Trying to fight terrorism through changed policing methods and co-ordination is like holding back the sea with a bucket. If we are really serious about tackling terrorism, we have got to get to the roots of why people end up engaging in terrorist activity. We should start by looking at Europe's seemingly endless supplying of arms to fuel wars around the world. We should stop supporting those wars, stop facilitating the use of Shannon Airport by the US military and so on. We would deal with ghettoisation, social exclusion and State-sanctioned racism. Look at the slaughter unleashed in Iraq over the past two months alone, with 69 people killed in Baghdad in May, 30 in June and 300 in July. The instability exported to all corners of the world through Western intervention is coming home to roost. We have created a monster in that sense. The idea that more police powers will deal with that is simply a failed strategy, and we know that because that is what experience has taught us. The more we try to use the police to fight terrorism, the more terrorists we create, because it is a failed strategy and we are not dealing with the root causes. In that sense, I do not think CEPOL is appropriate at all.

It is a bit ironic that the stated objective is emphasising the protection of human rights. This is talked about a lot in terms of An Garda Síochána, but it is a far cry from the reality of how An Garda Síochána has operated. With regard to the announcement in the past number of days of the barristers' panel commissioned by the Minister for Justice and Equality for the review mechanism for cases of historical malpractice and abuse by members of An Garda Síochána, which was just a whitewash, the damage done to hundreds of Irish citizens because of violations of human rights by members of An Garda Síochána has never been properly tackled. Increasing police powers and surveillance, which gives the State huge powers to invade people's privacy, as the Minister has stated she intends to do, is not the answer to this. We need to deal with proper Garda accountability. Many of the European police forces have had similar or worse problems, so when we sign up to joint co-operation with these bodies, we should be careful what we are signing up to.

That said, there are areas from which we can benefit. The incestuous or small-scale nature of An Garda Síochána has been a particular problem, so a breath of fresh air from outside the State would certainly assist in that regard. However, the way in which this motion has been presented is very one-sided and it will not do what it says on the tin.

See this speech in context