Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses both for their powerful testimony and their ongoing work. The information they have provided is stark. What is also stark is that we were warned about these things and they have been signalled for a long time. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, they were signalled when Ireland decided to change its approach. We ask whether ships with these goals make a difference. We have previous evidence in this regard. During the period of a number of years in which Ireland operated on its own and in accordance with the Pontus deal with Italy, which focused on humanitarian search and rescue, just one Irish ship was in operation and Ireland saved 17,500 lives in the Mediterranean, and I think people were so proud of that. In the same number of years, the subsequent incarnation of Operation Pontus, Operation Sophia, which had - the witnesses may correct me if I am wrong - on average five or six ships, sometimes more and sometimes slightly less, rescued 34,000. That is five times the number of ships and only twice as many people rescued because the priority of the operation was not humanitarian search and rescue. The ships are in the same waters and their crew sees the same things. There are concerns about a shift. The Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, was very clear when Ireland joined Operation Sophia. He said in July last year, exactly one year ago, "Transferring to Operation Sophia will result in the redeployment of Irish Naval Service vessels from primarily humanitarian search and rescue operations to primarily security and interception operations." That is a quote from the Minister of State at the Department of Defence. It is a very clear statement, and that is the decision that was made and which left a space into which NGOs moved. We have moved from a situation whereby our newspapers in Ireland celebrate and show the search and rescue operations and what our Naval Service has done - and I share the pride in our Naval Service that everyone has expressed - to one whereby we have flipped to concerns, worries and insinuations about operations in respect of which NGOs are perhaps taking the place of the Naval Service. We need to be very clear: this is bad for Europe because when we start militarising our borders in this way, we see the ripple effects in the militarisation of borders within Europe because that is the next step, and it is bad for our humanitarian reputation. The idea of the pull factor is really concerning because it is very similar to what we have seen with the Mexican-American border. The US Administration is not pulling certain families apart and taking children away and interning them because it is concerned about those families; it wants to send an example and a signal. The idea that we would let people drown as an example or signal to others is the same kind of message and it is not the way to tackle the traffickers. We have heard about the root causes. The root causes are not boats.

I will be brief in asking my questions. A family reunification Bill introduced by my group is before the Houses at present. Regarding the question of tackling trafficking, do the witnesses agree that the financial model and the financial incentives is where this can be tackled by providing safe passage and alternative legal routes for those whose loved ones are living here in Europe to reach them? This is one reason people take desperate journeys. Are any of those routes operating out of Libya? Are people interned in Libya being permitted to make claims or seek reunification or granted access to any of these measures of safe passage? This is a key question. Do the witnesses have concerns about EU money financially incentivising the warehousing of people? Is there a concern that the money may be provided on a per-head basis and that there may be a drive to bring people into Libya and then store them in these detention centres in order that payments be made per head? We know from private prisons in the US and even from direct provision here that any incentivising of the warehousing of people creates a perverse incentive. The witnesses might touch on similar migration control agreements that Europe has signed with Sudan.

Do the witnesses have concerns about tied aid? Ireland has had a very strong tradition of untied aid, but increasingly there seems to be a blurring of the line between EU defence spending and what we are told we are investing. Deputy Ó Snodaigh commented very eloquently on what we put in as actual support as opposed to support to governments. Again, Sudan comes into this concern.

I also have a very quick question about the UN concerns. What other pressures can Ireland, as a country which is bidding for a Security Council seat at present, bring to bear to show we are very serious about these UN laws? We mentioned our mass migration in our bid just last week, which is somewhat ironic, given that we have not hit our target of 4,000 refugees and that we have sent 200,000 people abroad ourselves in the past decade.

I know these are more statements than anything else, but I ask the witnesses to touch on the financial model, the perverse incentives, the real shift in policy and what it means on the ground for search and rescue and so on, the witnesses' concerns about the militarisation of borders, and perhaps Sudan.