Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 11, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: "Protection from prosecution

9.A person shall not be considered to have committed an offence under section 6or 7, where the person engaged in conduct alleged to constitute an offence under section 6or 7—

(a) in order to provide, in the course of his or her work on behalf of a bona fidehumanitarian organisation, assistance to a person seeking international protection in the State or equivalent status in another state if the purposes of that organisation include giving assistance without charge to persons seeking such protection or status, or

(b) for the purpose of providing humanitarian assistance, otherwise than for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, a financial or material benefit.".

I had not heard about the tragedy in the channel and I thank the Minister of State for bringing it to our attention.

When this Bill came before the Dáil, I and my colleagues were ready to speak on it. Through no fault of the Minister of State - I was actually in the Chair - the debate collapsed because Members did not show and we did not get to speak on it. That is what happened, through no fault of ours because we were way down the list. I listened carefully to the debate.

I am behind this legislation, the purpose of which is to extend the definitions and the reach in relation to dealing with illegal smuggling of human beings.

However, what concerns me greatly is that humanitarian organisations and people acting in a humanitarian manner are now being penalised and I am seeking to amend that. In this regard, I thank the Senators who did great work in the Seanad.

There was not much discussion at all of the chilling effect of the section in the Bill relating to treating humanitarian organisations and people who act in a humanitarian manner to help migrants who will be now in a position of having to prove themselves. In other words, they will be charged. Is that not correct? This point has not come out. The burden of proof has now been reversed.

The Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, makes a reference to that in his Second Stage speech, stating "To achieve this we have adopted a reverse burden approach ...". I beg the Minister of State's pardon, that does not require the proof. The news of the tragedy has thrown me and my train of thought has gone for a minute.

Is the clock not running?

See this speech in context