Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

This is the one controversial part of the proposals. Like Deputy Connolly, I read the Seanad debate in some detail. Section 9's humanitarian assistance defence, as I said on Second Stage, is of the utmost importance. It would be absolutely unacceptable to anybody in this House, Government or Opposition, if humanitarian organisations or those who were directly involved in providing humanitarian assistance were in any way criminalised. The Minister of State explained in his Second Stage contribution that the reason for the different approach being taken to existing law was the difficulty in proving that someone was involved in trafficking for monetary gain and prosecutions were failing. They were not even being taken, because how do you prove monetary gain? Actual traffickers were getting away. The challenge is to get that balance. Amendment No. 1 provides for section 9(a) should be absolutely acceptable, it seems to me. It states:

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 ...

That seems clear cut and obvious. If a person is working for a bona fide international humanitarian organisation, surely there should be no issue with that?

The second part of the amendment, 9(b) is slightly more problematic so I will tease it out a bit.It states that it shall be done "for the purpose of providing humanitarian assistance, otherwise than for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, a financial or material benefit.” The question is how is that proven. The first part of providing humanitarian assistance is obvious, but I am sure that some of these traffickers would quite readily say that they were providing humanitarian assistance. The issue is how do you get at the criminal gangs who are now putting people in absolute peril and fleecing them for the privilege. Take the awful case in England where so many Vietnamese people died in the back of a truck. The rates charged for that trafficking impoverished a whole community that contributed. These are desperate shocking crimes that have to be punished.

Our job, and we have to tease it out a bit, is to strike the balance between absolutely achieving the objective that Deputy Connolly has set out and ensuring that humanitarian organisations which are providing sustenance and support for people who take desperate measures for no motive other than altruism are protected and in no way criminalised but while achieving that objective not creating a loophole where criminal traffickers who are facilitating death get away because we cannot prosecute them. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State's views on the legislation he has proposed to us and how that balance is struck. Can he give reassurances that the sort of organisations that are sought to be protected under Deputy Connolly's amendment are, in fact, protected under the legislation? Can we strengthen the Bill to ensure that this is beyond doubt in order that the observations of humanitarian organisations including the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission are fully addressed and assuaged.

See this speech in context