Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for the correction. I agree with him. With the reversal of the burden of evidence, the Minister of State is trying to sort out a problem with existing legislation; namely, the failure to have prosecutions. However, we have nothing before us on why that failed and what the problems were. There is nothing here to tell us what the issues with that legislation are, other than that there is an absence of prosecutions. We are dealing with that problem while putting the burden on people and organisations that can ill afford to come forward when they are faced with a prosecution. It does not make sense to me.

I again thank those who compiled the digest. In 2020, in the context of the new pact on migration and asylum, the Commission adopted a guidance document. What was the guidance document for? It was aimed at clarifying that the facilitators' package, which was the directive and the decision that has led to this Bill, should not be interpreted in a way that allows humanitarian activities mandated by the law to be criminalised. That is, in effect, what we are doing here. We are criminalising those involved in humanitarian actions. It specifically says in the guidance document that this should not happen.

Obviously, this must have been discussed in Europe, because it provided the 2020 guidance document which states specifically that it should not be interpreted in a way that allows humanitarian activities mandated by law to be criminalised. The directive does not provide an explicit definition of humanitarian assistance, and nor does the Bill before the House. Some examples provided in the European Parliament's 2018 study on the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance to irregular migrants - there has been quite a bit of research and analysis of all of this - include such a provision. This is helpful in thinking about what a definition could be.

It could include the provision of services that help migrants to access their fundamental rights, including to healthcare, shelter, hygiene and legal assistance, and to live with dignity, or any action guided by the principles of humanity, solidarity, impartiality and independence. There is a distinction between humanitarian and related objectives and economic and financial objectives. There is a working definition for what a humanitarian action is.

It has not been teased out enough. I do not doubt the bona fides of the Minister of State but law should not be based on reassurances. Laws should be clear in their purpose and effects. They should be reviewed regularly, which comes to other amendments for another night, when we look at a built-in review. I could not see myself agreeing to this amendment in any way. It has to be teased out. It deserves more attention. Members were caught out by the way that the debate happened. We did not get an opportunity to tease this out. I would not even say that there is nuance. It is blatant if the burden to provide evidence is on the humanitarian organisation or the person carrying out humanitarian acts. We need more and more of those people and organisations, from what we see with the build-ups on borders in Europe, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex, and the money that is going into it.

I think I am out of time.

See this speech in context