Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

When we started this debate last week, reference was made to 39 Vietnamese men, women and children who died horrifically in trucks in Essex two years ago. Reference was made, going back further, to the tragedy in Wexford. On the night of last week's debate, the Minister of State delicately told us about the tragedy unfolding in the English Channel. I was somewhat flummoxed by that and I was also rushing, so I am glad to have a chance to come back to the debate tonight.

I referred to figures from the migrant project run by the International Organization for Migration on the night of last week's debate, which informed us that migrant deaths on maritime routes to Europe have more than doubled in the first six months of 2021 compared with the same period in 2020. A total of 1,354 migrants have died thus far in 2021 while crossing the Mediterranean Sea. In addition to that, 27 people died tragically in the English Channel last week. We did not have many facts on the night in question, but since then some facts have emerged. Some 27 people, including a pregnant woman, a mother and her three children - two daughters aged 22 and seven, and a son aged 16 - to put some human face on this, died. The mother was 45 years old. An article published in The Guardianstated:

Precisely what befell the group in the dinghy is unclear. But relatives who were in contact with their loved ones [I am coming specifically to the amendment now] by mobile phone in their last minutes paint a terrible picture. The craft began taking on water. It may have been struck by a larger vessel or its wake, or it could simply have started deflating. Those on board would have started bailing desperately. [It appears that] Someone in the dinghy tried to alert the French authorities and then the UK coast guard.

At this point, according to relatives, the boat was in English waters. They desperately needed help, but none came. It was 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. the next morning when fishermen discovered the bodies in the water. It is in that context that I am pushing the amendment tonight to make an exemption for humanitarian organisations helping people who are in this or a similar position. We know people take these risks because they have no choice. I hate repeating it but it was just the nature of what happened that night.

I have pointed out that the regulatory impact analysis of this Bill has not been published. It went to a justice committee for consideration of the general heads and there was no detailed analysis of this Bill. It is not appropriate that we are doing it at this late stage. I take it from the Minister of State's comments in last week's debate that he will not accept the amendment, and I will press it to a vote, but I do not think this is a way to do that given the whole background and lead-in to this Bill. It arises, as the Minister of State knows, out of a facilitation package from an EU directive and EU decision, along with a UN protocol. More than 21 years have passed since the protocol was signed and we still have not ratified it, although I understand with this Bill it will be ratified. I cannot understand what the delay for this was. The UN protocol was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2000. It was entered into force on 28 January 2004. It was the first global instrument to contain an agreed definition of smuggling of migrants and it sought to address the growing problem of organised criminal groups that smuggle migrants primarily for profit and so on.

I have no difficulty with the substance of the Bill, which seeks to extend the penal provisions in order to stop smuggling, and its other aspects regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction power and vehicles. My biggest difficulty with this Bill is that the issues raised by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission have not been taken on board, except in the most minimalist way. I welcome the provision to protect the person who is smuggled from being prosecuted. Other than that, all the recommendations from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission have been ignored. The Minister of State told us there was a practical need for the change, as well as for our obligations under international law. In addition, it will allow us to continue to access information under the Schengen Agreement, which Ireland is not part of in terms of area but we are in terms of information and various aspects of it. That has to be completed. Therefore, the Government is under pressure to pass the Bill, but that is not the way to deal with legislation of this nature given the challenge we face of people drowning in the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel. I do not want to dwell on that because this has been going on for so long. I have said publicly that I could not swim in the Mediterranean Sea, but that is just me personally regarding this issue. The question is what we as a Government have done to pass legislation in order to comply with our obligations and to show leadership.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission provided 18 recommendations. One recommendation of particular relevance to this debate is that a person who acts for humanitarian reasons would be an exemption under this Bill. That has not happened. It has been included as a defence and the burden of proof of evidence is now on the person who acts for humanitarian purposes and he or she will have to prove that. On the one hand, the Minister of State has said in his contribution that there is no penalty regarding people who are bona fide and act in a humanitarian manner, but on the other hand, to be charged with an offence under this legislation, which this Bill allows for, is a penalty in itself for people struggling on the ground to help other people who are struggling. I will be pressing this amendment.

See this speech in context