Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

No, but the net issues are very clear, in my judgment. Deputy Durkan made an important point. People say Europe has done this or that but it is member states which are taking the actions. When we had what was described as a migrant crisis in 2015, when 1 million people were moving across Europe, member states, one after another, under pressure from their own populations, built barriers. I hope we would be humanitarian but if 1 million people arrived on our shores together, what would the reaction of our people be? We have to try to approach these things in as humanitarian, logical and careful a way as we can.

This is not complicated legislation. It simply aspires to ensure we have a robust law to prevent the smuggling of people. That is what the Long Title and explanation are about. We must provide a robust law. Deputy Connolly referred to the guidance given by the Commission on how the directive should be transposed. It has to be done in a way that does not have a chilling effect on humanitarian actors. That is the simple issue. I do not believe the current Irish Government, or any Irish Government, would act in a way that would seek to criminalise humanitarian actors. In fact, we deployed our military and Naval Service to assist in rescuing people in the Mediterranean. However, as Deputy Durkan rightly said, we did not bring them back to Ireland. We landed them in ports that would accept them, in Italy and elsewhere. We have taken small numbers. In truth, over recent years we have taken in very small numbers. We do not even see the small numbers we commit to bringing to the country and assimilating. That is the truth of it.

I have not looked at the French legislation. If there are jurisdictions that have transposed the directive in a way that achieves the objective of having an effective anti-smuggling law whereby people such as those responsible for the awful tragedy in my constituency and that of the Minister of State, to which he referred and which is to be commemorated on Wednesday, 8 December, we must consider what they have done. It will be the 20th anniversary of the opening of the truck in Drinagh business park on the outskirts of Wexford town and the appalling vista visited upon those who had to administer to the victims. I spoke to many of them at the time. I went to Wexford General Hospital that morning. I remember going to the memorial a year later to see the families of children who suffocated in the vehicle. The people responsible for it have to be held to account. We have to have laws available to us to hold them to account. That is important; it is not an academic issue. It is critical that we have robust laws to prosecute people who exploit the vulnerable for profit, but we have to be able to prosecute in a way that ensures that genuine humanitarian actors are protected.

If the measure has been transposed in France or elsewhere in a way that achieves the objective better than the measure proposed to be adopted here, we should consider it. I ask the Minister of State not to have a closed mind on this matter. It is an important issue, probably the most important in this legislation that would cause dissent in the House. Will the Minister of State consider it between now and Report Stage if he intends to divide the House on it tonight? If he believes the amendment in the name of Deputy Connolly is infirm in some way, will he seek to determine how other jurisdictions have transposed the directive in a way that clearly protects bona fide human rights activists and organisations and at the same time does not impair our imperative to hold to account those who are responsible for immeasurable cruelties we have witnessed, even in this jurisdiction.

See this speech in context