Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is far from that. I did not quote France as a wonderful example. I quoted it as a limited example, referred to in different documents that I have read as one case where they allowed for an exemption in certain circumstances.

A question has been raised and I will go back to what the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission said, as opposed to the European Commission. In its submission the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission said, "The Commission recommends that further consideration should be given to revising the General Scheme to provide humanitarian assistance as an exemption, or exclusion, under proposed legislation as opposed to a defence." It specifically asked for humanitarian organisations, or people acting for humanitarian reasons, to be excluded from the Bill as an exemption or exclusion, not as a defence. The Government has gone ahead and said, "No, we will give a defence, but we trust that our Director of Public Prosecutions, whoever he or she is, may or may not charge the person." That is not good enough. Our legislation should be clear, and it should have a purpose. The purpose is to increase the penalties and to broaden the scope to increase the extra-judicial restriction outside of the country to stop smuggling and catch the smugglers. I have no difficulty with that. I have a difficulty with not excluding humanitarian organisations or people who are acting for humanitarian reasons to help in situations such as those we have seen recently in the English Channel. Theoretically, if that boat was in Irish waters and the next day an Irish fisherman went to help that boat, that fisherman could be caught for helping to smuggle people into this country. Is that correct, theoretically, as we look at that at this time of the night? We would be dependent on the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute or not prosecute that fisherman for helping to bring-----

See this speech in context