James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Connolly for her proposed amendments. I will speak to the three grouped for discussion: amendment No. 5 in respect of reporting around prosecutions in humanitarian assistance, and amendments Nos. 6 and 7 in respect of training and identification.

Like Deputy Howlin, I would like to remember the tragic events that unfolded in Wexford 20 years ago yesterday, 8 December - we are gone into the 9th now. Deputy Howlin, on a previous occasion, expressed very eloquently the experience that day. The Deputy was there on the ground on that day. We think of those families and those people today and what those surviving families are still going through. They were Kurdish and Turkish.

I appreciate the concerns that have been raised in respect of the approach to humanitarian assistance but I do not intend to revisit the discussions we had previously. I accept we have good faith differences on that point of what is the correct approach, but I will limit my comments to the amendments at hand.

I would first emphasise that a post-enactment report will be prepared on this Bill in accordance with Standing Orders and laid before this House, and this will provide an opportunity to address some of the issues of concern to the Deputies. I think it is fair to say that should the scenario Deputy Connolly is afraid of come to pass, a politicised prosecution of an NGO, it will be, by definition, in the public eye and we will all be very much aware of it.

This will also be considered at a European level in the coming years. The European Commission is committed to a review of the action plan against migrant smuggling in 2023, which will consider a range of matters, including the types of measures that are being implemented in member states and the effectiveness of the facilitators' package. If necessary, the Commission will propose to revise the legal framework, and implementation of that will come before the Oireachtas in due course. I look forward to seeing this EU review take place. Throughout these debates, the message has come through very clearly regarding the vital importance of a coherent migration plan across the bloc and, indeed, the deficiencies in the current approach.

We have revisited some harrowing experiences of migrants trying to escape what are simply desperate situations and acknowledge the difficulties they face in seeking safe passage and what they sacrifice to seek safe haven for themselves and for their families. Of course, it is also not lost on me that this Bill is being debated today, on that 20th anniversary.

More specifically, amendment No. 5 envisages an annual statutory report on the number of prosecutions pursued and not pursued due to humanitarian defence. I understand where the Deputy is coming from but I do not believe it is practical. Any possible prosecution goes through several stages from suspicion and investigation to the preparation of a file for the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and a direction to prosecute. It may be the case that an investigation is not pursued at an early stage where it is clear it would fall under the defence. It would also almost always be the case that there are multiple factors influencing a decision whether to prosecute. Any statistics would be inherently misleading.

In respect of subsection (c) of the amendment dealing with the effect of the Act on humanitarian organisations, I do not see an annual statutory reporting obligation as being an appropriate way of assessing this. It may well be the case that further research would be valuable in terms of perspectives of NGOs towards Ireland's approach to migrants and how we protect those in vulnerable situations, but to be valuable that needs a wider scope that this Act.

In terms of amendments Nos. 6 and 7, these focus on training, in particular, around identification. How we identify those in vulnerable situations is clearly very important. However, I would suggest that this is better addressed in the upcoming trafficking legislation in respect of human trafficking and the national referral mechanism. People who are vulnerable and require protection may or may not have been smuggled, they may or may not have entered into the State irregularly, and they may or may not be in the international protection process. Looking at these issues through a smuggling lens is not, in my view, the correct approach.

As I mentioned on Second Stage, this House will be aware there is significant work ongoing in this area. I referred to some aspects of this in my Second Stage speech. These include the appointment of a national rapporteur, the development of the national referral mechanism, and the development of a new action plan on trafficking with legislation to go alongside that. There has also been work on developing of training through NGOs targeting front-line staff in hospitality, airline and shipping industries who may have come into contact with trafficked persons, and providing dedicated accommodation for female victims of sexual exploitation.

There are also improvements being made to the criminal justice system to support victims through the implementation of Supporting a Victim's Journey, the running of a new awareness-raising campaign in partnership with the International Organization for Migration, an increase in funding for support of victims of crime generally, and increased funding dedicated directly to supporting victims of trafficking. The Department is reforming the criminal justice system to ensure all victims, including those both smuggled and trafficked, are better supported and empowered. It is vital that victims are confident in the knowledge they will be supported, informed and treated with respect and dignity by the system and by everyone they come into contact with as part of their journey.

In the circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment.

See this speech in context