Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

On Second Stage the Minister of State spoke of why the specific language on "for material benefit" had been removed. I suggest there is always balance. The danger presented by removing that caveat that it is for financial and material benefit is greater than the benefit outlined. It is a danger in creating a chilling effect on humanitarian action, human rights, search and rescue and ships. There is a sense of jeopardy. We will come to that in the humanitarian part. Look at the scale. Previously there was a position where there was a clear requirement that smuggling was only smuggling where there was material benefit. That is why we tried to address it in the definitions. Smuggling is smuggling when it is done for financial and material benefit. That is the understanding. That should be reflected in cases and prosecution and legal action. That is consistent with the original principle.

The Minister of State raised the prospect of prosecutions becoming difficult but in the report on why Ireland was on the tier 2 list in the smuggling of persons, prosecution was only a small part. Much of the cause was the lack of an independent human trafficking rapporteur and the lack of a formal national anti-trafficking forum. Again, we are speaking a lot about trafficking here. It also referred to the need for increased funding, particularly for victim assistance, and for anti-trafficking public awareness campaigns and the need for better training.

There are many things that can be improved in how Ireland identifies, which was another crucial issue, and prosecutes smuggling and ultimately convicts human traffickers. It identified many areas where there was a need for improvement. I believe those should be pursued rather than creating an unintended consequence or jeopardy by eroding or changing the grounds of prosecution by removing the requirement that smuggling would be for financial or material benefit. It is a little bit of a hammer. Look at the one position where we are really clear that one can only be prosecuted where it is for financial and material benefit.

We look to the extreme where someone can be prosecuted even when it is humanitarian action or intervention, which is the proposed law now. Even if a person is working for a human rights NGO, he or she can be prosecuted. Such people may use it as a defence but they are still being prosecuted. Then there is the in-between position, perhaps, which would be an exemption for humanitarian and human rights actions. We are almost moving two points away. We are taking two steps where we are creating a jeopardy. We are trying to remove a defence for smugglers or traffickers that the Minister of State feels they may abuse but creating a jeopardy for good actors. I do not believe the balance between those two things is right in this Bill. Because the balance is not right and there is no clear exemption for human rights actors and for humanitarian action, we would be better to maintain the current requirement that smuggling and trafficking be shown to be for financial and material benefit.