Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are a different approach, but build on the discussions we had on Committee Stage. I also want to recognise the engagement of officials in the interim period between Committee and Report Stages. That has been very constructive.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 relate to a core aspect of the Bill. Saying that a person can have a defence is very different from saying that a person will not be prosecuted or is not committing an offence. We have spoken about the potential chilling effect of the signal that sends. In many cases, humanitarian actors and NGOs are people who are not necessarily very well resourced. They are taking an important step. There is a recognition that we do not want a risk of unnecessary or inappropriate prosecution in the Bill for persons engaged in business. There is provision in the Bill, as it stands, that it should not be an offence to perform activities under sections 6 and 7 in the presence of a smuggled person in the State where a person is doing so in the course of his or her ordinary business or work. It is a sensible element of the Bill. It is designed to ensure that if somebody rents a room in a bed and breakfast, takes somebody somewhere in a taxi, lets somebody on a bus or sells somebody a service in a shop in the ordinary course of events, even where this has an impact such a person would not be prosecuted. We know it is not constructive to have a threat of prosecution hanging over ordinary and good actions.

One of these amendments is about trying to ensure that when we talk about people who are doing things in the course of their work and their professions, we also include NGOs who are doing things in the course of their ordinary work. Employees of NGOs do food runs and support people with shelter or basic needs. As we know, many humanitarian organisations are trying to ensure that vulnerable persons get through the winter. This involves ensuring the kind of important and supportive work we saw in Lesbos, and which we also see in communities in Ireland, does not carry any risk of prosecution.Amendment No. 2 is to ensure that when we describe kinds of ordinary work, that it includes voluntary work, that it is framed as "whether for profit or otherwise", and that we are not simply protecting business owners but also protecting those who are volunteers within organisations. Amendment No. 3 is an expansion of that because while the safety net clause may be in the Bill, it relates only to those who have a presence in the State. I would like to see the same exemption applied in relation to "entry into or transit across". While this would not deal with all of the humanitarian action that I believe should be regarded as not an offence, it would deal with humanitarian NGOs who do this as part of their ordinary work and it would give some more protection to them in terms of their engagement in the kinds of activities outlined under sections 6 and 7, if they are doing so under the rubric of their employment or their volunteer role with a humanitarian NGO. Amendment No. 3 would slightly expand what is in the bill in a constructive way, but it may be halfway to having a full humanitarian action exemption, which I favour, and having a humanitarian defence that the Bill sets out. This would at least take a certain cohort of humanitarian actors out of the realm of having to face potential prosecution. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, might be able to support these amendments.