Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, relate to a core issue. On Second Stage the Minister of State was extremely clear that his intention was certainly not that a smuggled person would end up potentially facing prosecution under this Act, and I know that that is not the intent. I highlighted on Committee Stage the inadvertent risk that, as the Bill was phrased, a smuggled person - specifically, I have highlighted the issue of traveller identity documents, though I know there may be some wider concerns - who has, for example, the identity document of a child or other family member could find himself or herself falling under the frame of smuggling under section 8. It is therefore really important we clarify this.

I have suggested three different ways in which this might be done. Where a person, as described in section 8, produces, procures, provides, possesses or controls a fraudulent traveller identity document in respect of a family member, and where that person is himself or herself the object of the people smuggling, that person should not be deemed to be committing an offence. In such a situation there might be a whole family being smuggled and one of them may have the identity papers for the others. We should not have a situation in which families, just when they might be trying to enter the international protection process, to seek asylum or whatever else, have, in parallel, one of their family members facing a potential charge of smuggling, even though that person is the smuggled person who is explicitly not the target of this legislation.

Amendment No. 6 contains a slightly different wording. In that amendment I speak specifically about family members under the age of 18, though I think the amendment relating to wider family members is a better framing. There are also, for example, people who may have identification for an elderly parent or somebody who does not speak the language. There may be one family member who can speak English, Spanish or whatever the language might be and who is nominated to engage. Losing that person would be very significant for a family.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are variations of the same. Amendment No. 6, as I said, slightly constrains the matter to family members under the age of 18.

I have had some engagement with the Minister of State's Department. I think he has recognised that there is a potential lacuna or space for ambiguity in the law in this regard. I would appreciate his response as to whether he feels he can address this or accept these amendments.