James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for their comments. As I made clear when discussing the previous group of amendments in respect of family members, we do not intend to criminalise people who are being smuggled. However, given how the offences are already phrased, I do not believe a blanket provision is necessary as it would tend to create more uncertainty.The issue is that the bar for someone being considered to have been the object of people smuggling may be quite low and may be different from what the Senator intends. For example, as I mentioned, someone who has obtained false documents to facilitate their continuing presence might fall under it. A blanket provision would tend, therefore, to do something an organised smuggler may be able to exploit. I understand that the Senator is trying to avoid that with the reference to "derives no financial benefit", but that may fall foul of the minimum standards in the directive. It also creates new issues with the burden of proof. In effect, it would be for the prosecution to prove that a person charged with an offence had never been previously smuggled or had not benefited financially.

As I said in respect of the previous amendments, however, we will look at this further. If refinement of the language used is needed to ensure non-criminalisation, then I will introduce the necessary amendments in the Dáil.