Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the CEG for a very important and timely motion. I do not want to talk too much about the motion, which the members of the CEG have done justice and spoken well about. I want to focus some of my time on the Government's amendment. I am disappointed. The amendment is not necessary. I thought the Seanad would speak with one voice, collectively, on this issue, given our commitments and the importance of the House. This is an important amendment for the Seanad. I tuned into the debate from my office before I came to the Chamber and I did not hear too many Government Senators making a case for their own amendment. Does that mean the Minister of State is on his own or has the support of only a very few colleagues? I do not know if that is the case. I do not know what to take from all of these empty seats across the aisle. Do Government Senators have a view at all? I would have thought more of them would come to the House if they believed this was an important amendment. Let us at least have the opportunity to hear what they have to say and the rationale behind the amendment.

The Government amendment to the CEG motion makes direct reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It also includes a section with the phrase, "notes with sympathy and concern". It emphasises that migration is a Europe-wide issue and requires a European response. Most of the commentary and criticism of the EU in the CEG motion has been left out of the Government amendment. It also emphasises Ireland's commitments as a member of the EU and states our actions are part of an EU response. The amendment omits the sections in the original motion that call on the European Commission and the Council of Europe and the section starting "regrets that". It omits a reference to the 2021 report from Amnesty International, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and Human Rights Watch entitled Plan of Action: Twenty Steps to Protect People on the Move Along the Central Mediterranean Route, which was a central tenet of the CEG motion. That is exceptionally disappointing.

The CEG has expressed concerns that member states, including Ireland, are moving away from the search and rescue mission to surveillance missions. That is a strong tenet of the case made in the motion. Robust search and rescue operations need to be accompanied by sustained efforts to ensure the right to seek asylum enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and guaranteed in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, with which the Minister of State will be familiar. The EU's response in recent years to boat migration across the Mediterranean has focused largely on trying to prevent or discourage people attempting to make the dangerous crossing. Senator Gavan summed it up when he referred to "illegal pushbacks". That is what they are. This is a human rights scandal of monumental proportions. This approach is also reflected in the EU's current focus on the pre-emptive seizure and destruction of boats used by smugglers. We must deal with reality. Attempts to prevent crossings are likely to fail as this approach overlooks the reasons people are willing to risk their lives and attempt to cross such deadly seas. They are in search of hope and safety away from persecution and abuse. They are fleeing war and poverty. They have no option. If there is a tiny piece of hope in their hearts that there is a safer place that requires a journey, they are going to take that risk. It is a tough and hard call but families are doing it.In many cases these are desperate situations and there are desperate reasons grounded in forced displacement. This is not a choice people want to make. This is not an easy choice. There are forced displacements and human rights and human rights abuses in making this desperate journey. It if important we have safe, legal routes for people and that we have a humanitarian response to the needs of these people. Therefore, I cannot and will not support the Government's amendment. It is a disappointing one. It is disingenuous. I am quite frankly surprised that it has decided to do so and I will support the Civil Engagement Group. It is a very important motion but it is also a very important statement from this House and I wish the motion well.