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…

I have a few points to make. As a legislator, I do not and cannot rely on prosecutorial power. I believe in the separation of powers. Therefore, we need to take our powers seriously and I would not abdicate our responsibilities to ensure the best possible quality of legislation be deferred, in the hope of prosecutorial discretion. I am also aware that circumstances change. We would not have believed five or ten years ago some of the practices that we have seen happening across Europe. I do not believe we would have…

I am sorry to keep pressing on this. As the Minister of State said, the decision has been not to prosecute. Of course, we want the DPP to be able to do its work. We try to produce good laws so that it can do that. However, the fact is that we are not being given an evidence base that it cannot secure prosecutions. Even if we decide to give the DPP the benefit of the doubt, and listen to the concern that has been expressed and try to give it a better opportunity, that is only one step. Another step is that we would …

I move amendment No. 6: In page 10, line 1, to delete “or has reasonable cause to believe”. I will not spend long on this amendment, but I am concerned with the interpretation here. Section 8(1)(b) refers to a person who "knows or has reasonable cause to believe that such entry into, transit across or presence in the State is in breach of a specified provision". What was unclear regarding this section was the role of understanding of the laws of the state in the context of somebody entering, transiting across or be…

To clarify, this section does apply to rescue ships and it does apply to anybody doing any of those actions, and it does not only apply because we have chosen not to put in an exemption. In fact, this applies to everybody, and then they may have a defence. That is the problem. We will come across this in many places, whereby it applies to everybody and then they may have a defence. That is not the same as saying "This law will not target ...". This law affects anybody engaging in search and rescue. When we talk abo…

I move amendment No. 7: In page 10, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(5) Where a person engages in conduct described under subsection (4) in respect of a family member under 18, such conduct shall not constitute an offence.”. Amendments Nos. 7 to 9, inclusive, address the same issues. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 do it in a wider way. Amendment No. 8 is probably the widest framing, and amendment No. 9 is certainly our attempt at doing a more restrictive and more measured balanced framing. In his speech…

It is really important to be clear this is not the humanitarian assistance space. There are two parties who are in jeopardy of wrongful prosecution, basically, and in some cases there is a chilling effect from this. They are those who are offering humanitarian assistance. I refer to those who can, for example, show they are employees of a human rights NGO etc., and who are using that as a defence. Again, I believe that should be dealt with as an exemption in the Bill. However, this relates to the smuggled persons t…

We will withdraw it and look to engage and address this issue, which we all want addressed.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 10, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: (5) Where a person engages in conduct described under subsection (4) in respect of a family member, such conduct shall not constitute an offence.”. I will withdraw it, while reserving the right to reintroduce.

I move amendment No. 9: In page 10, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “(5) The possession or control of a fraudulent travel or identity document with the intention that it shall be used for the purpose of assisting the entry into, transit across or presence in a designated state of another person, shall not be an offence in cases where the other person is a family member and the person in possession or control of the documents is themselves being smuggled.”. I will withdraw it, while reserving the r…

These are the core points again. I am aware the decision was made to go with a certain approach in terms of a defence but I urge the Minister of State to strongly consider the point on the exemption and to consider the fact the exemption, as I stated earlier, is in fact a middle ground. We are already seeing a more robust set of laws that might be applied. An exemption for humanitarian actors is the centre ground in this and it would ensure we do not have a number of jeopardies. The jeopardy he is talking about con…

I want to be very clear. I am not suggesting that we interfere in the DPP process. I am precisely pointing out that we cannot. That is why we do law. That is why we make and write laws, so that they can be interpreted. We absolutely have a political separation. It is important that we do and just as we have that, maybe we will not have a situation where you have countries where there is a political pressure to take an aggressive approach. Similarly, however, we are not in a position to say this is how we hoped the …

I move amendment No. 11: In page 11, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: " Protection from prosecution 9. A person shall not be prosecuted for an offence under section 6 , 7 or 8 , where the person engaged in conduct alleged to constitute an offence under section 6 , 7 or 8 — (a) in order to provide, in the course of his or her work on behalf of a bona fide humanitarian organisation, assistance to a person seeking international protection in the State or equivalent status in another state if the purpose…

I will withdraw it and reserve the right to raise it again on Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 12: In page 11, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: " Protection from prosecution 9. A person shall not be considered to have committed an offence under section 6 or 7 , where the person engaged in conduct alleged to constitute an offence under section 6 or 7 — (a) in order to provide, in the course of his or her work on behalf of a bona fide humanitarian organisation, assistance to a person seeking international protection in the State or equivalent status in another state if the p…

I will withdraw it. With the Leas-Chathaoirleach's permission, I want to point out that this amendment relates only to sections 6 and 7. The provision of a direct and clear exemption could relate to any one of sections 6, 7 or 8. In this amendment, I recognise that section 8 is a little more complicated than sections 6 and 7. I give notice that I intend to look at this matter further.

I move amendment No. 13: In page 11, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: " Protection of smuggled persons from prosecution 10. A person who has been the object of people smuggling shall not be considered to have committed an offence under any provision of this Act.". These amendments relate to the protection of persons who are the object of smuggling. I have tried in previous amendments to address a specific jeopardy under section 8 in terms of the documentation. That might not even be necessary if we…

I will engage with the Minister of State around ensuring that we close this gap.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 11, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “Protection of smuggled persons from prosecution 10. A person shall not become liable to criminal prosecution under this Act for the fact of having been the object of people smuggling.”.

I move amendment No. 15: In page 11, after line 40, to insert the following: “International protection in respect of smuggled persons 11. A person who has been the object of people smuggling and subsequently sought international protection may not be transferred or deported to either a state of origin or a state including protocol states and states which have entered into agreements with the European Union in respect of migration, where the human rights of that person, including rights under the 1951 Convention on …