Ms Hilkke Becker:

Senator Bacik asked if the solution to the anomaly in the system lay in the current administrative arrangements and whether the current position amounts to deliberate exclusion. I will respond to her questions in reverse order. A concern has been expressed that bogus claims could be made concerning trafficking if we treated the victims of trafficking too favourably. The Immigrant Council of Ireland does not share this concern as we have in place an administrative system that can deal with claims. People would not put themselves through this process lightly. Becoming or being recognised as a suspected victim of trafficking involves an excruciating and detailed process of interviews, as is appropriate, which forms part of a potential police investigation. Where prosecutions follow, the victims of trafficking may present themselves as witnesses. I do not agree that someone would lightly claim to be trafficked if he or she had not been trafficked.

We do not necessarily believe that every victim of trafficking is in need of international protection in that not every victim of trafficking would qualify for refugee status. Our concern is that those who are clearly in need of international protection are discouraged from accessing the mechanism that would otherwise be open to them. The solution is for the administrative immigration arrangements to simply acknowledge that the permit granted under the Refugee Act does not live up to the standard required by international law. As is done in other European Union member state jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, these arrangements should allow a parallel system under which full stamp 4 resident permits would be provided to suspected victims of trafficking while they are assisting with the investigation and prosecution of a claim. They should be allowed, in parallel and where necessary, to apply for asylum and go through that process.

On direct provision, we are echoing what we hear from clients. For example, some of those being accommodated in mixed accommodation may be known to have been involved involuntarily in prostitution and might, therefore, be even more vulnerable to sexual advances and harassment within mixed hostels.

Again it is something that has been echoed internationally and something that has been highlighted by the Council of Europe GRETA committee.

Given that this is the work of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, I am focusing on victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation. The people - predominantly women - we deal with would all be victims of sexual violence. We should also not forget that there are, of course, victims of trafficking who are victims of labour exploitation. When we concentrate on victims of sexual violence, clearly there must be women-only accommodation and organisations such as Women's Aid and Ruhama would echo this. We need accommodation that provides more protection where women can recover in peace.

The question of statelessness is an entirely different issue. Just not becoming an Irish citizen through birth, as we had until 2004, does not necessarily leave children stateless - they would ordinarily acquire the nationality of their parent. This is an area in which the Immigrant Council also works. We are concerned about children being left stateless where they cannot claim citizenship of their parents for one reason or the other. That would be something that would fall under the right to private life basically - the right to recognition as a person - similar to being recognised as a transgender person. That is the angle from which we would view the issue of statelessness.