Mr. Brian Killoran:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak. The Immigrant Council of Ireland is a civil society organisation and independent law centre active in the area of migrant immigration rights and integration since 2001. As a significant element of our expertise, we carry out dedicated activities in support of migrant women who experience gender-based violence. This work focuses on the areas of domestic violence and the crime of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. We offer free legal representation through our legal services to victims of human trafficking to address their legal needs. This ranges from early legal advice prior to disclosure to representation about residency and other ancillary matters such as access to education, family reunification and issues relating to their long-term residency status.

In providing this support, we have long identified the need for reform to the process of victim identification as it is carried out through the national referral mechanism. We welcome the commitment of the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and her officials to this reform, as well as recognising many additional positive developments in our national response to this issue, such as the appointment of our colleagues in the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission as the national independent rapporteur on the issue, the ongoing process of the revision of the national action plan against human trafficking, the increased level of funding to support services providing services to victims of human trafficking, and the third national strategy on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, which is significant.

However, significant issues remain to be resolved. One is the ongoing lack of development in the integration needs of survivors of trafficking, with the ongoing policy of accommodating survivors in the direct provision system being the single most significant and abhorrent barrier to a survivor’s recovery and ultimate reintegration into our society. This is an issue we can return to in our discussion. As the committee will see from our submission, we have analysed the current proposals in-depth and I will conclude by pulling out some quick points for discussion. I refer first to notable positives. We welcome that the NRM is being placed on a legislative footing as we and others have long recommended. We welcome the non-discriminatory and multi-agency approach, including the creation of trusted partners envisioned, and we are pleased that, as it appears, survivors are not required to co-operate with criminal investigations in order to receive the full range of support. We believe both of these measures will assist greatly in the investigation, prosecution and prevention of human trafficking.

However, in our submission we have highlighted several areas which require attention. The lack of published operational guidelines regarding many of the details of the operation or the proposed revised NRM is a noticeable omission and undermines significant analysis of key areas of the general scheme. Other issues include the lack of clarity regarding whether the operational guidelines will replace the current administrative immigration arrangements, which are a key process in the survivor's journey. It is unclear if the list of bodies in the general scheme referred to as competent authorities is exhaustive and can include additional agencies. Additionally, it is unclear what Government Department the operational committee will rest with, although we understand it is likely to be within the Department of Justice, although that needs clarification. If it is intended to be a stand-alone body, that needs to be clarified. The definition of exploitation in the general scheme should be defined in a sufficiently broad manner to allow for new and emerging forms of human trafficking, as has been mentioned.

As it stands, the general scheme makes no reference to appeal processes, or acceptable administrative timeframes for decisions to be made, which we believe is a significant omission. There is a lack of clarity regarding the sharing of information, what constitutes the consent of the survivor and what level of training and competency must exist within the operational committee, competent authority and trusted partners. As I mentioned, there is a significant issue with integration and the direct provision system being named as the accommodation approach for victims of human trafficking, contrary to the submissions of support organisations, international analysis and the spirit of the directive. The directive is extremely instructive about the level of support that should be provided to survivors and we believe the legislation should reflect this.

As members will see from our submission, there are additional areas where we have raised concerns and recommendations. We welcome the opportunity to discuss those with members. We believe that an opportunity exists in this process to solidify and enhance Ireland's approach in this area. We urge the Minister and Government to take the opportunity, as a significant stand against this horrendous international crime and human rights abuse.