Dr. Nusha Yonkova:

I thank the Deputy. He is very knowledgeable and has expressed interest previously in developing a national referral mechanism, which is badly needed indeed. All the issues he raised are relevant so I will address them shortly.

On the matter of a lack of a special procedure for the identification of children, we know by now the cost of child trafficking is extremely high for society in terms of loss of output and in terms of the personal cost that virtually cannot be recovered. This is why we are concerned no child victims are being identified. We are making a range of proposals, some of them centring around greater legal assistance being afforded to children. We need to think specifically about the procedure that will unfold if the child lives with who are safe parents for the child victim or alternatively if the child is entrusted to Tusla and how they seek and instruct legal counsel in these cases. Parents, for example, are not able to seek such legal advice. Children may not be sufficiently mature to request such legal advice under the Civil Legal Aid Act, which is also being considered now. In our opinion, detailed thinking that is separate and specifically with the child victim in mind has to unfold in order to develop procedures that will address this deficiency. That is an absolute priority we agree with the Deputy on.

On the appeal process, we similarly think we should not be relying on judicial review. Judicial review is extremely costly. It clogs the courts. It is an unnecessary use of court time and it also leads to a severe personal cost in waiting. It is not conducive to the early identification process we must ensure in line with Article 11.4 of the anti-trafficking directive. Our view is that head 14, Application for recognition as a victim of human trafficking, which is carried out by individual competent authorities or trusted partners, should not be a decision process but a duty to refer. It should be an evaluation but it should be primarily a duty to refer with the consent of the person and he or she should be able to make multiple applications for such a referral. However, under head 17 we propose a reconsideration or appeal process so the decisions are reviewed in light of further facts to ensure a separate out-of-court appeal procedure. We have already have precedents in the country and we know how it is done. It will be cheaper, more efficient and less burdensome for everyone and it will safeguard better the rights of the people we putting this mechanism in place around.

On the decision-making process, there are similar concerns about the efficiency of decision-making by so many people. We recommend operational panels are drawn from a larger pool of competent authorities and trusted partners. Those panels should have the necessary expertise to preside over decisions about specific forms of exploitation. We should not, for example, put the WRC in the position of adjudicating on trafficking for sexual exploitation or Tusla adjudicating in cases of labour exploitation. It makes sense to have a smaller committee that is quicker to convene, has a higher quality of decisions and speeds up the process. We all want the process to be speedy so we identify people as early as possible and confer the necessary rights.

The inclusion of internationally agreed criteria, or we might even say nationally agreed criteria, is absolutely essential. We cannot go ahead with the presently included, very short and seemingly random list of identifiers that are put there and we totally support this.

The provision of assistance in statute may be one of the key problems with the general scheme. We have the duty to establish an early mechanism for identification and assistance. If we drop the assistance, our mechanism will not be for identification and assistance. We currently have a system whereby assistance is not provided in law. This leads to divergent decisions, to delays and to victims being deprived of their rights. Thus, we strongly recommend that the system be provided simultaneously and that it be all we have committed to do, from providing material assistance and social welfare supports to accommodation in gender-specific shelters, as opposed to direct provision, which is included in the general scheme. We see a scheme that we are working to dismantle, that is, direct provision included in the proposed legislation. We are strongly of the view that we should not rely on direct provision because we are trying to abolish it.

We see concerns about expanding the list of trusted partners in competent authorities indefinitely but, if an approach is taken in line with what we are recommending with regard to withdrawing expert panels who preside in a very informed manner of cases, the issue will be resolved. With regard to victims of trafficking coming forward, we are of the view a positive step is taken to refer to victims of trafficking as applicants and confer on them agency in the processes, as opposed to what has been happening whereby they are left in situations of complete passivity. There is a good choice for potential victims to turn either to a statutory body or an independent entity to be referred for an identification decision to the operational committee panel. This proactive role is to be welcomed, along with a range of good approaches instilled in the general scheme such as a multidisciplinary approach. My colleagues referred to them-----