Ms Mary Henderson:

The indicators should certainly be specified. We would take a much broader approach and suggest, at a minimum, that the Delphi indicators be written into the legislation, but to also account for what IHREC has put forward, that is, a nationally agreed set of indicators to have it broadened out. Regarding some of the other points the Deputy raised, a lot of what he has pointed to, especially around the lack of child-specific measures, is actually provided for within the directive. It is also set out within international best practice recommendations, such as within the OSCE recommendations or in the handbook that has been published by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE.

The Deputy mentioned the jurisdiction of Scotland where there is a specific child advocate service that is appointed to all victims of human trafficking. The directive provides that a guardian shall be appointed to all unaccompanied minor victims of trafficking and also provides for a scenario where a parent or another person in loco parentisis not acting in the best interest of a child and it requires that a guardian be appointed in that scenario. At the moment, guardians are not appointed to children at all within the Irish childcare system so we are already far behind in meeting those kinds of standards. We emphasise the necessity to have a child-specific system brought in.

Some other matters were mentioned. We agree there is a lack of scope for appeal and a lack of clarity around the decision-making process. It needs to be emphasised what that is. Again, the OSCE provides very specific guidelines as to what timeframes would be acceptable. It sets out an initial five-day period for an initial decision and then a maximum of a 90-day period for a subsequent determinative decision. That is reduced considerably for children.

On the difficulty of victims of trafficking coming forward, we call for broad training so that, even where there may be limited competent authorities that will make the formal referrals to the committee, it can be the case that many agencies are practically and appropriately trained to identify the indicators. Again, that causes the necessity of having those indicators properly represented.

One point we want to emphasise - I am not sure whether it has been referred to - is the non-prosecution principle. We agree with IHREC's submission that this should be written in to the legislation to be very clear that victims of trafficking should not be prosecuted for any offence they have been compelled to commit as a result of their trafficking. We need to be very clear on that point. Again, this is written into best practice guidelines and the directive. I do not believe we are meeting that standard as yet.

Regarding the definitions, as well as reasonable grounds being the necessary way in which an assessment is made, we would also set out that the definition of exploitation has to be as broad as possible, not only to account for forms of trafficking that have been identified to date but also to account for new forms of trafficking that may arise in the future.

On the competent authority and the committee decision-making process, it is very difficult to comment on that because we have not been provided with the operational guidelines. Again, we draw the attention of members to the guidelines that are set out. The NRM handbook produced by the OSCE has a long list of 57 recommended standards that ought to be met. That is what should be scrutinised either in the legislation or when the operational guidelines are put forward to ensure that those standards are met. I think I have covered all of the issues.