This gives rise to two issues. First, the response ignores that, subsequent to the 60-day period for recovery and reflection allowed to a victim of trafficking, that is a victim who is not in the asylum process, the individual concerned will then be granted a temporary residence permit under the administrative arrangement and, with that, a stamp four residence permit which enables him or her to access private rented accommodation, social supports, training and employment. In contrast, victims of human trafficking who have exercised their rights to seek international protection are left in direct provision accommodation, which has been widely criticised, including by UN bodies such as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD. In its concluding observations in March 2011, CERD expressed concern about the negative impact that the policy of direct provision could have on the welfare of asylum seekers who can suffer health and psychological problems that in some cases lead to serious mental illness. Particularly in regard to victims of sexual violence, direct provision should not be considered appropriate. This point has been echoed by the Council of Europe committee. Second, in the considered view of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, the Government's response that the administrative immigration arrangements for victims of human trafficking apply only to those who would not otherwise have permission to be in this State is the result of a misinterpretation of the requirement, at least, under the Council of Europe convention that resident permits are to be issued to victims who are either illegally present or are legally resident with a short-term residence permit. We argue that while victims of trafficking who are in the asylum process are not at immediate risk of deportation, they do not have the type of residence permit that would satisfy the requirements of the convention. We submit that as the permission to remain granted to asylum seekers under the Refugee Act will cease when they are transferred to another EU member state, when their applications are withdrawn or, most likely, when the Minister refuses to give them a declaration that they are refugees, this permission cannot be interpreted as anything other than short-term in nature. Our view is supported by the fact that for the purpose of social welfare and pensions legislation, asylum seekers and persons who have applied for subsidiary protections are persons who shall not be regarded as being habitually resident in the State. In the absence of a temporary residence permit being issued to a victim of trafficking, he or she will not be considered habitually resident in this State - I refer to an asylum seeking victim - and, therefore, will be excluded from social welfare services, including disability allowance, one-parent family payments, carer's allowance and child benefit. The Government stated in its response that a suspected victim of trafficking who has had his or her application for asylum rejected will be entitled to temporary residence permission under the administrative immigration arrangements at that stage. In such cases, suspected victims are notified of the refusal of their asylum claims and their eligibility for temporary residence permission. We are particularly concerned from practical experience that victims of trafficking who had been co-operating with the competent authorities throughout the processing of their asylum claims have received notification of intention to deport pursuant to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 following refusal of their asylum applications, rather than being issued with temporary residence permits under the administrative immigration arrangements. We submit this is not something that automatically happens. We submit that the treatment of asylum seeking victims, as set out above, is in breach of Article 14 of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Organised Crime, which states that nothing in the protocol shall affect the rights, obligations and responsibilities of states and individuals under international law, including in particular the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, where applicable. Similarly, Article 14(5) of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings requires that the granting of a temporary residence permit to a victim of human trafficking shall be without prejudice to the right to seek and enjoy asylum. In situations where asylum victims are clearly at a disadvantage compared with those who are not pursuing claims for refugee status, even where they are clearly in need of international protection, they are discouraged from pursuing such a claim. On that basis the current system in Ireland is in breach of the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution, as enshrined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The second or ancillary issue that the Seanad committee raised with the Immigrant Council of Ireland is legal representation and access to justice for victims of human trafficking. We are of the view that immediate access to legal advice and intervention is critical to ensuring that all victims of trafficking are fully informed of their rights and obligations at the earliest possible opportunity and are able to make an informed choice regarding their immigration status, where relevant. Currently, and contrary to the information provided in the Government report, the Legal Aid Board's refugee legal service only provides legal services on certain matters to persons identified by the Garda National Immigration Bureau as potential victims of human trafficking under the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008. In other words, potential victims of trafficking are required to present to An Garda Síochána and provide at least basic details of their identity and situation before they are eligible for State funded legal assistance and information. This is not in line with international requirements. Furthermore, the services offered to potential victims of human trafficking are currently limited to information on the rights of a victim in a criminal trial, access to compensation and voluntary return to the victim's country of origin. While the legal services currently provided to victims of trafficking in Ireland seem to meet the minimum requirements of the UN protocol, they fall short of the requirements of Article 15(2) of the Council of Europe convention, which provides for the right to free legal assistance and legal aid for victims in regard to compensation and legal redress. Additionally, we wish to highlight that the response to the concluding observations of the UN Human Rights Committee currently contained in Ireland's draft fourth periodic report under the ICCPR fails to address certain matters raised by the committee which specifically affect migrant victims of human trafficking. The committee had requested,inter alia, that an independent appeals procedure be introduced to review all immigration related decisions and stated that engaging in such a procedure, as well as resorting to judicial review of adverse decisions, should have a suspensive effect in respect of such decisions. While it is acknowledged that work on a new immigration, residence and protection Bill is ongoing, the issues raised by the committee must be considered in the drafting of any such legislation in order to ensure full compliance with Article 13 of the covenant. In particular, the establishment of an independent appeals mechanism to deal with immigration decisions not falling within the remit of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is the only way to ensure access to fair procedures and effective remedies for migrants and their family members, including victims of human trafficking. Bearing in mind the focus of this presentation, the Immigrant Council of Ireland also submits that a decision made by a member of the Garda not to identify a person as a suspected victim of human trafficking, as well as the subsequent and consequential decision by the Minister for Justice and Equality not to grant the person a recovery and reflection permit or temporary residence permit under the administrative immigration arrangements, must also be subject to independent judicial review. Currently, however, people seeking to challenge such decisions are required to resort to the High Court for judicial review instead of accessing a more efficient and cost-effective immigration appeals tribunal. Access to justice for migrants is already limited in that the High Court, as part of judicial review proceedings, is not in a position to review the merits of a case and cannot deal with questions of fact. Unlike an expert administrative tribunal, the High Court does not have the power to alter or vary an administrative decision and access to the court is severely limited by the 14-day time limit contained in the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, as well as by the high financial risk applicants are taking because, in case of an unsuccessful outcome of their application, they may have to pay the legal costs of the State.