Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. When important legislation is introduced it should be welcomed. I also welcome the priority the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, gave to this legislation and the speed with which it was brought before the House. I commend my colleagues from all sides of the House, but particularly in the Opposition, for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. We must ensure that whatever amendments are made on Committee Stage will make the Bill a genuine instrument that will be of assistance to the victims of trafficking.

What was impressive about the contributions to the debate so far was the stress on vulnerability. When one examines the structure of trafficking beyond the numbers, the person who becomes a victim of trafficking is generally extremely vulnerable. Previously I worked as a sociologist with an interest in the sociology of migration. The first striking aspect of this issue is that the recruitment of people at the point of origin is an exploitation of vulnerability. This vulnerability can be beyond gender and age. With regard to the journey itself, Deputy Naughten referred to the appalling experience of the people who were trapped in a container in Wexford, what happened to them and the purpose of that.

At the destination a new set of vulnerabilities is introduced for the victim. The victim is often deficient in language skills in the new environment. More importantly, they are quite confused and perceive themselves as either illegal or as people who, if discovered in the public space, might face imprisonment, as happened in the Sligo case referred to in the study by NUI Galway. The contributions to the debate which stressed adequate treatment of the victim are entirely correct in their emphasis.

It is a feature of the research into crime over the years, particularly in the case of the old fashioned approach towards prostitution that was referred to by Deputy Cuffe, that the person who is the client walks away while the person who is the provider of the services becomes the focus of attention. That still happens with regard to the victim of trafficking. The first perception a person will have, and it will be used as a mechanism of control over them, is that they are illegal, have nowhere to go and have no way to attract attention to themselves and their vulnerability, even if they had the capacity to do so with their language skills.

The first approach that must be dismissed is the suggestion that one discovers the person as a participant in a crime setting. The person has to be rescued from that setting. It is, therefore, extremely important that the practical proposals that have been made for granting temporary residency and for providing for a period of recovery be accepted. The 12 recommendations made by Dr. Ward and Dr. Wylie in their comparative study on best practice for the delivery of services are valuable. It would be useful if the Minister gave a commitment, as was sought by my colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, to the 12 modest proposals they made. What is more significant than the difference between the figures in Dr. Ward's and Dr. Wylie's study and Ruhama's figures is that we desperately need to resource research in this area. We must also resource vigilance.

I am concerned about the public silence on a related matter, namely, the disappearance without trace or account of unaccompanied young minors who arrived in this country and were in the care of the old health boards and later of the HSE. I spoke to some of them as they made their way through the school system, some of them in this city. They worried that they would face deportation on reaching 18 years of age as no transition to Irish citizenship was possible for them.

Regarding residency and citizenship the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has suggested he will not follow the Spanish and Dutch proposals. This is entirely wrong as their arrangements are well thought out and enable a regularisation that is very practical. The Minister relies on the notion that such proposals send out the wrong message. This is the stuff of the 19th century and it is time we dropped this attitude. We are addressing the movement of people in social space and legislative proposals should deal with this.

Most contributors to this debate have rightly concentrated on the victim and if one found oneself in the position of the woman in Sligo what would one do? One would face arrest, deportation and return to the previous context of vulnerability from which one was originally abstracted. It does not matter whether a friend, neighbour or relative is involved because the fact is it is a modern form of slavery. We should also remember, regarding international law, that when the yield is great from drugs, trafficking and armaments the matters become harder to deal with. People like Manuel Castells examined globalisation in terms of what information technology can facilitate and, tragically, states and institutions are far behind the trades in drugs, armaments and trafficking in terms of technology. Due to the high yields from drugs, trafficking and armaments these trades have adopted new technologies. The international community must catch up in its response to this challenge.

I accept the point made by others on Irish compliance with some of the international instruments that have been developed. This may not be the appropriate time to mention this but I am beginning to think we should examine again our monist and dualist options on ratification. There are so many instruments now, perhaps between 25 and 30, and responsibility falls on the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to ensure compliance. It will become a lead Department in seeking the adjustment of domestic legislation to enable the ratification of what has been signed. There is a case for and against this as some countries sign in bad faith and do not proceed to deliver the protections detailed in the instrument. Regarding instruments that cover fundamental human rights it may be time for us to consider a change of tack as there are other ways of doing this. We could farm out the review necessary on domestic legislation, farm out the drafting of legislation to see if it can be delivered faster and so on.

People have referred to the 200th anniversary of Wilberforce's reforming legislation on the slave trade but they should remember that this did not mean slavery was abolished, only the slave trade within the British Empire. Unfortunately some countries, particularly in Asia, may have up to 250,000 youngsters in bonded labour but I do not want to be distracted by that issue. It has been suggested that the horrific trade in human trafficking may be worth $32 billion and $10 billion of this is derived from the sale of individuals which presents a huge challenge to humanity. Deputy Coveney quoted the figures of the State Department in Washington which suggested that 800,000 people are trafficked worldwide each year. International experts suggest that 2.5 million people are recruited, trapped, transported and exploited.

To progress this legislation between now and Committee Stage we should closely examine the 12 modest proposals made by Doctors Ward and Wylie who studied this matter in detail. We must resource organisations such as Ruhama and it is important to include them when we consider how to establish best practice. Comparative research is very important but I do not want to argue whether the problem in Ireland is serious or not because if the human rights of one person are abused we have a problem. Two people conducting research with inadequate resources may produce differing figures in terms of people trafficked to Ireland, such as 105 or 175, but this is not the issue because Ireland has a problem. There must be specific legal protection and specific measures to allow a person make the transition from exploited victim to new citizen.

I hope my comments are taken in the spirit in which they are offered but a framework is too weak a suggestion. It is necessary to respect the sociology behind a situation and know the circumstances in which the person was originally acquired, moved and entrapped. It must be possible to consider the international information that is available to us and it may be necessary to give a person six months to consider his or her options. Temporary residency is necessary because the person must be able to move into a safe environment. Migrants sometimes spend years in a city before they gain the confidence to know the institutional fabric of the place they find themselves. Frequently migrants have language difficulties and have often been forced to cut their link to bonds with the point of origin from which they may have been sold. Such individuals have nobody and nothing but the vigilance of the State, which sees an illegal interaction between the trafficker and the person exploited. There must be an effective agency in these circumstances that can discover the problem, invigilate to know the extent of it and provide an escape mechanism for the exploited individual. This agency would also need to manage the individual's transition into society and this cannot be done through something as vague as a framework.

I am not blaming any agencies regarding the example I quoted on unaccompanied minors but people were lost and this worries me. At their request I called to see some young people who were preparing for State examinations whose only places of study were the tops of their beds. These young people were in accommodation with adults and had few opportunities because going into the leaving certificate they had only deportation to look forward to. These young people were unaccompanied minors in Ireland for whom we have a human rights obligation in international law. Some unaccompanied minors in Dublin are missing and cannot be accounted for so how can we say they are not being exploited?

I welcome many aspects of the Minister's speech because he says he will take a holistic approach to this issue. The example I gave illustrates how co-operation is needed between health agencies, agencies dealing with children, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and others. It is not satisfactory to suggest that this is a matter for the Health Service Executive, or previously a health board. All that does is pass the parcel with regard to responsibility. I do not suggest that is what people tried to do, but we need a mechanism of joined-up responsibilities within the different areas if we are to deliver.

There are good and sensitive proposals in the Bill, for example, respect for dignity and privacy in respect of people transferring from victim to a new situation, which is a difficult transition. As a sociologist, I must point out that the evidence is not good and the figures are not very encouraging in respect of people who have been damaged by exploitation and their capacity to make this transition, mainly because of what they have been put through both psychologically and in terms of the social setting in which they find themselves.

We need to examine policing or first line enforcement. We also need to consider the attitudes of judges, who desperately need re-education in some areas. Take, for example, the appalling situation we had recently relating to a judge who made the comment about Romanian women selling flowers late at night, "One wonders what they were at". He then went on to make further appalling remarks. I am told the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has no responsibility for what eccentric judges may say, and the Courts Service has no duty of care either. Judges, therefore, can just ramble on. In light of the position of victims and those trapped by trafficking, we need re-education for judges, just as we do on enforcement.

It is important also that we resource the academic research conducted by Dr. Éilis Ward and her colleague Dr. Wiley, but not as a challenge to Ruhama. We need to resource both groups and take their views into account when crafting the new Bill. I look forward to the opportunity for my colleagues to fine tune this overdue, but welcome, Bill on Committee Stage. I look forward to consideration by the Minister of how we may have speedier compliance with our international obligations so as to ratify the international instruments, either by fast-tracking legislation here or by reconsidering the monist and dualist relationship we have towards the ratification of international instruments and human rights.

See this speech in context