Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

Sinn Féin has called for this legislation for several years and we will support it notwithstanding our concerns about its limitations, some of which have been outlined by my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh. In particular, we disagree strongly with the Minister's decision to exclude protection for victims of trafficking from the scope of this Bill. It has become increasingly clear that the official data on the number of persons trafficked to Ireland grossly underestimate the real extent of the problem. These victims cannot wait until the passage of the immigration Bill through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I believe that failing to ensure that victims can come forward without risk of arrest, imprisonment and deportation will also undermine the effectiveness of the Bill before the House today. Consequently, I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter, which has been raised by a number of Deputies during the course of Second Stage debate, and to bring forward protection measures when the Bill is debated on Committee Stage. It would be very helpful to signal clearly such intent in the concluding remarks to Second Stage.

While there is no question that this legislation is needed, we must be realistic about what it can achieve. The vast majority of trafficking victims in this State are trafficked to the State from another country where this law will not apply and where the sanctions it contains will have no deterrent effect. Hopefully they will deter some of those who will be on the receiving end of the trafficking chain in this State and we support the sanctions on that basis. However, the likelihood is that this will simply divert the problem rather than prevent it. The traffickers will find another country to which to send their victims. From a human rights perspective, therefore, measures such as the proposed legislation are not sufficient in themselves and do not stop people from falling victim to human trafficking in the first place.

By focusing excessively on the criminal justice aspect of the problem there is a danger that we are simply closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. The Minister in his opening remarks referred to the different levels on which human trafficking is being targeted. He omitted one aspect which I think is very important and which his colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, touched upon last week in his response to a parliamentary question. He stated:

The majority of people have no wish to uproot themselves from their communities, frequently leaving their families behind, to undertake often dangerous journeys to unknown and uncertain destinations. If people are provided with a minimum level of economic opportunity and the security provided by a functioning accountable Government and basic public services, they will choose to stay in their own countries, towns and villages.

In this instance, the Minister referred to asylum seekers but a similar statement can be made about many of those who fall victim to human traffickers while trying to find employment. They are given the promise of work abroad, earning significantly more than they could in their home country where, in most cases, life is a day to day struggle to provide for their families. Were opportunities available to them at home, far fewer would be vulnerable to the approach of traffickers. From our own experience in Ireland, we are familiar with the relationship between standards of living and outward migration. There is also a clear link between abject poverty and child trafficking as parents in dire circumstances — I suggest circumstances absolutely beyond our imagining — may come under extreme economic pressure to sell their own children. These children may end up as sex slaves, labourers, domestic servants, child soldiers and worse.

Poverty is the underlying issue and the prevention of human trafficking must start with real measures to address it. Ireland alone cannot resolve this problem, but we could do much more about it. We could play a constructive role in challenging the structural adjustment programmes that leave developing countries in debt bondage to the West. We could lobby for power to be given to the United Nations Economic and Social Council to ensure fair regulation of the global economy. We could stand up to US imperialism rather than facilitating it through the use of our airports. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform spoke of the need to take a holistic approach to trafficking, and I agree with him, but a truly holistic approach would begin with a genuine effort to eradicate the negative factors that lead people to leave their homes in the first place. That is the starting point; that is where we must begin.

The Minister also referred to the immigration aspect of human trafficking. I am concerned that we are adopting a dangerous approach to this aspect, relying on increased border controls as a solution. Ireland, like all western states, has tightened its borders considerably in the past decade and during this time the problem of human trafficking to the West has grown and worsened. It is clear the controls are not operating as deterrents to traffickers who know how to get around them and how to use them to their own advantage. Such controls close down the options available for safe and legal migration so that people who believe they need to leave their home, whether out of fear, danger or economic necessity, have recourse only to unsafe and-or illegal options. Sadly, if this means turning to traffickers, they will do so.

Some studies suggest that up to 50% of all trafficking victims have been retrafficked, that after returning or being forcibly returned to their home country, they wind up being trafficked again because the conditions that led them to leave home in the first place remain unchanged and they have no other means of escape. It is hard for people in Ireland, which is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world, to imagine the desperation that could drive someone into the arms of traffickers not once but twice or more often. However, the evidence is there and it is indisputable. Migration is increasing on a global level and clearly it cannot be stopped simply by border tightening. If the international community is serious about preventing people from falling into the hands of traffickers, we must address the dearth of options available for safe and legal migration.

In some cases, the issue of border controls may not even arise. People can be and are trafficked within state borders. Their traffickers may also be in a position to obtain valid visas and work permits for them, usually for a substantial fee. In a recent study by Migrant Rights Centre Ireland entitled No Way Forward, No Going Back: Identifying the problem of trafficking for forced labour in Ireland, only one of the victims interviewed had been smuggled into this State. In the other cases, the traffickers made use of our immigration laws to provide a means by which the victims could enter the country and a means to bind them to their abusive employers. There is a tendency for these workers to be overlooked when the subject of trafficking is discussed. They may be seen simply as victims of labour exploitation. The victims interviewed in the report I cited did not identify themselves as having been trafficked. Many of them blamed themselves for having trusted the person or persons who promised them a better life. It is important to remember that the internationally accepted definition of human trafficking, as contained in the UN Palermo Protocols, makes clear that trafficking occurs when fraud or deception is used to control a person for purposes of exploitation. There must be no exclusion of these workers from the protection made available to victims of trafficking. All too sadly, I reflect that there are many of those of whom I speak in every constituency across the State.

In this regard, I call on the Government to strengthen its efforts in the fight against labour exploitation. The recent decision to opt out of an EU directive penalising employers who knowingly hire trafficking victims, repeatedly violate fair employment practices or are particularly exploitative is extremely disappointing. That it was done at the behest of IBEC, who complained about the bureaucracy that companies would be subjected to, is nothing short of reprehensible. It calls into question the Government's commitment to tackling the problem of human trafficking. I also note that with the ending of the Common Travel Area, the Government will lose one of its excuses why it cannot ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. I urge that we revisit that issue and ratify the convention without delay. Again, I respectfully request that in his closing remarks the Minister of State should give a clear indication of intent in that regard.

While there is much more that needs to be done to address the problem of human trafficking, I welcome the fact that we are at last taking the elementary steps contained in this legislation. I hope the Minister and his colleagues consider the other issues I have raised so that we can work toward developing a truly holistic approach. I conclude by asking the Minister once more to reconsider the decision to delay the introduction of protection measures for trafficking victims. It appears that the Opposition Members are united on this matter. We are not taking this position merely for the sake of political opposition. It is a crucial element in fighting trafficking, an issue on which all parties in this Chamber should and must find common cause. We must help to restore the dignity and human rights of those men, women and children abused by this terrible crime.

See this speech in context