Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

My amendment is similar to Deputy Rabbitte's, except for one minor change where I have inserted the phrase "which may be renewed". If a temporary residence period or the equivalent period of recovery and reflection is provided for in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill as promised, it was also pledged at the time that protections would be contained in this Bill. As Deputy Rabbitte has outlined, those protections involve a series of provisions to ensure not only that someone could remain within Ireland, in order to recover from whatever abuse and trauma he or she suffered as a victim of trafficking, but also a period of reflection to set down roots and perhaps co-operate with the Garda Síochána. The period is set at 45 days and is slightly more than what was being sought by some of the groups, which was a minimum of 30 days. In both amendments, we have sought a period of six months and for it then to be renewed. Considering how slowly the wheels of justice move in this State, I believe that is an appropriate period. It should be renewable to ensure that if a victim of trafficking were willing to take on the very dangerous course of exposing the trafficker and giving the evidence in court he or she would be protected when in our system and provided with the appropriate housing or shelter; medical, psychological and health care support; counselling, information on legal assistance, financial support; and the opportunity to try to recover and reintegrate into our society or their own country of origin. We should also ensure they have the right to work and the right to access to a vocational education.

A further amendment in my name deals with compensation or legal redress against traffickers. There is a series of measures that I do not think are covered in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. What is contained in that Bill would be more appropriately included in this Bill and should be expanded upon greatly. We do not want a situation where someone uses the period to recover and reflect on whether they will co-operate with the Garda and may be held, as are some people who are totally innocent of any wrongdoing, in Cloverhill Prison pending deportation. What is the position for a person here? All the Bill states is that they will not be deported. That would mean they would be entitled to appropriate housing or shelter. We need to ensure that does not happen.

In Australia, for example, a young woman, a victim of trafficking, died in a detention centre in 2003, following which the Australian Government introduced an automatic humanitarian visa system to enable victims to remain on a temporary or a permanent basis depending on their individual circumstances. Given that the victims are children or young women, it is regrettable the Bill does not deal with what exactly a victim of trafficking is entitled to and would be granted by the State. It is estimated that 80% of the 800,000 people, or more, trafficked are women or children and 70% of them are being trafficked for sexual exploitation. Let us think of the trauma those women and children have experienced by the time they come to the attention of the State or succeed in escaping the clutches of the human traffickers or those who hold them in bondage in slavery. It would be appropriate that the amendments tabled by Deputy Rabbitte and me be taken on board and that the temporary residence permit which was renewable be taken on board. It should be renewable to ensure that, for example, in the middle of a court case the victim does not end up facing other trauma, such as a deportation. It should put be in writing that they know they are guaranteed the right to remain here while the court case is ongoing.

The other point that should be taken on board is that the provision of safe shelter or access to other service for victims of trafficking should not always be conditional on their willingness to take part in criminal proceedings. Often the victims of such trafficking are so traumatised and so afraid of the authorities and the trafficker and fear for their children or families at home that they will not be willing to engage in criminal proceedings against a trafficker. What does one do in that case? If somebody is so weak and so traumatised that they cannot go through that process, do we put them into the normal scheme of immigration and deport them? That is an eventuality that is not provided for in this legalistic text of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. We are dealing with human beings here and considering what has happened to victims of trafficking, we need to be much more humane in our approach. That is what we were looking for. We have a Bill that has the support of the House but we are trying to ensure it is the best possible Bill and that we do not have to come back and add to it at a future date.

See this speech in context