Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(6) When sentencing, the Judge may also, where appropriate, issue an order mandating the payment of compensation to the victim.".

As drafted, the Bill allows the judge to do two things, namely, to fine or imprison somebody. We believe the judge should be empowered to mandate reparations to the victim in the form of direct compensation from his or her trafficker. This is important given the financial gain to the trafficker from abusing the victim. It is also important given that some victims may not continue to reside in this State long enough to pursue civil proceedings for compensation. If the trafficker is found guilty by the State under the current system, it would be open to the victims to pursue compensation in civil proceedings or some of the assets of the trafficker. If the victim leaves the jurisdiction, which would be his or her right, to return home or to set up a life somewhere else, he or she may not be here long enough to pursue civil proceedings or may not understand that he or she can take this initiative. There is also the cost of taking civil proceedings and everything that entails. It is reasonable that, where appropriate, the judge can mandate the payment of compensation by the trafficker.

Today's headlines mentioned a forced labour case that the Migrant Rights Centre, which should be congratulated, took to a rights commissioner. It ended up with the migrant worker being awarded €116,000. The Migrant Rights Centre said this case contained all the elements of human trafficking for forced labour. This man was brought to Ireland and made to work under extremely exploitative conditions. He was controlled by the employer and threatened to the extent that he had no option but to tolerate the exploitation. The case concerned a Dublin restaurant and I do not know why the restaurant or the restaurateur has not been named. The Pakistani man was forced to work in appalling conditions for five years, earning only €150 per week, of which €100 was deducted by the employer for his accommodation. He had no days off.

Siobhán O'Donoghue, director of the Migrant Rights Centre, said the victim was fortunate that he was still documented which meant that it could take the case and make it possible for him to seek justice. She called for better protection for people trafficked for forced labour in the up and coming Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. Some of what we are dealing with here relates to labour exploitation.

In this case, the person had the pleasure, if that is the right word, of seeing the person, who abused him, denied him the right to earn a proper living and held his passport, prosecuted. He also gained compensation for the period of time he was held in such circumstances from the experience. Ms O'Donoghue also states that if the Minister is serious about combating trafficking of people, he needs to acknowledge that trafficking for forced labour is a reality in this country and offer real protections to those in these circumstance because anything less is shameful.

It is in that context that the amendment has been tabled. If people are so abused, the trauma will live with them forever. They may not be able to pursue a normal life thereafter and overcome the trauma to set up a home, have a family or return to some type of work. They would be at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives, with no hope of compensation. At least compensation would give them some way to rebuild their lives and give them the security they deserve having gone through such a trauma. I urge the Minister to accept this reasonable amendment.

See this speech in context