Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Rabbitte as a gcuid ama a roinnt liom.

Sinn Féin broadly supports the Fine Gael motion. In many respects, it does not go far enough in demanding the introduction of real, effective measures to combat human trafficking and to protect the victims of this odious crime. While Sinn Féin welcomed the Minister's human trafficking legislation, it believes it did not go far enough.

While progress has been made in this area, the Government's predictably self-congratulatory amendment makes reference to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. The State has not even ratified that convention. There is nothing in the Government amendment suggesting that it plans to. Just as we were the last EU state to make human trafficking an offence, we are now lagging behind the 26 other Council of Europe members that have already ratified the convention. It is a shameful distinction and one that the Government should reverse immediately.

I welcome the plans to extend the recovery period to 60 days, up from the 45 days currently provided for in the Immigration Residence and Protection Bill. Deputy Naughton's Committee Stage amendments called for a 90-day period although that is not reflected in the Fine Gael motion. The amendment that Deputy Finian McGrath submitted in my name called for it to be extended to six months. I repeat that call.

When someone has been through such a traumatic experience, it is simply unrealistic to expect them to recover from it quickly. Sixty days is an improvement on 45 but it is still insufficient if the aim is to provide genuine assistance to these victims rather than to use them to gain prosecutions only. It must always be remembered that these are the victims of an odious crime.

By the same token, it is crucial the recovery period not be made dependent on co-operation with the Garda. Many victims are simply too traumatised. Often they may have genuine and understandable fears about co-operating with the police due to the nature of policing in their home countries. There is also a real risk in some cases that co-operation could put themselves or their families in danger. Traffickers often keep their victims in line by means of threats to their families or to themselves if they ever return home.

There are also young people trafficked by family members or family friends who exercise authority over them which, due to cultural factors, the young person may not feel able to defy. There are several reasons why a trafficking victim may not co-operate with police but this does not negate their human right to a recovery period.

This is made clear in the convention which states that the personal situation of the victim should also be taken into account. It was also noted by the expert group on trafficking in human beings, established by the European Commission in 2003, which advised:

those trafficked persons who do not wish to testify as witnesses - or are not required as witnesses, because they possess no relevant information or because the perpetrators cannot be taken into custody in the destination country - require equally adequate protection and assistance as victim-witnesses.

Recovery should be a central objective of government policy in this area. The national action plan, referred to in the amendment, is weak on supports for trafficking victims. In many cases these people have been raped, beaten, tortured and abused. It is unclear how their needs for legal assistance, safe and secure housing, social supports, interpretation, translation, counselling and suitable medical care are to be met. This assistance must be provided to victims, regardless of their willingness to act as a witness in any proceedings against those responsible for their trafficking. We would welcome the support of victims in any proceedings against the perpetrator but it should not always be compulsory.

Human trafficking can encompass a wide range of forced activities. The Fine Gael motion concentrates on sex trafficking but there are other forms. Around the globe, and undoubtedly in Ireland, significant numbers of people are trafficked to work in the domestic sector, the agriculture and catering industries. I commend the Migrant Rights Centre for the excellent work it has done in exposing these practices, but the extent of trafficking for forced labour is still under-recognised.

The head of the British human trafficking centre, North Yorkshire Chief Constable Grahame Maxwell, recently stated more people are trafficked for labour exploitation than for sexual exploitation. I am not sure whether that is the case in Ireland. However, as long this type of trafficking is overlooked there will be many cases that go undetected and with dire consequences for its victims.

The Government could take a significant step toward ending this practice by signing and ratifying the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. This has been in force since June 2003 and is the only one of the core UN human rights treaties that the State has not signed. In defending its refusal to sign, the Government continues to hide behind the Common Travel Area. Anyone who has tried to enter this State from Britain in the past six or seven years knows that the Common Travel Area is dead in the water.

Greater attention also needs to be paid to the trafficking of children not only for sexual exploitation and forced labour but also for begging and petty theft. The International Organization for Migration has noted a marked increase in this problem across Europe in recent years. A report published by the Swedish national criminal police earlier this year described how what appears to be a family unit consisting of two adults and two to three children will travel from country to country, with the children being sent out to do the begging or stealing because they can usually avoid prosecution. The report stated the children are trained from an early age not to co-operate with the authorities which reinforces the point I made earlier about the need to separate co-operation from the granting of a recovery period.

Again, the extent of this type of trafficking in this State is unclear but it merits investigation, particularly in view of the unfortunate comments recently made by a judge about certain parents raising their children to steal. There are children being raised to steal, undoubtedly, but it may not be their parents doing the raising.

See this speech in context