Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)

I am sharing time with Deputies Halligan, Boyd Barrett, Joan Collins and Finian McGrath.

Like the other speakers I believe this Bill represents a tidying up of a diverse range of areas, many of which are welcome and non-controversial but a number of which do not go far enough and represent somewhat of a lost opportunity. I will comment on a number of those.

The first is the area of human trafficking which has not been sufficiently dealt with by the State in the past. I am not in the habit of quoting from United States State Department reports but I will break with tradition now. It is an indictment of our dealings in this area that Ireland has been cited by the US State Department as having a very poor role in dealing with this area because while we are ranked as a tier 1 country, which means we recognise human trafficking, we only meet minimum standards and have serious flaws in terms of how we deal with this issue. We have formally identified only five people as victims of trafficking in the past year, despite the State identifying potentially 78 people in that category. It is a poor reflection on us that only one person was prosecuted in the past year for sex trafficking offences in Ireland. The question is whether this legislation improves or disimproves that position.

While it is welcome that the victims of trafficking are getting a chance to access legal advice in regard to the State's prosecution of traffickers, as the Immigrant Council of Ireland has stated, in not providing them with legal representation the legislation falls short of what is necessary if we are to truly deal with this scenario. The victims of trafficking are extremely vulnerable people whose status in this country is insecure and who have been through severe trauma. They need legal representation. Could we envisage a cross-examination scenario where the victim is brought to give evidence on behalf of the State against a powerful trafficker who has access to money and resources? The only representation they are allowed is in regard to questions about their past sexual history and nothing beyond that. There must be more in that regard. There must be more than a six month extension to their residency as well if we are to expect those people to assist the Garda to tackle trafficking.

The other aspect is the issue of the changes to the Immigration Act. As Deputy O'Brien stated, this has been brought about as a result of the High Court case regarding the Garda being allowed to demand identification on the flimsiest of grounds where non-Irish nationals face prosecution if they fail to produce identification with what was called a satisfactory explanation, but that is open to abuse and to racial profiling. They did not even have to suspect the person of committing a crime. If they had different coloured skin or a different accent and they did not look Irish they could be stopped. It is not an insignificant matter given that almost 300 people were convicted for failure to produce their identification in 2008.

In any legislative position a law must be clear, particularly if the activity is to be criminalised. The distinction between replacing a satisfactory explanation with reasonable cause is not sufficient to overcome the difficulties. There will not be any difference in terms of racial screening or the tendency to stop people because they look or sound different. That is vitally important because people being stopped and questioned by the gardaí or immigration officers on the streets contributes to attitudes in that people wonder what they did and think there is something afoot. That contributes to racism. In that regard we have a responsibility to deal with this issue but and this legislation does not do that.

The other aspect which has got a great deal of focus is the issue of bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a means to provide relief for creditors, where somebody is unwilling or unable to pay their debts, to ensure there is an equitable distribution of property. These are quite different scenarios because we know of many people in this society with massive bank accounts who were unwilling to pay their debts and have exited this country and taken their moneys and resources with them or signed them over to their wives. That is a different situation to that of people who are unable to pay their debts and who have struggled to attempt to do so but who clearly do not have the means to address that situation. It is the case that Ireland is severely out of kilter with our European neighbours in that regard.

I welcome the fact that the period has been reduced to five years but it is still too long. The point has been made that in Britain the period is one year. We should look in that direction because, sadly, there is an increasing number of small business people and individuals whose level of over-indebtedness has been used to put them into a position of potential bankruptcy.

In regard to the need to protect the family home in particular, we must examine legislation in a more coherent way. There is a distinction but we must address that. It is a step in the right direction but there is a basis for going further with it.

See this speech in context