Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Minister on introducing this long overdue legislation. It at last means Ireland will comply with international obligations. Back in September, shortly after my own election, I put a motion to this House, which remains on the Order Paper, calling on the Government to bring forward legislation without delay criminalising the practice of trafficking in persons for the purposes of sexual exploitation and noting Ireland is at present in breach of international and European obligations in failing to have such legislation in place. We would all acknowledge this is long overdue and very welcome.

This is very much an incomplete Bill and it is very difficult to debate it in any real sense without debating it alongside the provisions contained in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, to which the Minister of State referred. In my view and in best practice in general, it would have been far preferable to have included measures for the protection of victims of trafficking within the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Bill rather than hive them off to another Bill dealing with immigration matters.

The two issues should not be seen in isolation from each other. Persons trafficked into this country will have immigration issues and be in need of serious protection from an immigration point of view, as well as various other human rights perspectives. That many of the protective provisions are contained in the immigration Bill and not the trafficking Bill is a cause of concern.

The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill falls short of the adequate protections for victims of trafficking that would be recognised in best practice elsewhere. For example, the Minister of State referred to the provisions in terms of a period of recovery and reflection; that where persons are found to have been trafficked into a country, rather than being simply deported — the worst practice and in violation of human rights — most other countries provide for a period of recovery and reflection. This would assist the Garda in its investigation of trafficking offences and in trying to apprehend alleged traffickers, and it would give victims time to produce statements.

The period provided in the Bill is only 45 days, which is far too short and should be extended. In the immigration Bill, there is a discretion to give a visa for six months of temporary residence to victims of trafficking. We should view this in the context of the human rights of persons who have been trafficked into the country. Their rights have already been violated and they deserve a more long-term recognition of their status. The Minister should have discretion to give them a more long-term, and possibly indefinite, visa to remain here. At the very least the period of recovery and reflection should be three months rather than 45 days.

There will be real fears among victims of trafficking not only in respect of deportation and their immigration and residence status but in respect of the danger that they would be prosecuted for other offences, most obviously soliciting and loitering for the purpose of prostitution. The legislation should contain a clear non-punishment provision. I pay tribute to the non-governmental organisation Ruhama that has been pressing for many years for the rights of trafficked persons and those engaged in prostitution. It is concerned that the question of non-punishment and the right of victims of trafficking not to be punished is not sufficiently clear. It is also concerned about the lack of protection for victims of trafficking from EU member states. We think of trafficked persons as being from non-EU states but that is not necessarily so. Ruhama believes the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill does not adequately address that issue. Consent is a serious issue in the definition of trafficking and exploitation. The Minister of State referred to this and it has been dealt with in debate, but it may require more clarity when we discuss the provisions of that Bill in detail.

It is important to consider the human rights of trafficked persons as a whole and not as criminal law issues on the one hand and immigration issues on the other. The Minister of State said we need a co-ordinated response but that is not evident in the Bill. It is unfortunate because this is a missed opportunity to explore further the suggestion to criminalise using or availing of the services of a trafficked person. This could have been an opportunity to consider a more radical approach to law reform on trafficking and prostitution generally and study the Swedish model by which using the services of a prostitute is a criminal offence. This removes the need to prove that the alleged abuser knew that the victim or prostitute was trafficked. I urge the Minister of State to reconsider that issue and to try to take a more inclusive approach to the human rights of those who are trafficked.