Alex White (Labour)

While I believe I have ten minutes, in deference to some of my colleagues who are present I will not use them all. However, I wish to reserve my right to so do.

Like all Members, I strongly welcome the publication of this Bill. As Senators Boyle, Regan and others have noted, it has been subjected to rigorous and thoughtful debate in the other House. The Minister has been prepared in some instances to accept amendments from the Labour Party, Fine Gael and others, which is all to the good in this context.

At the outset, I wish to refer to a point made by Senator Boyle, with which I strongly agree. I have made this point in the House in the past and as an issue of principle it is worth repeating. I understood Senator Boyle to say that the practice of legislation confining itself to enabling provisions, thereby shifting the power to make or at least to elaborate the law to secondary legislation and ministerial regulation, should be resisted. This should be done only when a compelling case to so do exists. The matter under debate is one on which Members should ensure the principle of the law as they elucidate it and wish it to be is set out in primary legislation. It should be subject to debate in this House and among the public in order that it has the credibility of laws genuinely promulgated by the Houses of Parliament, rather than simply by Ministers. While this does not constitute a criticism of individual Ministers who must operate within the law, it is much better that laws are made by legislators rather than allowing them to be left to ministerial orders or regulation.

The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill has gone before the Dáil and will come before the Seanad in the coming months. It is an example of legislation that strays too far into the practice of including enabling provisions that do not set out in sufficient detail the principles of the legislative provisions that society desires. This is a pity and Members will have an opportunity to raise this matter when the aforementioned Bill comes before the House.

It is no exaggeration to refer to human trafficking and trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation as modern forms of slavery. My colleague, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, has made the point elsewhere that it is no exaggeration to describe it as such. People were of the opinion that slavery was a phenomenon that finished in the 19th century. However, they only need to look at the regular news reports of really shocking exploitation, sometimes in the context of international sexual slavery rings. Ireland is no more unscathed in this regard than any other country.

It is known that the women concerned, some of whom are girls in their early teens, are being sold into sexual slavery. Sufficient empirical evidence exists to enable one to be certain that young girls and boys are sold into sexual slavery as a result of their vulnerability as individuals because of their youth, the circumstances that obtain in their countries of origin or because they wish to make a better life for themselves. This simple fact should make one pause and consider. While they do not wish to be exploited and have a right not to be, their principal motivation as human beings often is that fundamental motivation shared by all, that is, to make a better life for themselves. The exploitation of young people in such circumstances is a particularly vile feature of the phenomenon of migration. Any civilised country or society must regard as a matter for condemnation the circumstances in which young people, who are attempting to flee poverty in their own countries or some form of oppression or who simply wish to improve the conditions of their lives and futures, fall into the clutches of the lowest form of criminals. I refer to those who are prepared to grow wealthy from trafficking and exploiting people in prostitution.

I welcome the Bill's publication and was impressed by the breadth of the Minister's analysis and description of the problem, both nationally and internationally. It forms a good basis on which to have the debate required by Members and wider society on this issue. While part of the function of debate in these Houses is to introduce the best legislation possible, it also is to signal to wider society that legislators take seriously this issue. It should be signalled in the most public way that it is not a practice we will allow to continue. Even if we are addressing this question a little late, it is important we are doing so now.

I agree with my colleagues' statements on the vital contribution made by a number of different organisations in respect of trafficking. National Government organisations and voluntary organisations have been raising the issue over the years, sometimes with very little response from politicians. Ruhama, which has been mentioned by some of my colleagues, has been to the fore in this area. I had the pleasure of meeting some of its representatives during the course of the general election campaign because some of them live in Dublin South. I was left with a very clear message from the organisation that this issue needed to be addressed in a robust way by the Legislature. I am glad we are now doing so.

I am not suggesting human trafficking is morally equivalent to any other form of exploitation but believe strongly that it is another feature of exploitation and forced labour which unfortunately comprise a phenomenon of developed countries, including Ireland. I have raised the issue of labour standards in Ireland. I am not suggesting this is an aspect of the same issue as it is a discrete area that deserves to be dealt with in its own right. We are reminded that an increase in wealth and economic activity is accompanied by the emergence of an ugly underbelly of which trafficking is one example. Our legislation needs to deal with it specifically and also to understand that where there is success and economic achievement, there is also an ugly form of exploitation.

I look forward to addressing some of the specifics of the Bill that I do not regard as absolutely satisfactory. The question of the protection of victims must be addressed. It was considered in the other House but has not been resolved adequately. The Minister of State has been inclined to say the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 will deal with some of these questions but it only deals with non-EEA immigration. As Ruhama and other organisations have pointed out very compellingly, a very large percentage of young people trafficked into Ireland come from eastern European countries that are now members of the European Union. It will not be sufficient to state the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill will be the vehicle with which to deal with victim support.

Senator Boyle referred to the risk of deporting victims. One could find oneself trafficked into Ireland and exploited and then deported if the exploitation comes to an end, perhaps as a result of an economic bust. The Senator was correct to raise this issue but he will accept that the risk he outlined is not resolved in the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Bill 2007. It is a serious question and needs to be addressed. This ought to be achieved in this Bill rather than in another. Let us adopt an holistic approach rather than a narrow one based on criminal law.