Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and the visitors in the public Gallery to the House. The Bill, which is also welcome, is trying to achieve something I tried to achieve through my own recent Bill, the Employment Permits (Amendment) Bill 2012, partly as a response to the dreadful treatment of Mr. Muhammad Younis.

The MRCI has dealt with more than 180 cases of forced labour over the past six years in Ireland. That is a reminder of what is happening but I am sure that is only the tip of the iceberg, with many other workers too frightened to come forward and I can understand why. This type of forced labour has been described as modern slavery, with coercion and psychological abuse being used to extract consent in a range of overt or more subtle ways. For example, a person may withhold a passport or legal documents or otherwise threaten a worker's family. That is what happened in the case of Muhammad Younis. These workers mainly operate in non-unionised, unregulated sectors such as private homes, the agriculture, restaurant and entertainment industries as well as the care and construction sectors. Trafficking for sexual exploitation, which has been mentioned by numerous speakers, remains the greatest concern, especially when children are involved.

Let us also not forget the Magdalen laundries and that horrific form of forced labour. The State was even involved in purchasing services. As the State continues to be such a large purchaser of goods and services, how it is ensuring there are no elements of forced labour or human trafficking in the supply chain is a big question. I understand that the Australian Government intends to introduce legislation whereby it will only buy from companies that have demonstrated they have made an effort to cut out any possibility of forced labour. Given that public procurement is worth billions of euro, why are the Government and the public sector not examining themselves if they are serious about tackling trafficking in human beings? Too often the public sector and the Government fail to examine their own role in issues such as this. Would the Minister of State be open to looking at this issue to legislate in order that public procurement has a role in ensuring it has no part in forced labour? Surely we should learn from the past in this regard. By making this move, the Government could go beyond a mere apology and demonstrate how it will not support such situations in any form or manner.

Retailers and businesses can also play a role in helping to limit the effects of human trafficking and forced labour. In recent years there was an interesting development in California called the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act which applies to all retail sellers or manufacturers doing business anywhere in the state of California with $100 million or more in annual worldwide gross revenues. It does not have to have $100 million gross revenues in California but if it is a company that has $100 million anywhere in the world then it applies to them in California. Specifically it requires that retail sellers and manufacturers disclose their efforts to combat forced labour and human trafficking and to eliminate it from their direct supply chains. Specifically retailers and manufacturers must conduct audits of suppliers to evaluate supplier compliance with company standards for trafficking and forced labour in supply chains. It may be worthwhile for the Minister to take heed of the essence of that particular Bill. By having such a piece of legislation, we could at least get larger businesses to think about human trafficking and if the larger businesses do it, other businesses will follow. As we all know, some of the large clothing companies have been involved in malpractices regarding labour. Do we want to be part of that even in a small way? I believe it could be very helpful if large companies with, say, a turnover of €50 million were required to disclose publicly the efforts they are making to avoid forced labour anywhere along the supply chain. We need to do more in regard to regulating the activities of employment agencies and to monitor them more often in order to prevent abuse and exploitation. There may also be a need for more random checks on private homes or businesses as much of this forced labour goes on behind closed doors. Would the Minister be open to increasing checks in this way?

However, I have concerns with implementing more legislation when so little has been done. I reference particularly the recent European Commission report on human trafficking which has highlighted that although 13 Irish citizens were suspected of being involved in human trafficking between 2008 and 2010, none was actually prosecuted. Therefore, will this legislation be of any use from that point of view? As the Minister mentioned, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, found that up to 60% of trafficking victims are being denied full entitlements and benefits as they are treated as asylum seekers. Steps have to be taken in that area. The Minister has touched on it and I urge the her to pass the legislation and to develop it further in the period ahead.