Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

-----who stated that at times when they hear something has been ruled out of order for budgetary reasons it is possibly because the Government does not want to take them on board.

I would like to outline the issues we have with the section and perhaps the Government will take them on board when considering legislation. I know the Minister of State takes a very deep interest in this area. As Senator van Turnhout stated, we are very concerned about it. It is possible that on Report Stage the Government may bring forward changes. We are concerned about the need to include the establishment of cross-sector multi-disciplinary teams including State bodies, such as the Garda Síochána and the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS, voluntary bodies and NGOs which develop and monitor human trafficking policies and other such bodies the Minister deems appropriate with a view to putting in place a more effective and responsive national referral mechanism. We do not propose this to add a cost to the State; we suggest it as good practice.

Ireland has been found wanting in the identification of victims of trafficking by the OCSE and the US Trafficking in Persons report. What we suggest does not offer resolution to this outstanding and repeatedly raised issue. Failure to adequately identify victims has led to confusion about the levels of trafficking in Ireland and we have a very low rate of prosecution. The Government needs to outline how it plans to improve victim identification with a view to improving support for, and protection of, victims and to prepare witnesses for criminal prosecution.

The bulk of the amendments ruled out of order are based on EU directives and are broadly in line with the legislation pertaining in other jurisdictions in the EU. A multi-disciplinary team, such as the one I mentioned earlier, needs to include key stakeholders and NGOs as well as stated bodies. Sinn Féin believes we need an effective and responsive national referral mechanism for the identification of victims. Our key concern must be for the victims of trafficking and not simply prosecuting those responsible, although this is important. We believe we are dealing with a very weak framework for victim identification and this has been flagged to us by the Immigrant Council of Ireland. It also illustrates the fact that while Ireland may have achieved agreement on the common European asylum strategy we are failing in many parts of the strategy, and many Irish victims of trafficking and asylum seekers will not benefit because many aspects of the key directives and regulations are absent.

It is important to ensure assistance and support are provided to victims before, during and for an appropriate period of time after the conclusion of criminal proceedings. This is a basic human need we feel must be addressed in the legislation. Perhaps the Minister of State can examine this also. Will the Minister of State also ensure a person is provided with assistance and support as soon as the DPP has reasonable grounds to believe the person might have been subject to any of the offences referred to in sections 2 to 5, inclusive, of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008?

We also call on the Minister of State to examine the legislation to ensure assistance and support for victims are not made conditional on a victim's willingness to co-operate in the criminal investigation, prosecution or trial and that assistance and support measures under paragraphs (a) to (c) shall be provided on a consensual and informed basis and shall include at least standards of living capable of ensuring victims' subsistence through measures such as the provision of appropriate and safe accommodation and material assistance as well as necessary medical treatment including psychological assistance, counselling and information and translation and interpretation services, where appropriate.

We also ask the Minister of State to examine the legislation in light of the fact that victims should be made aware of all protections available to them at domestic and European level, including entitlement to a reflection and recovery period and the minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status under EU legislation. We hope the Minister of State will be able to deal with the supports and assistance provided to victims after criminal proceedings have concluded as the EU directive requires. This is what we call for in this regard.

Another issue with the section, of which we would like the Minister of State to be cognisant and on which perhaps she could table Report Stage amendments, is with regard to ensuring specific and appropriate supports and protections are in place for victims with special needs, in particular with regard to pregnancy, health, disability, mental or psychological disorders or a serious form of psychological, physical or sexual violence which may have been suffered and to be cognisant of the specific supports which would need to be made available through ministerial orders. We note Ireland has failed to outline any procedures for victims of trafficking with special needs, including those with disabilities, health issues, pregnancy or trauma from physical, mental and sexual abuse. The failure to identify a list of such special needs arrangements is a matter of great concern and it is a shortfall in the Bill.

We also want the Minister of State to be cognisant of, and perhaps reflect on, authorising the beneficiaries of international protection including victims of trafficking under sections 2 to 5, inclusive, of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act and the provisions of the Bill to engage in employed or self-employed activities subject to rules generally applicable to the profession and the public service immediately after protection has been granted, and to further ensure activities such as employment-related education opportunities for adults, vocational training including training courses for upgrading skills, practical workplace experience and counselling services afforded by employment offices are offered to such persons under equivalent conditions as nationals. This is a very important issue. Ireland is one of only two EU member states, the other being Denmark, which has failed to ratify the 2003 EU directive on the minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. The reception directive lays down the minimum conditions for asylum seekers and provides they must be allowed work after a year of waiting for a decision or before. Asylum seekers in Ireland are not permitted to work in any capacity pending the resolution of the claim regardless of how long it takes. Senator van Turnhout and I have highlighted previously the issue of direct provision, and our misgivings about this system are very much connected to this.

Some legal scholars have identified the situation in the UK which ratified the directive but in doing so excluded subsequent asylum seekers from accruing any right to work. In the case of R (on the application of ZO (Somalia) and others) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, the UK supreme court ruled this exclusion was unlawful. It is clear therefore that despite not being subject to the requirements of the directive the Irish Government remains bound by Article 8 of the ECHR in respect of immigration policy.

Excluding asylum seekers from seeking work is wrong, unjust and a clear breach of human rights. The Minister of State should take this point on board in her deliberations ahead of the next Stage.

The Bill should ensure that victims of human trafficking have access without delay to legal counselling and, in accordance with the role of victims in the relevant justice system, to legal representation, including for the purpose of claiming compensation. Legal counselling and legal representation should be free of charge where the victim does not have sufficient financial resources.

The legislation should ensure that the victims of human trafficking receive appropriate protection on the basis of individual risk assessments by having access to witness protection programmes or other similar measures that the Minister may deem appropriate. Without prejudice to the rights of the defence and according to an individual assessment by the competent authorities of the victim's personal circumstances, the Minister should ensure that victims receive specific treatment aimed at preventing secondary victimisation by avoiding, in so far as is possible and in accordance with the grounds defined by national law and the rules of judicial discretion, practice or guidance, the following: unnecessary repetition of interviews during the investigation, prosecution or trial; visual contact between victims and defendants, including during the giving of evidence, such as interviews and cross-examinations, by appropriate means, for example, the use of appropriate communication technologies in the giving of evidence in open court; and unnecessary questioning concerning the victim's private life.

It is Sinn Féin's opinion that the State fails to outline measures to prevent secondary victimisation, by which people who have been trafficked are forced to relive their ordeals by repeatedly giving accounts of their experiences. As required by the EU directive, the Government needs to outline what measures and protocols will be put in place to ensure that victims do not need to recount their ordeals numerous times.

Our amendment, which has been ruled out of order, was based on the detail of EU directives. Will the Minister of State take these points on board in her deliberations? The EU expects us to legislate to avoid such dangers. Many governments have already done so.

We also call on the Minister of State to outline actions along the lines of those we have suggested. The trauma of trafficking and related abuses can be severe enough without being forced into unnecessary lines of question, enduring the aggressive approach taken by lawyers and reliving their experiences. What supports will be provided to victims after criminal proceedings have concluded? The EU directive requires such. We would welcome commitments that outline the types of supports and timelines for their provision.

We call on the Minister of State to address a further issue under this section. The State should become a signatory to and ratify the UN International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families on or before 1 September 2013. The Minister of State might make the case that there is no need to legislate to ratify international conventions, but doing so would give us an opportunity to consider the issue. In one sense, the State is being hypocritical, in that it has been quick to accept credit for advancing the Common European Asylum System, CEAS. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, has stated that completing it will be an important milestone towards ensuring the consistent and equitable treatment of asylum seekers irrespective of the member state in which they present their asylum applications. In 2012, 327,345 asylum applications were received in the EU, an increase of 7.8% on the previous year. The Minister also stated it was important that the Union had a system that ensured that procedures for processing applications were fair, effective, robust and not open to abuse. He was pleased that the Irish Presidency of the EU had been able to advance discussions with the European Parliament and that it was hopeful of reaching an early agreement on this basis. It is all very well for the Government to be happy about what it has achieved but our approach at home has generally been different, in that we have not ratified the legislation.

When victims of trafficking into Ireland are rescued, they often seek asylum here but are denied the right to work. We have long called for asylum seekers to be given the right to work. This is necessary to bring us into line with EU law. Around the globe and undoubtedly in Ireland, significant numbers are trafficked to work in the agricultural and catering industries. I commend Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, MRCI, for its excellent work in exposing these practices but the extent of trafficking for forced labour remains under-recognised. The Government could take a significant step towards ending this practice by signing and ratifying the international convention to which I referred. It has been in force since June 2003 and is the only core UN human rights treaty that the State has not signed. The previous Government, in defending its refusal to sign, hid behind the common travel area. Anyone who has tried to enter the State from Britain in the past six or seven years knows that the common travel area is dead in the water. Ours is one of the few states yet to ratify the convention, which would offer a great degree of protection to migrants and asylum seekers.

This has been a comprehensive statement on the section but I hope the Minister of State will take on board these issues in good faith. They have been raised with us by people who work in this field on a daily basis. We hope that the Government will table relevant amendments to the next version of the legislation.