Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 11, after line 40, to insert the following:

“Report on operation of the Act

11. The Minister shall, on an annual basis following the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas detailing—

(a) the estimated number of victims of human trafficking identified under this Act, the methodology used to produce the estimate and potential alternative methods of estimation which may produce a more accurate result,

(b) a summary of the outcomes for smuggled persons identified under this Act, including what proportion of smuggled persons sought or were granted asylum and sought or were granted another form of international protection in the State, and

(c) the number of persons in the previous year found guilty of an offence under this Act, and a summary of the sentences imposed under this Act.”.

These are amendments on the reports of the operation of the Act. The Act represents a shift in policy. It is not about balancing in that instead of moving one notch, we are moving two towards a narrowing space in that regard. I am concerned about the balance in the Act. We have spoken about it. I believe the exemption is the balancing point whereas the Minister of State believes a defence is. We have a difference of view on it. There was agreement on willingness to move from the previous position but we may have moved too far in this Act. In that regard, the way we find out what is actually panning out is by reviewing the performance. I am aware that there is a standard for the reviewing of all Acts but I am trying to tease out, in the two amendments, some really specific aspects that I believe may need to be tracked and that will be measures of the success of the Act or any unintended consequences of it.

Regarding the numbers of victims of human trafficking that are being identified, perhaps the Minister of State will take my next point on board even if it is not deemed to be in order. My colleague, Senator Ruane, tabled the amendment on training. The Minister of State will be aware that one reason Ireland had the tier 2 status as opposed to tier 1 status in respect of trafficking, and that one of the reasons we fell down, related explicitly to training because we did not have the training to identify victims of human trafficking.

On a corresponding note, because I realise the other amendment will be ruled out, officials are not really trained to ensure people access their rights, including their rights under the convention. There is a lack of training of front-line staff. Perhaps it is a sign of how long I have been going on about these matters but I remember that there was a time when we had human rights observers in Dublin Airport, for example. There was a conscious decision made to end that practice. It was regrettable. It was a really good practice whereby experts in human rights law and international refugee law were present in our ports of entry to the State. I may reserve the right to introduce an amendment on that on Report Stage.

One of the flaws identified was that people are not being identified. That was one of the issues associated with our tier 2 status. Are we estimating and measuring in the right way? If we say this is a law that is not just about protecting Ireland's borders or stopping people entering Ireland but about protecting smuggled persons, and if that is our core or principal function, as the Minister has stated, the most important measure of the success, or otherwise, of this Act is the outcome for smuggled persons. It is a matter of the proportion of smuggled persons who sought or were granted asylum or another form of international protection from the State. Part C was mentioned in respect of the issue of successful prosecution and conviction. Successful prosecution and conviction have been very much centre stage but they are ultimately under the international law. That is one part but the outcome for the smuggled person and her or his protection also have to be centre stage. That is the reason we try to prosecute.

I cannot see the difference between the two amendments but I am aware that there was a very small and nuanced difference when we drafted them. Could the Minister of State address the issue of how we will track the success of this Bill when it becomes an Act?