Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, have been ruled out of order because they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to speak on section 4.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we speak on the section?

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 6 is out of order as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wanted to speak on section 1 but I will move on.

On section 4, I was fully supportive of the amendments from Sinn Féin. The House has ruled them out of order but perhaps they could be examined by the Minister and brought in by the Government because they are important.

The administrative arrangements for the protection of victims of human trafficking are set out in the Department of Justice and Equality's policy statement, Administrative Immigration Arrangements for the Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking. Since this is the first time forced labour will be defined in Irish law, there has been no formal identification of victims as victims of trafficking for forced labour, and no prosecutions have been brought forward. Currently, when a victim leaves their exploitative workplace they are known as a potential victim of human trafficking and are granted, if required, hostel accommodation in direct provision centres and a weekly allowance of €19.10.

I do not need to elaborate further on this point other than to say the Minister of State is well aware of my concerns about the legality of the direct provision system and the payments under the administrative scheme. Potentially, victims are given basic access to health care and access to counselling for trauma, if necessary. Until the victim is formally identified by the Garda National Immigration Bureau, GNIB, on the basis of reasonable grounds, which is a relatively low test, as a person suspected of being a victim of human trafficking they are not entitled to a reflection and recovery period or a temporary residence permit. A reflection and recovery period is critical because it allows an alleged victim to recover and ensures the victim is not subject to removal proceedings. That has not been granted in any of the recent cases that have been worked on by Migrants Rights Centre Ireland. The victim is left with a tolerated status in the State but there are no specific timeframes of security that a reflection and recovery period or residence permit would give.

The difficulty is that it can take up to two years to get a decision to establish whether a person is a suspected victim of human trafficking. During this time the person is left in virtual limbo in a direct provision centre. The Migrant Rights Centre Ireland is dealing with six cases in which potential victims have been waiting for more than 18 months for a decision. I am not speaking about theory; I am speaking about six real cases. S is the victim of forced labour and trafficking who made an official complaint to the GNIB in August 2011. She is still waiting for a decision in her case. She lives in a direct provision hostel and her undocumented immigration status is tolerated and she will not be removed from the State. She suffers from poor health and is unable to afford the many trips to the hospital she requires and her medication.

I understand the immigration arrangements for the protection of victims of human trafficking will be put on a statutory footing in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010 which is stalled on Committee Stage in the Dáil. Will the Minister of State confirm this and indicate to the House when the Bill will proceed? Is it the Government's intention to bring its practice in line with our legal obligations as set out in a Council framework decision of 19 July 2002 - 11 years ago - on combating trafficking in human beings and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005? I asked these questions on Second Stage and I am asking them again because I am still waiting for an answer. The uncertainty of the timeframe for the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill is the reason I support Sinn Féin's amendments to incorporate into the Bill the provisions of the anti-trafficking directive relevant to assisting, supporting and protecting victims of human trafficking. I will be interested to see the impact of the new definition of forced labour in Irish law on the forthcoming employment permits Bill which is in the legislative programme.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Although I accept the ruling on the amendments, more seasoned parliamentarians than me have suggested that sometimes when a Government does not want to accept amendments it uses the ruling it might have a budgetary-----

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The word should be "cynical" and not "seasoned".

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I chose the word "seasoned".

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The word "cynical" is more appropriate.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps Senator Gilroy would like to read my notes. I am well able to speak for myself.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government has no input into ruling amendments out of order.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I stand corrected.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a procedural office.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was only quoting my more seasoned colleagues-----

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

More cynical colleagues.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. Trafficking for the purpose of sexual or labour exploitation is an important issue. I welcome the Bill. It is limited, in that it concentrates on the Directive 2011/36/EU on forced begging for the purpose of criminal activity and does not address every trafficking issue. I congratulate the Minister of State on advancing this Bill, but we would welcome more. Perhaps she will outline where we can go from here.

This month's findings of the EEC report show that human trafficking steadily increased from 2008 to 2012. This is cause for grave concern. According to this or another report that I have read, the money earned from trafficking is second only to drug money. This significant problem is worsening.

Recently, I attended a seminar of Parliamentarians Against Human Trafficking hosted by the Lithuanian Parliament. Parliamentarians from across Europe are working to establish a network of parliamentarians and non-governmental organisations to work together on this issue. Trafficking is country-to-country; it is not stationary. The purpose of the seminar was to examine how national governments could better help victims and how this initiative, which has attracted 21 EU countries and more than 100 parliamentarians, could be sustained. I am trying to initiate such a group in our Parliament, in which regard I will work with non-governmental organisations.

I also attended a meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Its committee D is working on a report on trafficking. It will take evidence in Dublin next month and we will publish a report at the end of the year.

Another EU-funded initiative is the development of an EU-wide mapping and data collection system to ensure that common benchmarks are used throughout Europe. Each country speaks a different language. I am not referring to English, French or German, but to the terminology used when tracking traffickers. The new system was discussed. I was disappointed to learn that, when the EU made a call for countries to participate in the pilot project, Ireland did not partake. We have missed out on the initial stage of this brilliant project, but I have been told that we can have observer status and join later. Will the Minister of State follow up on this matter? I have the Portuguese contact details, as Portugal is the lead country. We need to be involved in this pilot.

While the Bill is welcome and I congratulate the Minister of State, I have a number of concerns. Senators van Turnhout and Ó Clochartaigh have raised a few of them. We must walk before we run. The issue of support for victims following criminal proceedings is to the fore. For example, they might not be able to speak the language. A timeline should be put in place for the development of supports. Will the Minister of State work towards this?

The OSCE and US trafficking in persons report found Ireland wanting in terms of the identification of trafficked victims. The Bill does not offer a resolution to this outstanding and repeatedly raised issue. Failure to identify victims adequately has led to confusion about the level of trafficking in Ireland. Our prosecution rate is dismal. Throughout Europe, prosecution rates are low even where the level of trafficking is known.

The Minister of State might consider developing a timeline. This Bill does not address everything but we have to work at other issues that were outlined. Unfortunately, there is a lack of safe accommodation in this country for victims. Other areas of trafficking that do not receive attention, namely, special needs and secondary victimisation, were brought to our attention by the Migrant Rights Centre and were mentioned in this House by Senators van Turnhout and Ó Clochartaigh.

There is a final suggestion, one that has been recommended for consideration by the European Union, namely, the appointment of a trafficking rapporteur, such as other countries have. I would like to see Ireland go down that route. Perhaps the Minister of State might comment on the possibility of our achieving this. I would like to hear "when" rather than "if". That issue was also discussed at the recent seminar I attended. Other countries have successfully introduced the position of national rapporteur on trafficking.

It all comes back to co-ordination, a point I consider as I look at the various groups that have been in contact with me at different times in recent years - the Irish Refugee Council, Ruhama, Doras Luimní, the International Refugee Centre, Amnesty International, Stop Sex Trafficking, Children's Rights Alliance acting to prevent trafficking, and Turn Off the Red Light. There are so many organisations working in the area and some co-ordination between them and a rapporteur would be good for the country's action against trafficking. We talk very often about sex trafficking but there is also a great deal of trafficking in labour.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am very glad to see the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, once again ensconced with us. I wish to put on record my gratitude to the Leader of the House. On the Order of Business I made the point that I would be unhappy if the Bill went through all Stages today because I wished to table some amendments for Report Stage. I will indicate these shortly in order that the Minister of State can consider them, but before I do so I must comment on the splendid example of lateral thinking given to us by Senator Ó Clochartaigh. I looked through the amendments and noted that every one of them had been ruled out of order for various absurd reasons. However, the Senator managed quite brilliantly to bring in the substance of every amendment. I agree with every word he uttered.

This indicates the utter folly of excluding the Seanad from having anything whatsoever to do with any proposal that costs money, however small the amount. When the Government's devious and anti-democratic plan to hatchet out half the Oireachtas collapses, as I am convinced it will, I will look for another referendum, this time to increase the powers of the Seanad to allow us to be free from this kind of nonsense. Although I can accept there may be some possibility of sustaining an argument that there would be a charge if we established boards for this, that or the other, perhaps the Minister of State might explain why states should not become signatories to and ratify the International Convention on the Protection of Rights of all Migrant Workers and members of their families. What are the expenses involved in ratifying a convention? It is a load of complete nonsense and an insult to the dignity of this House.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I correct the Senator? That was not ruled out of order because of the cost but because it was not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I see. I thank the Acting Chairman. I was misinformed in that case. However, my point survives. I have had things ruled out without explanation. One can sustain an argument that any amendment of any kind will create a cost on the Exchequer because plainly it does, even if one is reduced to saying there is a cost involved in printing the actual amendment. It is nonsense.

Let us pass on to the substance. I will not be long. I inform the Minister of State that, unfortunately, I must be somewhere else but I will read her reply with great interest. I do not mean to be rude. If I leave the Chamber I hope she will forgive me.

I would like this legislation to be expanded in a number of ways. I acknowledge that apparently this Bill is simply the implementation of various EU directives. It is really a kind of tidying-up exercise and therefore a short Bill. I am disappointed it is so limited, however. For example, it seeks to criminalise activities that constitute an offence in this country or an activity that takes place in a place other than the State which constitutes an offence under the law of that place. Why is this to be so only if the action constitutes an offence in the law of a certain place? There are actions outrageous to human rights that may very well not conflict with state laws. Why do we not have the Bill stating the offence to be one that constitutes a felony or a serious crime under the law of this land?

For example, I wish to table amendments on organ harvesting. I do not believe we have covered that matter, which continues. It is trafficking, not in human bodies but in parts of human bodies. In the case of China, for example, we know that wealthy people in India, the United States, or wherever, will pick up a telephone, make an appointment in hospital No. 1 in Shanghai and order a liver. There may be a whole raft of, say, 500 people in different prisons and a compatible liver will be found in prison No. 423. The authorities will do away with that person, keeping him technically alive until the liver is extracted, and then deliver the organ to be transplanted. That is barbarous and is a form of trafficking.

The other matter I wish to raise relates to human trafficking. We have much difficulty with the question of when human life begins. I would like to open the other end of that discussion for scrutiny. When do the rights attaching to the human person cease? We heard a lot of palaver about the bog bodies in the National Museum and were told we should give them a Christian burial. People did not know whether these were Christians at all but were determined to give them a Christian burial, which was nonsense. We have had the gruesome spectacle - against which I protested in this House - of an obscene exhibition of the naked bodies of people who may very likely have been murdered in China. I do not ask for this to be banned, although I would love to see it banned because it is disgusting. The people in question and their families had no right to object.

There is a simple way around this. No certificates were ever shown to prove where the bodies were acquired, but there is a very strong suspicion about their origin. Getting a DNA sample is very simple and does not damage the product, which is probably the way the originators see these unfortunate people who are dead. To get permission to mount an exhibition of human cadavers the proprietors of such an exhibition should be required to give a DNA sample to the Irish authorities in order that the relatives who may wish to claim these bodies, and who have a right under international law to do so, will be able to identify them. We should not have unidentified cadavers who were probably the victims of extreme human rights abuse having their lives taken because they were Tibetan, Falun Gong or whatever, or because they were criminals. It is not appropriate to have this kind of exhibition, which I consider to be part of human trafficking.

I am very glad of this opportunity and am happy and grateful that we were allowed a further opportunity to discuss this and to table amendments. I commend to the Minister of State the substance of the amendments tabled by Senator Ó Clochartaigh. I did not hear the earlier arguments and so cannot comment, but I imagine I would have agreed with them. I agree with Senator Ó Clochartaigh that it would be most helpful if the Minister of State were able to look over these and see which, if any of them, she would be able to support by way of Government amendment. That can create a cost on the Exchequer if it likes.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend those who contributed to the wide-ranging debate we have had. It is always very interesting. I take up Senator Norris's points, although it is not a case that the last shall be first, because I do not go along with that. This Bill does outlaw trafficking in human organs.

Italso outlaws forced labour. This technical wide-ranging Bill is to be welcomed. I acknowledge that the majority have welcomed it. We must put in place a mechanism to ensure we are in compliance with the EU directive.

In response to Senator van Turnhout's question, I do not have an answer but I will ensure that the Senator gets it.

In relation to a national rapporteur or equivalent, the EU provides for the establishment of a national rapporteur or an equivalent mechanism and according to the directive it does not have to be independent of government. The anti-human trafficking unit of the Department of Justice and Equality currently carries out the relevant tasks provided for in the directive and it is proposed that the anti-human trafficking unit, for the time being at least, will be designated the equivalent mechanism in this regard. This provision is in line with the practice of the majority of member states. It is an interesting point and I am sure that in the future it will morph into something else.

I am pleased to be in the Chamber in place of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, who cannot be present today. When I was here on behalf of the Minister, we had a very interesting Second Stage debate and that is the reason I am familiar with the Bill. I was a bit surprised to hear Senator Norris asking that trafficking in human organs be outlawed. However, I know he was present during the Second Stage debate and is interested in this legislation.

I wish to remind Members that the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) (Amendment) Bill 2013 is a criminal law measure only. To go to the heart of the amendments tabled by the Senator, this directive does not address measures concerning, for example, the identification of victims or assistance and support for victims. These measures are already in place and Members will appreciate that responsibility for assisting and supporting victims stretches beyond the remit of the Minister for Justice and Equality. The HSE, in particular, plays a significant role in assisting victims, including victims who are particularly vulnerable. I take cognisance of the points made, however, as the person is not yet at the centre of the process, our interaction is not yet at the point it should be but I think we are getting there.

The Bill amends the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 to address outstanding criminal law measures in the 2011 EU directive - the directive updated and repealed a framework decision adopted in 2002. Most of the criminal law measures in the directive have already been implemented by the 2008 Act, which transposed the relevant provisions in the framework decision. As I mentioned on Second Stage, and it is worth repeating, a small number of matters are still being considered, in particular, issues relating to the video recording of child interviews. The use of child interviews as evidence in criminal proceedings is being examined and it was not possible to table the official amendment today. However, these amendments will be brought forward as soon as possible in either the Seanad or the Dáil. I hope it will come forward in this Chamber but I will have no control over it. It will be a matter for the Chair in both Houses. I think these issues can be dealt with at that stage.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

During the Second Stage debate I asked for the Minister of State's assurance and the definition of forced labour as intended by the convention and as understood in international jurisprudence. With respect "offering oneself voluntarily" means fully informed and free consent throughout the worker's service period. Will the Minister of State confirm that for the record? It is very important for those in the sector that this is the definition that is intended.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think we dealt with this at the last session. At that stage, and I confirm it again, it is informed consent, which is of major importance. If I could find it quickly, I would.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fully informed and free consent.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is quite clearly there.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept the Minister of State's explanation on the reason she has not acceded to the issues we have raised but at the same time I reserve the right to bring forward amendments on Report Stage that would reflect our thoughts.

We have discussed the financial impact that might accrue from the potential amendments we put forward but are there any repercussions that might come home to roost if we do not fully ratify EU Directive 2011/36 as quickly as possible? We have seen from other EU directives that are not fully complied within a certain time period, that we have been taken to court in Europe as a result. There have been serious implications for the State.

As regards Directive 2011/36/EU will there be repercussions if the opportunity is not taken to take on board the full measures that are in question?

My next point probably strays into the Minister of State's area of competency and responsibility. The Minister of State states the Bill is focusing in particular on the criminal law aspects of the issue. Will the Minister of State outline if she is comfortable with the legislation that is available in the other areas, particularly for supporting people who have been trafficked here and have serious special needs by way of disabilities, or mental or physical disorders?

I think I have asked this question before. A number of people who are trafficked end up in the direct provision system. Is the Minister of State concerned with the system of direct provision as it is currently constituted? The system houses many of these victims and is dealing with people who are trafficked but does not take account of the issues we have raised about people being allowed to work and their mental stability and so on. Is the Minister of State concerned as the Minister of State with responsibility for the area of mental health that the direct provision actually compounds their situation in many ways, as has been flagged in report by the Irish Refugee Council, the Immigrant Council of Ireland and so on?

Why is the Government stalling on ratifying the international convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and members of their families? Why is the Government not taking the opportunity to fully ratify it at this stage with this Bill or another piece of amending legislation?

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If one is a member of club and does not abide by the rules, there are always consequences and yet there is always the possibility that we will be sanctioned and fined but I am never certain that is the real reason one should do something. The consequences in terms of this are that there will be people who will not have the protection that we can afford them. I means that is where we need to be at. We need to do this urgently. We need to do it to ensure that the people that we are charged with protecting will have that protection. That is the reason we should do it. One should never do something other than for the right reasons.

Of course there are other sanctions. Yes, we have been sanctioned and fined for non-compliance. I am sure that if we did not do this, we would be sanctioned as well. The reason we should do it is to ensure that people have complete protection.

In relation to people with disabilities who are trafficked not in the same numbers but then again in the same proportion as other people, as I said at the last sitting the HSE has to take into consideration the overall needs of the person it is dealing with. If that person has a disability, whether it is physical, intellectual, visual or in the area of mental health, the HSE is obliged to deal with that issue as well. That is taken into account. It is not as if we separate people out. If one such person has been trafficked and has a disability and is in difficult circumstances, where communication is an additional problem, the HSE has to manage that situation.

That is its job. What was the other question?

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there concern about the system of direct provision?

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not certain I will give a full answer on that here but I have never been more than honest and upfront with people. It cannot be good for a person to live in circumstances like these for a prolonged period. Perhaps we need to do a bit more work and I know certain organisations have already done some work on the effect on people's mental health of living in confined or overcrowded spaces over long periods. We all know the overarching evidence in the area. Those circumstances cannot be good for anybody.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the stalling on ratifying the international convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers? Why is the Government holding back in that respect?

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ireland, in the distant past and probably in the future, has and will be slow to ratify agreements without having everything in place first. That has always been the case. For example, I am responsible for the disabilities area and it is not until all the ducks are in the row that such action is taken. We have found in ratifying international conventions that many countries rush to ratify but when they are called to account afterwards, there are failures in the systems that must be in place to support the ratification. Whether Fianna Fáil or anybody else has been in government, I have always agreed with that approach, as all the mechanisms should be put in place before ratification instead of being found wanting when it comes to supports.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.