Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Dec 2008

Vol. 671 No. 2

Other Questions.

Human Trafficking.

Jack Wall

Question:

6 Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the action being taken to prevent the trafficking of foreign women for sexual purposes; the estimated number of women trafficked in this way in 2007 and to date in 2008; the number of trafficked women who have availed of the 60 day recovery and reflection period; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46779/08]

Legislative, administrative and operational measures have been put in place to prevent trafficking in persons for both sexual and labour exploitation purposes. The Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008, with penalties of up to life imprisonment, has been operational since 7 June 2008.

An anti-human trafficking unit was set up in my Department earlier this year to co-ordinate the level of Government response to this issue. An interdepartmental high level group will submit a national action plan to me in 2009 which will map out a strategy to prevent and tackle trafficking in human beings for the coming years. Awareness campaigns and training programmes in relation to trafficking are under way.

The Garda National Immigration Bureau maintains border controls and liaison with organisations which represent exploited foreign nationals. Liaison at an international level between the Garda Síochána and the international law enforcement community and international organisations also forms part of the approach taken by An Garda Síochána to human trafficking.

It is difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the scale of human trafficking for sexual exploitation in Ireland, as it is in many other countries, given the underground nature of the activity, the different definitions of trafficking and that data from different organisations is fragmented. A data collection strategy which aims at collating data on trafficking in human beings from a variety of organisations is currently being developed in my Department.

One person has been identified by the Garda authorities as a suspected victim of trafficking since the commencement of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act in June 2008. An application for a 60 day recovery and reflection period for the suspected victim has been granted. As suspected victims are identified they will be referred to my Department for a grant of permission to lawfully remain in the State for the 60 day period of recovery and reflection. The administrative framework for recovery and reflection periods will be put on a statutory basis following the enactment of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill.

Is it not the case that this phenomenon of human trafficking affects this jurisdiction more than was contemplated until very recently and the legislation put in place is deemed by organisations at the coalface to be inadequate? Is the Minister prepared, even at this stage, to amend the immigration Bill to specify the services available to suspected victims of trafficking? Do I understand from the Minister's reply that there has been only one case where the 60-day permit was granted? Does he acknowledge that this is the area focused on by organisations like Ruhama? Such organisations have indicated that women who were believed to have been working recently in the sex industry in this country, and who may have been trafficked here, tend to be immediately relocated to their country of origin. The organisations point out that in those circumstances women require the benefit of a reflection period, as well as the support and services that this country can provide.

It is fair to say that our legislation on human trafficking is probably the most advanced and modern, as it was only passed in June this year.

As the Deputy will know, when the Immigration Bill was originally published it provided for a 45-day period for recovery and reflection. At the exhortation of the Deputy and others in Opposition, and because of my own feelings on the matter, I agreed it should be a longer period of 60 days. That compares favourably with a number of other EU countries.

As regards what resources and responses are available to people who are subject to human trafficking, an anti-trafficking unit was established in my Department on foot of the legislation. The unit works with State agencies, including the Garda Síochána and the HSE, as well as Ruhama and other groups. I attended one of the regular meetings to witness the co-operation that is going on between all concerned. This ensures that when somebody is the subject of trafficking they are dealt with immediately by an holistic response across the system.

I wish to allow a couple of other Deputies to contribute.

Does the Minister really accept that there has only been one case concerning the trafficking of foreign women for sexual purposes? Having heard this debate and from listening to my contacts, there seem to be more underground cases of this nature. In addition to a national response, an international response is required to deal with human trafficking, particularly for sexual exploitation. The Minister should ensure this is provided. Is there a negative attitude within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law reform to such cases, as well as to the broader issue of immigration?

There certainly is not a negative attitude as far as the Department is concerned. We sponsored the Bill to put in place the most modern legislative response and we now have to establish the structures. To be fair, there is a separate, dedicated unit in my Department which is fully staffed by very committed people. Information at my disposal from the Garda Síochána indicates that a sizeable proportion of those suspected of being subject to trafficking are trafficked for labour rather than sex purposes. That is not to say that sex trafficking is not going on. Ruhama has recently referred 13 people to the Garda Síochána, one of whom has been given a 60-day period. Three of them went home voluntarily and had airline tickets on them. At the end of the day, they are adults and cannot be detained against their will.

I totally disagree with the Deputy's point about people not being sympathetic. I know for a fact that the Garda Síochána conducts significant training to ensure that every garda is fully trained, particularly concerning the legislative requirements of the recent Act. That training is being carried out by the International Organisation for Migration.

Together with the Garda Commissioner, I recently launched the new blindfold awareness campaign. My Department has provided significant funding to Ruhama to allow it to run advertising in recent times. This area is evolving and we are learning from the experience. A number of cases were dealt with under the previous immigration legislation. Following the enactment of the new legislation in June, I recall the Garda Commissioner stating two or three months ago that the gardaí are investigating approximately 17 cases. Quite a number of those cases related to one instance in which people were suspected of being trafficked for labour purposes.

Gaming and Lotteries Legislation.

Richard Bruton

Question:

7 Deputy Richard Bruton asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position in respect of proposed reform of the gaming and lotteries legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47133/08]

As the Deputy will be aware, I have previously set out for the House the terms of reference of the cross-party committee, which I propose setting up in order to reflect on and review the report "Regulating Gaming in Ireland". I have gone on record to say that the informal committee represents the best opportunity for identifying options for consideration by Government on the many complex inter-related issues in this area. It offers the best guarantee that the interests of all elements in our society are taken into account from the beginning in an area of important public policy. The Deputy will also be aware of the involvement envisaged for members of his party in that committee, including that of chairperson.

I wrote to the Leaders of Fine Gael and Labour on 2 and 3 October 2008, respectively, to confirm proposals for the formation of the committee. The Leader of Fine Gael responded on 3 October saying that he wished to discuss the matter with his party colleagues and that he would be in touch with me again once he had completed those deliberations. Deputy Kenny wrote to me again on 1 December 2008 to state that his party is willing to participate in the cross-party committee provided that the terms of reference for the committee specifically exclude the issue of the installation of fixed-odds betting terminals, FOBTs, in betting shops.

Likewise, the leader of the Labour Party on 23 October 2008 reaffirmed his party's unwillingness to participate in the cross-party committee unless FOBTs are excluded.

I will now carefully consider whether there is anything to be gained from establishing a committee which is forced to exclude from its consideration a controversial component of the modern gambling environment. I share the misgivings of the Deputies opposite about FOBTs, but I do not believe we can solve any problems associated with them by simply ignoring their existence. We must face up to the challenges and threats, as well as the opportunities, inherent in new technologies and evolving social habits, and not bury our heads in the sand and hope they go away. I will reflect on the responses of the party leaders and will shortly decide on a course of action.

What is the Government's position on fixed-odds betting terminals, which constitute one aspect of this review? What is the Government's response to the 32 recommendations in the report to the former Minister, Michael McDowell, entitled "Regulating Gaming in Ireland"? Has the current Minister met any representatives of the industry in the context of this review?

The Government has not made any decision on FOBTs, nor has it had any discussions on them. The Government noted the report entitled "Regulating Gaming in Ireland". It was previously suggested before my time as Minister that there would be a cross-party committee to deal with this, chaired by a member of Fine Gael. People then decided that they would discuss this matter, while omitting various issues they did not like. We cannot put our heads in the sand, however, and think these things will go away. There is a valid reason for us to examine all these issues on a cross-party basis. If we cannot do so, then my Department will have to proceed with the legislation concerning aspects of this report. I do not envisage us legislating in favour of FOBTs, but against them, if anything, from what I know. It would be wrong, however, to put our heads in the sand and not discuss all these new technologies. We should discus them with a view to preventing the harm involved and ensuring that they are not prevalent in our society.

Were some bookmakers not given the nod by the present Taoiseach, when he was Minister for Finance, for the introduction of FOBTs on the basis that they would make up the tax shortfall for the racing industry? It was acknowledged within the Government that one could not do something as anti-social at that, however, so the Government suggested an all-party committee and tried to get a Member of the Opposition to chair it. Is the Minister taking us for fools on this side of the House? The one thing that is noticeable about him is that he is always on the side of the angels. Even when the ruse was to legalise FOBTs, the Minister was always careful to say he agreed with Deputies on this side of the House and that he was also against FOBTs. If he is against their introduction, what is the problem and why will he not introduce legislation? He should stop talking about it.

The casino sector needs regulatory legislation badly. The casino report dealt with 100,000 matters. The Minister is now saying that, because we do not go along with him concerning FOBTs, he will not set up an all-party committee even though the great number of issues had nothing to do with FOBTs. It is time to put the charade to bed.

To the best of my knowledge, there was no nod from the Taoiseach to anyone. I have not been exhorted by anyone in the Government to consider the issue of FOBTs. To the best of my recollection, neither have I met anyone in the industry concerning these issues.

While it is fine for Deputy Rabbitte to tell me to get on with it, we have not changed the gaming and lotteries legislation since 1956, the year after I was born.

It will be 2056 at the rate the Minister is going.

Deputy Rabbite was in government. To the best of my recollection, Deputy Quinn, the then Minister for Finance, balked at the opportunity to change the legislation because he could not get all-party agreement. We were trying to achieve a cross-party understanding of how to proceed.

I know how the Minister loves us on this side of the House and would never do anything without consulting us.

Allow the Minister.

The FOBT issue is a tiny aspect of the overall matter. As someone who has hardly placed a bet in my life, I would like to have the knowledge of——

The Minister probably played the little baby Jesus in the nativity play.

——experts like Deputy Rabbitte, who has more vices than any of us. Unlike him, I do not meet all of the vested interests.

Does the Minister not consider it somewhat odd that neither he, as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, nor the Government has an opinion on the recommendations in the McDowell report or on FOBTs? He is inviting submissions. Is it not extraordinary that he does not have an opinion on the matter or is it the case that, while he has one, he will not tell the House?

The Government noted the contents of the substantial report. We did not express an opinion at the time because the previous suggestion was for a cross-party committee chaired by one of the Deputies' own. When I took up this office, I understood that there was agreement until Deputy Rabbitte decided that he would pick out FOBTs, which no one wants, and not be a part of the committee. He is like a young child who takes his ball away during a football game.

Why can the Minister not give the House his opinion?

He is trying to deny the existence of FOBTs. I want to know more about them, for which reason I would like to see them discussed in an all-party committee.

No one is stopping the Minister.

He should go ahead. He is the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

I assure Deputies that, if Deputy Rabbitte wants to take his ball home and end the game, we will proceed with the legislation as quickly as possible.

The Minister stated that some months ago.

I have been a Member of the House for approximately the same time as the Minister. In those years, I have noticed how he usually consults me and wants cross-party co-operation before doing anything. Who does be believe he is fooling? If we are all against FOBTs, what is the problem? I am not advocating that they be ignored. Rather, I am advocating that they be outlawed. However, the Minister tells the House that he would not be seen in discussion with vested interests of any kind.

It is a brief supplementary question.

I will not go back over it. From listening to the Minister one would believe him to be the little boy Jesus in the nativity play. Butter would not melt in his mouth. There is no way that he would be found talking to vested interests. Why will he not introduce the law and get on with it? We will legislate. The casino sector needs legislation.

I will not introduce the law because it was my understanding upon entering this office that there was a cross-party agreement on a cross-party committee.

Never. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, will tell the Minister that. I have held this position consistently.

The Fine Gael Party nominated three people, including a chairperson, Deputy Barrett, to be a part of it. Then Deputy Rabbitte acted like a child whose toy had been stolen and took his football home.

I was right. The Minister agreed with me.

We must move on to Question No. 8.

I have no problem with moving the legislation forward.

Clearly the Minister has a problem. He will not tell us his opinions.

As I stated earlier, different political parties on this side of the House since 1956 have balked at the opportunity to change the legislation. I include the Labour Party in that statement.

The Minister is too pure for this life and I am too venal.

International Agreements.

David Stanton

Question:

8 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 993 of 24 September 2008, if he will be in a position to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities once the law on the legal capacity of vulnerable adults has been amended; the other legal or administrative requirements which must be met for ratification to proceed; if he has set a provisional target date for ratification; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47092/08]

It is the Government's intention to ratify the UN convention as quickly as possible, taking into account the need to ensure that all necessary requirements under the convention are being met.

The interdepartmental committee established by my Department to advise on and monitor the legislative and administrative actions required to enable the State to ratify the convention has developed a work programme that is being actively addressed by Departments. The Disability Act 2005, underpinned by the national disability strategy, meets a considerable portion of the convention's requirements. In so far as my Department is concerned, the mental capacity Bill, which is in the course of being drafted by Parliamentary Counsel, forms an important part of what is required to facilitate ratification of the convention. Work on what is involved by way of implementation of the various other provisions in the convention, which are extensive, continues in the relevant Departments.

The Government's decision on the matter of ratification of the convention will be made in due course, as it must, on the basis of being fully satisfied that all requirements are met in each Department.

I thank the Minister of State for his response. Given the fact that the convention was signed in March 2007 and came into force in May 2008, will the Minister of State outline to the House what is required, apart from the mental capacity Bill, or send a note to that effect? What is the position on the optional protocol attached to the convention? Some 80 countries have signed it and 26 have ratified it, but we have not signed it. What are the obstacles to our signing?

Now or by way of note, will the Minister of State outline what other departmental changes must be made to allow the convention to go ahead? Does the Minister of State agree that we should view the convention as a human rights issue as opposed to a legal one?

It is both a legal issue and a human rights one. The Disability Act 2005, underpinned by the national disability strategy, meets a considerable portion of the convention's requirements. In so far as the Department is concerned, the mental capacity Bill, which is in the course of being drafted by Parliamentary Counsel, is the main part that has been missing.

To clarify and as indicated in my earlier response, the convention will be ratified as quickly as possible, consistent with the need to ensure that all of the requirements under the convention are met. In a nutshell, the ratification depends on the mental capacity Bill. Given the importance of this matter, I commit to advancing it as quickly as possible in the new year.

Thank God for one polite Minister at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

I suppose that will wear off with time.

The Minister of State confirmed that the convention will be ratified, but will that be in three, six or 12 months? Given his responsibility for people with disabilities, will he ensure that there will be no cuts in services for people with disabilities in the next 12 months? I urge him to protect his brief.

We have gone beyond the scope of the question.

The timing hinges on the mental capacity Bill, but the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Justice, Equality and Law Reform must be factored in as well. I will stick with my original answer, that is, within six months.

What is the situation regarding the optional protocol? Has the Attorney General examined it, as the House was informed earlier? If so, what was the outcome of the examination? Is there an obstacle to signing the protocol attached to the convention? What additional commitments are we expected to give and what obligations must we meet in order to sign the protocol?

The matter is still with the Attorney General. I expect a response from him in the near future. He is examining what matters outside those relating to the mental capacity Bill need to be taken into consideration before the final——

The protocol is a separate issue.

I am aware of that. The Attorney General is examining what the protocol entails. The Deputy tabled a number of questions in respect of this matter in recent months and progress appeared to be slow. I wish to give a commitment that the Attorney General's response on the protocol will be forthcoming within two to three months of the Dáil resuming business at the end of January.

Proposed Legislation.

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

9 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when it is expected that the promised legislation on civil unions will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46760/08]

The Deputy will be aware that my proposals, in the form of heads of a civil partnership Bill, were published on 24 June 2008 following the approval of the Government. Formal drafting of the Bill by Parliamentary Counsel is now well advanced and I can confirm, in line with the indication in the Government legislation programme, as announced on 23 September 2008, that the Bill is expected to be published in early 2009. It is well recognised that the Bill is detailed and complex and is being drafted to ensure the constitutional protection of the institution of marriage is fully protected.

I will now provide a summary of the scope of the Bill. First, it will provide for registration of civil partnerships by same-sex couples, together with a range of rights and duties consequent on registration, including in respect of succession, pensions, shared home, tenancy rights, maintenance from partner and protection from domestic violence. Only same-sex couples may register as civil partners. Second, the Bill will establish a cohabitants' redress scheme for unmarried opposite-sex and unregistered same-sex cohabitants giving protection to an economically dependent qualified cohabitant at the end of a long-term relationship. Under the scheme, a qualified cohabitant is someone who has been living with another person in an intimate relationship for three years or more, or where the couple are the parents of a child, for two years or more.

The redress scheme will allow a vulnerable economically dependent partner, at the end of a relationship, whether by break-up or bereavement, to apply to court for certain reliefs, including for provision from the estate of a deceased partner, or for maintenance or pension or property adjustment orders. The Bill will provide also for recognition of cohabitant agreements, thereby enabling cohabitants to regulate their joint financial and property affairs. Cohabitants who make a cohabitant agreement may opt out of the redress scheme.

What priority does the Minister attach to the Bill? When will it be published and when will it be introduced in the House? Did the Minister meet directly with representatives of any of the groups campaigning on this issue since the heads were published? Representations have been made to various Members on this side of the House with regard to perceived defects in the heads as published. Has the Parliamentary Counsel been instructed by the Minister to take into account any of the arguments made and are such arguments likely to have a formative influence on the Bill that eventually emerges?

The Bill will be published early in 2009. As regards priority, to the best of my knowledge one Parliamentary Counsel at the Office of the Attorney General has been specifically delegated to deal with the Bill. In addition, there is one official in my Department who is, in effect, the expert in this area.

I met representatives of the Gay and Lesbian Network, GLEN, just after the publication of the heads of the Bill. There are some 138 heads, which means the legislation is extremely complex. To the best of my knowledge, I have not met representatives of any other groups. However, such representatives have met officials from my Department to discuss various issues relating to the legislation. The fact that we published the heads of the Bill on the Internet means we are encouraging members of the public and interest groups to make representations.

Does the Minister envisage introducing legislation to amend the Domestic Violence Act 1996, with particular reference to cohabiting couples, or will he include a provision in the civil partnership Bill that will extend to such couples the redress available to others under the Act to which I refer?

No decision has been made on that issue. However, we will keep the matter under review.

I had not realised that Deputy Rabbitte was such a sensitive soul. Perhaps I might ameliorate some of the difficulties we experienced earlier by wishing him, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle — with whom I crossed swords during the year, something for which I apologise — and the other Members on the opposite side of the House a very happy Christmas.

I echo the sentiments expressed by the Minister. I wish the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who I compliment on the courtesy and patience he has shown, those opposite and Deputy Rabbitte a happy and peaceful Christmas. I look forward to renewing hostilities as early as possible.

As they say in all the best circles, I agree. I wish everyone a happy Christmas.

On behalf of the Independents——

Who is the Deputy representing?

——I wish the Minister and Ministers of State a happy Christmas. I also wish to inform the public that we are not going on holidays for 40 days.

I thank the Deputies for their kind comments. From a personal perspective, I am glad that seasonal calm has been restored. I wish a restful and peaceful Christmas to all who work and serve in the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

Top
Share