Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN'S RIGHTS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 20 Nov 2007

Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Bill 2007: Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 are cognate and will be discussed together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, line 21, after "act" to insert the following:

"that is unlawful or that is intended to be committed with a third person".

We are dealing with the interpretations section. Generally speaking, I am happy with the interpretation of the term "sexual exploitation" as listed in the Bill. However, I would like to probe the Minister's response to the amendment.

It would appear that the definition of "sexual exploitation" is so wide as to catch many things not normally deemed sexual exploitation. As it stands, if a 17 year old invites another 17 year old to engage in a sexual act, he or she is committing the offence of sexually exploiting a child under section (3)(2)(a) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 and section 4 of this Bill, and is liable to imprisonment for life even if the sexual act in question is lawful. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to this proposal which seems somewhat loose.

I do not know whether one could take too much comfort from the promise that enforcement will be a matter for the DPP and that one can rest easy in one's bed. Given the nature of the phenomenon with which we are dealing, namely, human trafficking, the definition must be rigorous. The organisations working in this area have argued for rigorous interpretations. I do not dispute that. I would like to hear the Minister's response on the points I have raised.

The gist of the offence is the trafficking, not the exploitation. That is the essential proof in this matter. The definition of "sexual exploitation", therefore, only comes into play where a person has been trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The Act does not supply a general definition of "sexual exploitation" that can be used elsewhere in the law.

In line with the meaning of "sexual exploitation" in the international instruments, it was necessary to determine the types of activities for which a person might be trafficked for sexual exploitation, but nowhere does it say that these should be offences. For example, paragraph (a) of the definition refers to the production of pornography depicting the person either alone or with others. Depicting a person in a pornographic image may not necessarily be an offence. It depends on the circumstances. What would be an offence would be the trafficking of a person for that purpose. It should be borne in mind that the person will have been coerced, forced or deceived in order for the trafficking to have taken place. Similarly, if one takes paragraph (e) of the definition, which reads, “otherwise causing the person to engage or participate in any sexual, indecent or obscene act”, it is not intended that the sexual, indecent or obscene act the person is caused to engage or participate in is an unlawful act. It may well be but it should be enough that the person has been trafficked for that purpose for an offence to be committed.

It is difficult to give examples of what in any given set of circumstances may or may not be unlawful. That would be for a court to decide. I do not wish to introduce confusion as to whether a particular act in a given set of circumstances was or was not an unlawful act. It should be enough that a person was trafficked to engage or participate in a sexual, indecent or obscene act, whether or not the act was unlawful.

Deputy Rabbitte has raised this question by way of amendment. It is a very useful amendment because it illustrates the core principle of the legislation. However, to accept the amendment would raise the bar in obtaining evidence for convictions for trafficking where the purpose of the trafficking fell into the category in paragraph (e). It is enough that the person was deceived into being trafficked for sexual exploitation which consisted of engaging or participating in an indecent act. For that reason I am not disposed to accepting the amendments.

I find the Minister's argument persuasive. In putting down this amendment, it was not my intention to lower the bar in any way, but the question of whether or not the act was lawful could arise. I understand the Minister to be saying that whether or not the act is unlawful the fact that the person concerned has been trafficked is the motivating force behind the definitions as they are framed. I accept that it is enough to be able to demonstrate that the person was trafficked. Presumably the court will have an opinion, if it should be contested, regarding whether the act was unlawful, or whether that was relevant in the circumstances of the trafficking. It is not my intention that the bar should be raised because of the nature of the exploitation in question. It is important to be clear that the phenomenon we are trying to combat is trafficking.

As amendments Nos. 1 and 6 are being discussed together does the Deputy wish to make a contribution on amendment No. 6?

The same purpose applies to amendment No. 6.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 7 are cognate and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, line 34, to delete "employment." and substitute the following:

"employment,

(e) any person who attempts to commit an action under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) or (d), and

(f) any person who believes that a person has committed an action under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e).".

The objective of these two amendments is to bring within the terms of the legislation the intention of a person to carry out an offence or the belief on the part of one person that another person was likely to carry out an offence. In UK legislation on sexual exploitation the intention to carry out an offence of trafficking is in itself an offence.

I understand the Deputy's sentiment in tabling the amendment but the matters to which he referred are addressed by the legislation. On the subject of attempting to commit an offence, the Bill, as drafted, defines such terms as "traffics" and then creates the offences of trafficking for specific purposes. The trafficking offences are in sections 3, 4 and 5 and they are the substantive offences. If the Deputy examines section 3(4), section 4(b) and section 5(5) he will see that those subsections make it an offence to attempt to commit the offences included in those sections. In other words, it will be an offence to attempt to commit any of the trafficking offences. I am satisfied that the creation of a separate offence of attempting to commit these actions addresses that part of the Deputy’s amendment.

The other issue he raised concerned knowing or believing that an offence has been committed. Under the amendment, a person who believed another person had committed such an action would commit an offence. This is somewhat far-reaching because a person can believe another person has committed an offence without being in any way guilty of any participation in the offence.

The general law is set out in section 7(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1997. This replaced the old offence of misprision of felony with a new offence which provides that where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing him or her to be guilty of the offence or of some other arrestable offence, does without reasonable excuse any act to impede his or her apprehension or prosecution, shall be guilty of an offence. That will apply to these sections on their enactment.

I am satisfied that the general provision is adequate to address the mischief which Deputy Naughten seeks to address. In addition to knowledge or belief that a person is guilty of an offence, it puts some onus on the prosecution to establish some further element of actual participation in the offence through the impeding of apprehension or prosecution, so I am satisfied that section addresses the difficulty the Deputy raised.

I accept the two points the Minister made to the effect that provision is made in the legislation. I will defer to his superior legal knowledge on the second matter.

It is not my superior legal knowledge but that of my officials.

If the Minister is satisfied that the intention behind the amendments is provided for in the two pieces of legislation I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

I assume we can move on to a discussion of section 2.

On Second Stage I raised a point regarding children who may be trafficked for welfare claims, etc. I referred to the case in England of Victoria Climbié, who had been trafficked so that the family could gain financially from welfare fraud. Another section covering exploitation for financial gain should be inserted in the explanatory part of the Bill dealing with exploitation. I ask the Minister to give the matter consideration and I will be tabling an amendment on Report Stage.

On a related point regarding labour exploitation. We have had a number of reported incidents in this jurisdiction of persons having been brought to this country being charged exploitative rates of rent and board as a method of enslavement. Does the definition as it stands cover that issue?

I will consider the matter Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised. However, the formula he has used is not generally employed in the international instruments applicable to this section. If he formulates an amendment I will examine it.

On labour exploitation, the gist of the offence relates to the trafficking. So, trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation forms the gist of the offence. Of course we must be very wary in this area. I recently met Mr. David Begg and some of the officials at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions about this difficulty. Whereas an EU national has a right of travel and various rights guaranteed in Ireland, the person who arrives here on foot, for example, on a work visa with a single employer can be put in a far more perilous position. I imagine the Act would target the trafficking of persons who obtained a visa for some other purpose and were used for a labour purpose, for example. Would the Deputy like to postulate a hypothetical case?

If someone who was trafficked into this jurisdiction was getting the national minimum wage there would not be an issue of labour exploitation per se under the definition. However, the person could be trafficked to another party who charges an exorbitant rate of rent and board resulting in the person generating a very small wage of, for example, €20 or €25 per week into his or her pocket after paying for rent and board. Examples of such incidents in this country have been reported. Would they come under this definition in that they are getting the going rate of pay but are not receiving it by the time they have paid for rent, board, etc.?

If that type of truck arrangement were in operation it would clearly amount to, in the language of the Act, "servitude or a similar condition or state." It would be captured by those words. I am not sure that every truck-type arrangement would be captured. However, certainly an arrangement of the type the Deputy described would be if it amounted to a reduction of the status of the worker into servitude.

The Deputy should recall also that a person having arrived here on a work visa for a particular employer may be laid off, forcing him or her to render services to another, which is specifically addressed in the legislation.

I am thinking about other circumstances in which exploitation can take place. We recently learned that approximately 300 children from an area of Chad that is near Darfur were being trafficked. They were grabbed by people who were supposedly working for a charity on the basis that they would ultimately be adopted. Would such cases be seen as exploitation? I do not know whether the people in question were trafficking the children for financial gain. Perhaps they were influenced by religious fervour. We need to ensure that this is as correct as possible so that it covers all eventualities.

In practical terms, it is difficult for children who are taken under such circumstances to be adopted under Irish law because no appropriate adoption arrangement is in place. I refer to the procedures which have to be followed to adopt in Ireland. The Deputy might wonder what stops someone from engaging in an informal and private adoption. I assure him that there are considerable difficulties in that respect. When a child is lawfully adopted in this jurisdiction, in accordance with our adoption code, the person acquires Irish nationality and citizenship. If a child were brought into this jurisdiction in the manner described by Deputy Ó Snodaigh to be informally adopted here, he or she would not acquire Irish nationality. The child and his or her parents would be immobilised within this jurisdiction for a period of time, and difficult questions would arise about the right of the child to have any entitlements in Ireland. That is the practical answer. I understand that the legislation being prepared to ratify the Hague Convention is due to be published in this session. This section does not expressly cover that point.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

As amendments Nos. 3 and 13 are related, they may be discussed together, by agreement.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3. The Minister shall promulgate a code of victim's rights in respect of victims of trafficking which shall address the following issues:

(a) protection of private life of victims;

(b) appropriate medical assistance to victims;

(c) secure accommodation;

(d) recovery and reflection period (minimum 30 days);

(e) temporary Residence permit (minimum 6 months);

(f) translation and interpretation facilities where necessary;

(g) access to counselling and information services, in particular, as regards legal rights, in a language that can be understood;

(h) access to legal aid;

(i) right of access to education for children;

(j) right to access social welfare benefits as necessary;

(k) voluntary repatriation and return of victims;

(l) facilitating access to the asylum process;

(m) special protection measures for child victims;

(n) family reunification;

(o) right to work;

(p) right to access vocational training and education; and

(q) compensation and facilitating legal redress against traffickers.”.

This amendment seeks to insert a new section that will address the question of victims' rights. The Minister is aware that organisations concerned with the crime of trafficking have broadly welcomed the efforts to deal with trafficking through law enforcement. They accept that the Bill is trying to address these issues fairly, from a law enforcement point of view. They agree that it represents a response to the submissions and other forms of advocacy issued by the organisations which are working at the coal face. However, they have a different view of what they see as the Bill's failure to address the protection needs of people, particularly women and children, who have been trafficked. They feel that such a comprehensive approach is absent from the Bill. Essentially, the argument of people who have such concerns is that effective legal measures are required to ensure that the physical, psychological and social recovery of victims is assisted. They feel the Bill does not set out a framework within which such protection can be provided. They argue that a legally protected period of recovery is essential to give people time to recover, to liberate themselves from the manipulation and influence of traffickers, to reflect and to make informed decisions on co-operating with the authorities. A legally protected period of recovery is essential. Amendment No. 3 seeks to deal with this question of the protection of victims of trafficking and seeks to insert a new section before section 3. I set out in the amendment the elements of what ought to be contained in a victims' charter to meet that requirement.

As I am advised, the provision of a temporary residence permit is desirable and necessary to meet both the needs of the victims and of the inquiring authorities. If the victim were to be immediately returned to the country of origin, how would that assist either the victim or the investigatory authority? It would undermine the question of combatting trafficking in that case. An immediate return to the country of origin would probably mean no more than being exploited all over again or being returned in another guise. The medical and other needs of trafficked persons are not addressed as the Bill stands. The opportunity for the trafficked person to co-operate with the investigating authorities is pretty much constrained.

The provisions in my amendment are abstracted in one way or another from the various international instruments to provide for the protection of victims. This issue of the protection of victims is the central piece missing from the Bill as it stands. Agreeing to accept and enshrine this provision in the Bill which would require the Minister to promulgate a code of practice would oblige us as a State to focus on each of the particular matters, to the benefit of the unfortunate victims and to facilitate the efficacy of inquiry by the investigatory authorities here.

Before I ask the Minister to reply, as this amendment is being discussed with amendment No. 13 in the name of Deputy Naughten, I invite him to discuss that amendment.

Amendment No. 13 specifically deals with one element of Amendment No. 3, the temporary residency permit for a period of six months. I have tried to word this amendment in such a way as to bring it into line with the existing immigration legislation in the hope that the Minister may favour it. The objective of my amendment is the same as what has been articulated by Deputy Rabbitte. We are talking about worthless legislation unless this provision is accepted. The Minister proposes such a provision as part of the forthcoming immigration Bill. However, we have not seen this Bill and it is hoped it will be published in the coming weeks. We do not know what specific provision will be put into that Bill. I hope this legislation will be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas prior to Christmas, which means it will be enacted within 30 days of being passed. However, it cannot be enforced from the point of view of taking successful prosecutions until the immigration Bill is passed by both Houses and enacted. The reality, as the Minister is aware, is that it will be complex legislation that will take some time to go through the Oireachtas.

If we are relying on victims to come forward to the Garda Síochána and commit themselves to giving evidence in potential prosecutions, then we need to ensure these persons have legal residency in the State on a temporary basis. The suggestion I made is that such persons would be given leave to remain in the State for a period of six months, which could be renewed by the Minister. Without these protections being put in place it would be virtually impossible for the Garda to make successful prosecutions. This is what we need to do if we are going to eradicate this problem.

We can debate how big or small an issue it is in Ireland but it does happen and as long as we do not have the strongest possible legislation in place we are facilitating it happening. That is why it is critically important that issue is addressed in this legislation and not put off until a later date. It is also important that we provide assistance and protection to the persons in question in terms of housing, medical support and interpretation services, among others. I will address the issue of legal aid later.

Deputy Rabbitte referred to a recovery and reflection period. It is important, either after these persons come forward or come to the attention of the Garda authorities, that they are given an initial reflection and recovery period to consider exactly what they intend to do before a prosecution would be initiated. I urge the Minister to reconsider his current position and provide some type of temporary residency permit. Without it, the Garda will be hamstrung in trying to deal with this issue.

Before I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I draw members' attention to the fact it is after 4.15 p.m. and we agreed to adjourn at this time to reconvene at 7 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 4.20 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

I support amendment No. 3, which is being discussed with amendment No. 13. In his amendment, Deputy Rabbitte proposes that temporary residence permits be issued for a minimum of six months. If the Minister takes this amendment on board, I suggest that the permits should be renewable. Deputy Naughten's amendment would allow the permits to be renewed. That is important in case the court proceedings have not concluded after six months. The proposed minimum timeframe might cover it, but perhaps the permits should be renewable in case the set period of time is not sufficient. We are talking about protection. If we are serious about addressing the human trafficking scandal, we need to ensure that protection is outlined in this Bill rather than in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2007. We need to set it out in a logical manner so victims can know they have the support of legislation.

Is Ireland ready to sign up to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings? Will that happen after we have passed this Bill? If we are serious about this issue, we need more than protection - we should ensure that people who suffer in this jurisdiction not only see the perpetrator getting a fine or being sentenced to life imprisonment, but they should also get compensation from those who have wronged them. I might table an amendment to that end on Report Stage. An effective measure of this type needs to be included in this Bill. The legislation in this area can be tightened up, or added to, when we are considering the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2007. We are currently dealing with human trafficking only. We should clarify where we are providing the protection.

I am glad to have an opportunity to make a contribution on these amendments, in particular, as they seek to address the essence of the criticism of the Bill. This legislation has many good aspects - it defines the trafficking of adults for the first time in Irish law. I welcome the Bill's tough prosecution penalties for those who are involved in trafficking. I have attended many public meetings on this legislation, including one in UCC last night. I welcome the consultation process which is under way.

Many people regard this as the key issue in terms of improving the Bill. Deputy Naughten's amendments are similar to Deputy Rabbitte's amendment No. 3 which makes the same points. The Minister will probably say that the issue of temporary residency permits will be dealt with in the immigration and residency Bill and that victim protection measures will be dealt with by regulation. What I and many other people want is a victim protection provision enshrined in this Bill as a balance between being tough on the criminal while at the same time being compassionate towards the victim.

If it is planned to deal with an issue such as residency permits in an immigration Bill, then the issue will be debated in the context of a series of other immigration issues, some of which will be controversial and difficult to deal with and will concern illegal immigrants. People who are exploited and abused should be regarded as victims, whether working in the sex industry or the mushroom industry or working in a hotel kitchen, as opposed to being included in legislation that is primarily dealing with the issue of illegal immigrants.

We need to make it clear that we are giving legal effect to the right of protection for victims of trafficking if they come forward and tell their story or even if they are discovered rather than coming forward themselves. The Government needs to do everything possible to send out the message that this is an issue of abuse, that these people are victims and that no matter where they are from, they will be given the humane protection of the State and temporary residency for up to six months. Deportation should be the last thing they need to worry about, as is being treated as an illegal immigrant or a criminal. They must be assured that they will be given assistance, support and temporary residency. This Bill could be good legislation and my party is willing to support it if the Minister shows a willingness to accept either this amendment or something similar which the Minister could propose. Leaving aside party political considerations, I ask the Minister to consider this amendment or a similar measure as a way of sending out a strong signal that we are serious about being compassionate towards victims of trafficking as well as being seen to be tough on the criminals who are the traffickers.

I explained on Second Stage that this is a criminal law Bill which is concerned with the criminal law response to human trafficking. The Government is putting in place an overall strategy to create a comprehensive response to the issue of human trafficking by utilising all the resources of the State. This will make Ireland a more hostile environment for those who might consider trafficking people into the jurisdiction. A pivotal element of this strategy is the establishment of a new anti-human trafficking unit within my Department, to be headed up at executive director level. The competition for the appointment to this position is now under way.

Another key strand is the high level group on combatting trafficking in human beings. This group has been required to draw up a first national action plan to frame the most appropriate response to dealing with trafficking in human beings. The group will be co-chaired by the director general of the Irish National Immigration Service and the assistant secretary at the Department who deals with crime. It will include representatives of the Garda Síochána and other Departments and offices. As part of its deliberations, the group will engage with the non-governmental organisations to achieve an effective response to the crime of human trafficking. When the national action is drawn up and is in operation, it will allow Ireland to ratify the Council of Europe Convention On Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. Many of the issues raised in Deputy Rabbitte's amendment relate to victim care and assistance and most of these headings are included in the convention. In order to ratify the convention, all of these issues will have to be fully considered by the high level group and put into operation.

In his amendment, Deputy Rabbitte specifically raised the question of special protection measures for child victims. There is nothing more appalling or disturbing than the trafficking of children for sexual or labour exploitation. Since Ireland signed the Council of Europe convention in April 2007, my officials have participated at many Council of Europe seminars on this issue. Human trafficking by its nature is a crime that crosses national boundaries and international liaison and co-operation is vital to counter it.

Regarding the issue of the period of recovery and reflection in the State, I can assure Deputy Coveney I will bring forward amendments in the context of the immigration Bill along the lines he has advocated. I have indicated previously that I had intended to include provisions in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill which will strengthen the protections available to victims of trafficking. The immigration Bill is not just a measure to deal with illegal immigration, but it is understandable that some of the public discussion on it will focus on that subject. It is of course a comprehensive charter codifying our legislation in this area and repealing previous enactments. The question of a right of residence in the State has to be considered in the context of that legislation.

It is intended that a period of recovery and reflection in the State will be provided, thereby permitting a victim of trafficking to be afforded that period of time. It is intended that this period would allow the victim time to heal and recover from his or her experience and also provide an opportunity to escape the influence of those who engage in human trafficking. This will also allow the victim time to come to a decision on whether he or she wishes to participate in any criminal proceedings and a further period of residence in the State will enable a victim to do that.

I appreciate Deputy Naughten's intention in tabling his amendment. Likewise, I am anxious to ensure victims of trafficking who may encounter issues concerning their immigration status would be allowed time in the State to recover and reflect on their circumstances. I intend to bring forward legislation in this area. The provisions are being prepared for inclusion in the forthcoming Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. Provisions of this nature reside more properly in legislation dealing with immigration matters. I am satisfied that given the fact that drafting of this Bill is at an advanced stage, this should not present any difficulties.

I am also examining the question of a resident permit in appropriate circumstances. I have other legal concerns about Deputy Naughten's proposal that are modelled on the draft of the Refugee Act 1996 but it is not necessarily the appropriate legal formula. Nevertheless, I appreciate his raising the issue.

I listened carefully to the Minister and I understand what he is saying. I appreciate that in his reply he is holding out the prospect, at least in some instances, of meeting some of the thrust of the amendment. I am bound to say I think he is wrong. I do not profess any great knowledge of this subject or any familiarity with it, but in so far as I have talked to people who are working at the coalface and to whom we owe a considerable debt in bringing the issue this far and having it climb to this priority in the political agenda, they tell me that this is exactly the wrong way to go about it. I understand that the Minister has said it is a criminal law Bill. I appreciate that fact.

The point being made by people who have expertise in this area is that one cannot combat this phenomenon by criminal law measures alone. According to the people who have studied this issue and know most about it, the protection of victims in all of the guises encompassed in my amendment, which overlaps that of Deputy Naughten who has raised some additional matters, must be at the heart of a Bill on human trafficking. The immigration Bill will be a very important and significant Bill and is likely to be contentious in some respects. Deputy Coveney is right that, given the importance of this issue in the life of our people now, this will be seen as a minor issue in the context of the immigration Bill.

There is academic dispute about the number of persons involved. The Minister's figures suggest the numbers are finite enough to seek to intrude that into the debate on the immigration Bill. The atmosphere surrounding that legislation will be entirely different. The arguments put forward by women, and it is largely women who have been concerned with this issue, is that the charter for the protection of victims should be at the heart of any Bill to combat trafficking in human beings. I would like to think we could persuade the Minister to change his mind. He has shown the capacity to do so on other Bills lying around the place that he has inherited or is refurbishing. This is not just another amendment. It is at the heart of what is missing as far as the people in question are concerned. They have persuaded me and I would like to make another effort to persuade the Minister.

I echo what Deputy Rabbitte has said. The Minister's reasoning is that this is a criminal law response to the issue of trafficking. The reality is that without specific provision in regard to temporary residency, this legislation is worthless. Women will not come forward to give evidence unless this issue is addressed. The Minister makes the point that he will address this issue in the immigration Bill. However, the immigration Bill will not get as speedy a run through the Oireachtas as this legislation. I understand it is comprehensive and it is important that it be thoroughly scrutinised when it comes before the Oireachtas.

In the meantime the Minister is putting the current legislation on ice. There is a welcome provision in this legislation that, once it is passed by the Oireachtas and signed by the President, it must be enacted within 30 days. That is a commendable proposal. However, there is not much point in enacting this without putting in place the necessary protection for the women who may come forward to give evidence. I made the point on Second Stage that women will not come forward unless that protection is there. We all want to see successful prosecutions in this area. We will not have them unless people are prepared to give evidence in a court of law.

Every international convention on this issue has stated that the protection of victims should be enshrined in trafficking legislation, not in immigration legislation. All bodies representing women who have been trafficked say it is of fundamental importance that this Bill, rather than immigration legislation, enshrines protection for the women and victims in question. I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to this proposal. My amendment may not be the most acceptable way to proceed but I ask the Minister to examine its content and introduce an amendment on Report Stage. We may debate the other amendments relating to this matter but this is the fundamental issue. One small amendment could include a provision that would make the legislation worthwhile, which is what we all want.

The public consultation process will elicit much comment on the Bill and on how people feel it can be improved. Almost all of that representation will be on this issue. I understand the Minister's point that because we are dealing with a residency permit it is much easier, in legal drafting terms, to deal with this issue within immigration legislation. It makes sense to put issues of residency under that heading. However, this misses the point. We are dealing with a small number of people, many of whom have been severely abused and exploited. People are looking to this legislation as the Government's response to the trafficking problem.

The Bill needs to be proofed for prosecution, prevention and protection of victims. In terms of prosecution, it deals well with definitions and legal sanctions. Other issues arise with regard to prevention. Fine Gael feels the Bill should also target the users of trafficked victims. The Government would receive a positive response if it showed a willingness to move on the issue of victims. If it is technically possible to insert a measure to grant legal protection to victims of trafficking, if only a reference to the content of the promised immigration Bill, I urge the Minister to do that. I do not accept that because this is a criminal law Bill we cannot find wording to show a strong commitment from the Government or an indication that we intend to take victims' rights as seriously as we take the prosecution of people involved in trafficking.

Deputy Naughten points out that if the legislation is principally concerned with securing convictions it should encourage victims to come forward and tell their stories. We must reinforce the message that they will be safe in doing that, will get the protection of the State and will not be treated as criminals but as victims who need help. This legislation, rather than dealing with the tough side of criminal law and prosecution, should give an indication that the proposed immigration Bill, which will be debated over a long period of time, will deal with the residency permit issue for trafficked victims. People would appreciate a Government declaration that it is intent on doing that. However, dealing with the issue in this Bill would be seen as a much more comprehensive response to the issue of trafficking, from the points of view of both prosecution and protection.

Are you minded to look at this matter, Minister?

During the debate on Second Stage, I made it clear that the Government is committed to a comprehensive approach to this issue. Were we to introduce provisions in the Bill providing for that suggested by Deputy Coveney, they would be repealed and re-enacted in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2007 which is where they properly belong.

Deputy Rabbitte's amendment lists a catalogue of matters that should be attended to on behalf of victims. The bulk of these are matters of practical import that do not require legislative rubric and can be dealt with by the high level working group to combat trafficking which is drawing up a national action plan. The one outstanding legal issue in terms of victims is the question of residency. I have made clear that this issue must be addressed. However, the most considered way of addressing this is in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. The national plan is currently being devised. The precise nature of the residence required needs to be worked out and it is best included in that context.

I appreciate the concern of the organisations referred to but, I have always made clear that this Bill is the first essential step in the process. We must first criminalise the conduct and then introduce the practical measures to deal with it. This cannot be done the other way round. It is not normal to include in Statutes relating to criminal law this type of provision especially when it relates to a whole code in respect of rights of residence generally.

How stands the amendment?

Why not include a provision similar to that provided for in my amendment and then repeal it in the other legislation? Whether or not we like it, the reality is that we are putting this Bill on ice in that there will be no successful prosecutions until the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2007 is enacted. I presume there will be a phased enactment of that Bill which is tradition in terms of much of this type of legislation.

It will take us some considerable time to deal with this. Why cannot the Minister include a simple amendment along the lines suggested by me? I accept there may be issues in respect of the wording used. The Minister can then repeal it when the immigration Bill comes into force. The reality is that it could take up to 12 months for that legislation to go through both Houses of the Oireachtas subsequent to which, it may be open to challenge.

I am prepared to revisit the issue raised by Deputy Naughten on Report Stage. It is my intention to have this legislation in force within 30 days of its signature by the President. I must also point out that I do not intend to have a debate on the immigration Bill that will last an entire year. This is urgent legislation and it must be published this year.

The Minister will accept that there is the possibility it will be open to legal challenge even after enactment by the Houses and that this could delay matters. If our intention is to try to provide protection for victims, why not include a provision now and repeal it later.

Everything in respect of immigration matters is subject to legal challenge. The immigration Bill will be comprehensive legislation dealing with all matters of immigration. At the rate developments are proceeding in the courts, I can foresee the necessity for an annual revising Act once the foundation template is in place.

Will the Minister reconsider the matter for Report Stage?

I will revisit the issue of whether anything can be done pending enactment of the immigration Bill. It may be possible to put in place an administrative arrangement that will not require legislation. I will examine that specific issue.

People want a signal from the Minister that this issue will be addressed in the legislation.

It has been made clear that this matter will be addressed by the immigration Bill. I am prepared to revisit the issue on Report Stage. I will also revisit the issue with my departmental officials to see if something can be put in place, whether by way of legislative provision or administration arrangement, pending enactment of the immigration Bill. Members should bear in mind that the high level working group is only commencing its work.

How stands the amendment in light of the Minister's response?

I understand what the Minister is saying. However, I have not heard him advance any impediment to his making the decision, for example, to enshrine the terms of my amendment in the Bill. He seems to say that it has not been traditional in a criminal law Bill to give statutory protection to victims and he is probably correct historically. However, who says that is the way it should continue? That is the point at issue in this amendment. I seek to give statutory force to the framework of protection of victims' rights. I cannot see the technical impediment. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform may consider that if this were given statutory force, and a framework for victim protection had to be promulgated, it would require a certain amount of work on the provisions under the various headings and that its staff are otherwise occupied or too busy to deal with it. I understand that but these people are not like other immigrants.

Asylum seekers or migrant labourers looking for work, and in some cases representing themselves as asylum seekers, are very different from people in the circumstances I am describing. The latter are young girls and women trafficked into this country for the purposes of exploitation. That is a very different phenomenon from somebody getting on a aeroplane in Kampala and taking his or her chances of getting a job or social welfare here. Such people, as Deputy Naughten said, will not come forward under this criminal law Bill as they are too bruised and battered by their experience. Furthermore, they are in an alien environment and do not know how to get access to legal aid and their experience is not one to encourage them to put their heads above the parapet. Recently, in Deputy Naughten's part of the country, a young woman was found in a brothel, having been trafficked here, and ended up in Mountjoy Prison. That is not a desirable first step to remedy these situations.

I do not question the Minister's soothing words, though I am excessively vulnerable to his soothing words. Others might not be. However, in the event of his moving on to higher office, which is not improbable--

It is unlikely.

--where would we stand with a different Minister? Can the Minister tell me the technical impediment to giving statutory force to a charter to promulgate rights of victims?

The technical objection is that it would drive a coach and four horses through several Acts of the Oireachtas. Access to legal aid exists, as does access to education for children and access to social welfare benefits as necessary. The problem is that everybody has some rights by virtue of their residence in the State. A substantial bundle of rights is acquired by people through lawful residence in the State and that is established through the immigration procedures and by the legislation which already covers these topics and which is in urgent need of revision. I am willing to examine the question of whether an administrative arrangement can be put in place pending the enactment of the immigration Bill. What is needed under the present legislation is an administrative arrangement to address these issues, rather than a formal legal change. I am prepared to revisit this issue before Report Stage.

How stands the Deputy's amendment in light of the Minister's comments?

The Minister has said he will revisit it before Report Stage. I give notice that I will re-enter it on report Stage. It was my intention to press it. It is very important. I am not convinced the impediments mentioned by the Minister's arguments are insurmountable. We are talking about a very small number of people in specific circumstances and the onus that falls on the State as a result of being required to comply with this statutory framework would not be too severe.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Barr
Roinn