Justice – Page 2 – Governance Consulting

11 June 201416 December 2018

Mother and Baby Homes: Statements

Wednesday, 11th June 2014

I warmly welcome the Minister to the House. Everyone in the Chamber will agree that the recent revelations are yet another deplorable stain on our collective conscience. In preparing for my statement, my personal shame as a member of the collective that turned a blind eye to the abuse and suffering of women and children, out of fear and deference to the powerful, is as acute as ever before. It is the same shame I felt reading each of the reports – Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne – into the systematic abuse and exploitation of vulnerable children in State and church institutions in Ireland. It is the same shame I felt reading the harrowing testimony from survivors of the Magdalen laundries and symphysiotomy procedures performed by medical professionals in Irish hospitals.

I share the overwhelming sense of shame and compunction over the unthinkable fate suffered by our sisters, cousins, friends and daughters labelled “fallen women” by church and community for becoming pregnant out of marriage and sent to these homes for their sins and rehabilitation. The isolation, hardship and suffering to which these young women were subjected in the name of honour and respectability is almost unthinkable in contemporary Ireland. How many of these young women fell pregnant against their will, by way of rape, incest and familial abuse, and found themselves arbitrarily and extra-judicially detained in these homes? It is the worst injustice imaginable when the victim is punished. It reminds me of punishment by stoning for adultery under Sharia law for women who have been raped.

Due to the time limit, I will limit my main observations to the issue of adoption, including the legality of adoptions prior to the Adoption Act 1952. Although the national adoption contact preference register contains data on only a small number of adoptions, the 2011 Adoption Authority of Ireland audit of the records found 50 cases of illegal adoptions. Given that the vast majority of adoption records are held by the Health Service Executive, HSE, and Child and Family Agency, CFA, we have seen only the tip of the iceberg of illegal adoptions. The area of adoption legality is extremely complex and technical and the commission will need an expert on adoption law to deal with what is likely to be a huge body of work. The Mahon tribunal had two to three experts working together.

So many of the issues thrown up by the mother and baby homes are not just legacies of the past but prevailing issues today, from which an examination of the past can yield lessons for legislation and policy today. Earlier today, I met several survivor groups, and we must ensure any inquiry, and the process to establish it, will hear their voices and involve them. The latest revelations have once again brought to the fore the trauma and suffering of many of the survivors. We must ensure we care for the living. I welcome, so early in the Minister’s new term of office, his speedy and committed response to establish a statutory commission of investigation. We are all waiting to find out the scope of the inquiry and which homes and what period will be included. Will the State take responsibility for collating all the records or will it do the same as in the report into the Magdalen laundries, namely, receive the records and then return them to the church-run institutions?

The inquiry must deal with many inter-related matters. The prevailing issues are adoption, the right to identity, lone parents, the role of women, poverty, social strata, and the rights of unmarried fathers, whose names are still not necessarily recorded on birth certificates. Will the investigation have the resources it needs and the appropriate expertise to deal with the myriad issues I have outlined? We must find a way to prioritise the truths from which there can be learning. We have recently seen the role social historians and archivists have played and can continue to play in investigative teams. Can we learn from the Murphy report experience? Should the inquiry find a way to do its work by sampling to find the appropriate balance between truth, expediency, bearing witness, and establishing and identifying causal and contributing factors, thereby maximising the scope to learn lessons?

Lest we forget, each and every one of these children had a name, and to ensure they get the memorial they deserve, their names must be listed in their honour. They are the children we promised, at the formation of the State, to cherish equally.

15 May 201416 December 2018

Senator van Turnhout calls on Ireland to immediately transpose the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive into national legislation

Press Statement, 15 April 2013

***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***

SENATOR VAN TURNHOUT CALLS ON IRELAND TO IMMEDIATELY TRANSPOSE THE EU ANTI-TRAFFICKING DIRECTIVE INTO NATIONAL LEGISLATION

I warmly welcome today’s publication of the European Commission’s Eurostat Report Trafficking in human beings. I note with extreme concern that 62% of all those identified or presumed to be victims of human trafficking in the EU over the 2008-2010 period, were trafficked for sexual exploitation, with countries of trafficking origin identified both inside and outside the EU.

According to Department of Justice annual reports of trafficking in human beings in Ireland for 2009, 2010, and 2011, there were 132 detected cases of trafficking for sexual exploitation, of which 32 were children. Despite this, there has been a negligible number of prosecutions under the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act, 2008 and the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998. Furthermore, Ireland has failed to transpose the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive, the deadline for which expired on 6 April.

Following a very constructive meeting last week with Myria Vassiliadou, EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator, where we shared our mutual concerns, I call on the Government to immediately transpose the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive into national legislation. The EU Directive will have a significant impact on the lives of trafficking victims and will prevent others from falling victim to this heinous crime.

I will continue my work in the Seanad: advocating to criminalise the purchase of sex in Ireland to curb prostitution and trafficking; seeking to introduce and strengthen regulations around vulnerable work placements, such as Au-Pairing; and focusing on the distinct vulnerability of asylum seekers in Direct Provision to trafficking and exploitation in Ireland.

-ENDS-

Notes for the Editor:

European Commission Report: Trafficking in human beings, Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA, and all related European Commission press releases can be view at http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/malmstrom/news/archives/2013/04/20130415_en.htm

For More Information, Please Contact:

Senator Jillian van Turnhout, Leader of the Independent Group (Taoiseach’s Nominees) Phone: 01-6183375 e-mail:jillian.vanturnhout@oireachtas.ie

20 February 201416 December 2018

Senator Jillian van Turnhout – Statements on Youth Justice Policy.

29 January 201416 December 2018

An Update on Youth Justice Policy

28 January 2014

I have a good deal to say but I will try to contain myself.
I welcome the Minister, who has laid down a comprehensive statement on youth policy, which she had hoped to do in December. It is great that this is all together and that the Minister used the House to do this. The Minister mentioned that we are improving our data, but I remain concerned at the lack of data in the area, a point to which I will return. This particularly applies to juvenile offenders and children coming into contact with the criminal justice system. Through an analysis of various reports compiled by the Association for Criminal Justice Research and Development and a number of significant academic studies by the likes of Sinead McPhillips, Dr. Ursula Kilkelly and Dr. Jennifer Hayes, three key risk factors associated with children who became involved in criminal behaviour have been identified. As the Minister knows, these are family background, educational disadvantage characterised by poor literacy skills and low levels of academic achievement, and personal and familial factors such as alcohol and drug misuse, intergenerational crime and mental health problems. The studies have categorised the factors for us but it is not the understanding of the majority of the public, who are confronted daily with media reports and headlines about violent youth offenders and delinquent youths who are out of control. In the absence of political and media discourse to the contrary, it is understandable that they want to see zero tolerance and tough-on-crime type approaches. That is why the Minister’s intervention is important. I support her understanding and her moves to promote prevention and early intervention.

I commend the work of so many of the agencies involved in the delivery of juvenile justice policy in Ireland, such as An Garda Síochána, particularly its Garda youth diversion projects, the dedicated young persons’ probation division of the Probation Service, the Courts Service, and the Irish Prison Service, as long as it still has 17-year-old children detained in St. Patrick’s Institution. I would like to make special mention of the Irish Youth Justice Service, IYJS, which has been leading and driving reform in the area of youth justice since its creation in 2005. It has made important strides and shows the importance of Departments working together, as the Minister outlined.
It is a real missed opportunity that a centralised data and research department has not been established in the IYJS. We need to co-ordinate inter-agency research between the agencies involved in the delivery of juvenile justice and map the trajectory of the child through the criminal justice system. Every child has an individual story but we mostly get to read these in child death reports and other significant reports. We need to collect the data earlier. We also need to identify divergences between the policy and legal framework of youth justice and its implementation, administration and practice.

I would like to personally congratulate the Minister on a number of successes and advances in youth justice policy under her stewardship. In particular, I welcome the decision on St. Patrick’s Institution and today’s update on bringing the detention centres together. It has been long promised, but the Minister has done it and I thank her for it. We need a unified approach and I am happy to hear that a new head of the campus has been appointed. I look forward to the opportunity to support the legislation brought to the House. There are significant challenges in respect of the campus but I will support the Minister. In the interim, since December 2013, 17 year olds are being remanded to Wheatfield Prison. I note specific concerns raised by the Irish Penal Reform Trust in respect of 18 to 21 year olds, and obviously any 17 year olds detained there, that Wheatfield is often overcrowded and does not have adequate education and training capacity for its inmates. The focus for our young adult prison population must be on rehabilitation and not simply containment. I remain concerned about the interim period and how we are serving these young people.
I raise my concern over the lack of sufficient special care and protection places available to children with severe emotional and behavioural difficulties. I raised the point in November when we debated the Child and Family Agency Bill. From a juvenile justice policy perspective, my concern echoes that articulated by Judge Ann Ryan, who until recently presided over the Children’s Court in Smithfield. She has spoken of her frustration at the lack of HSE special care and protection places available to children, citing a correlation between the failure of the State to appropriately deal with these acutely vulnerable children and the likelihood that many will find themselves before the children’s courts facing criminal charges.

I remain concerned about this. For example, a HIQA report was published and the response was to close the centre, yet there are not enough places for the children who are vulnerable.
I refer to children who are remanded in custody. The most recent data available from the IYJS are from 2008 and show that of the 111 children detained on remand in children detention schools, only 44% went on to be sentenced to detention on conviction. That raises a twofold concern – first, that detention as a last resort requirement, the principle underlying the Children Act, was not being adequately embraced by judges at the pre-trial stage and, second, that there was an urgent need to introduce a formal system of bail support to help children to manage their bail conditions, thus helping to reduce the number being placed in detention on remand. Unfortunately, the pilot scheme mooted in 2008 in Young People on Remand: The National Children’s Research Strategy Series to offer bail support services for vulnerable children who ceme before the Children Court in Dublin and Limerick failed to materialise owing to insufficient resources. Will the Minister provide the House with the figures in this regard for the past few years? I would be interested in seeing and trying to understand them. I fear the position has not improved much from what I hear anecdotally. Will the Minister consider revisiting the bail support pilot scheme?

I refer to the issue of training. Staff and personnel engaged in the formulation and delivery of youth justice policy should be trained in the provisions of the Children Act. The Committee on the Rights of the Child made a recommendation to this effect in 2006. An advanced diploma in juvenile justice is being run by the King’s Inns. The course is attended by a great mix of professionals from a wide variety of disciplinary backgrounds, including legal professionals, juvenile liaison officers, prison officers, detention centre staff and the IYJS. Robust, specialist training such as this needs to be rolled out on a systematic basis and attendance supported by employers such as the State.
I also raise the issue of the age of criminal responsibility. The concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concern about the age of criminal responsibility being ten years under the Criminal Justice Act 2006. The Minister has submitted a consolidated report to the committee. Has she had a communication from the committee? Will Ireland consider this issue before it appears before the committee?

On Second Stage of the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in March last year I alerted the Minister for Justice and Equality to my concern about routine breaches of the Children Act in the Dublin Children Court. Examples include the court appointed registrar calling the name of the child in the public waiting room, the former practice of District Courts including YP, meaning “young person”, beside the child’s name on the court list and the presence of Gardaí and legal representatives unrelated to the specific case in the court which is mandated to sit in camera. The Minister said he would write to the Courts Service and I await a response. I raise the issue in this debate because we need to consider practical remedies to ensure the Children Act is implemented in the spirit intended by the then Minister and the Houses of the Oireachtas.

20 December 201316 December 2018

Adoption Amendment Bill 2013

20 December 2013

Speaking Points

Jillian van Turnhout

Welcome Minister.

Minister both you and colleagues have clearly outlined that the scenario leading up to the need for this legislation. Minister, it is evident that you, your officials and indeed the Tánaiste, have sought resolution through other channels and at every level but that proved impossible. Changes to Russian family court laws have had serious implications in conjunction with existing Irish legislation for prospective adoptive parents. Which brings us to the legislation before the house today.

I believe it is tightly framed with limitations added and will address the calls you have received from approximately 5 prospective adoptive parents. However it also opens up any unused Russian Declarations as of 31 October 2013 which you have clarified is a maximum of 23 prospective adoptive parents.

Anyone who talked or has met the prospective parents appreciates the heartbreak and emotional roller-coaster of the journey that they have had and so I realise that for them today is a good day.

I will not oppose the Bill. I do not want to frustrate the resolution to this particular situation. However, I am duty bound to raise my general concerns and some specific questions about how we approach adoption in Ireland.

Ireland has a very chequered history when it comes to Adoption.

In 2010 we incorporated the Hague Convention into Irish Law. The Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) . It protects children and their families against the risks of illegal, irregular, premature or ill-prepared adoptions abroad. This Convention reinforces the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Art. 21) and seeks to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights

Article 21 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child addresses the protection and promotion of children’s rights in the context of adoption. It establishes the paramountcy of children’s best interests in all adoption arrangements and details minimum requirements for adoption procedures.

Yet, let us not forget that while Ireland signed the Hague Convention in 1993 we had to be dragged kicking and screaming to incorporate it into our law. When we brought in the Adoption Act in 2010 we were the last EU country to ratify and over 55 countries had already done so.

I think we need to fundamentally reconsider how we approach adoption in Ireland. I believe our system of closed adoptions is not always in the best interest of the child.

Closed adoption is the process by where an infant is adopted by another family, and the record of the biological parent(s) is kept sealed.
Open adoption is a form of adoption in which the biological and adoptive families have access to varying degrees of each other’s personal information and have an option of contact.

In my experience children can cope and distinguish. It is us adults who tie ourselves in knots.

It is my sense that some people misunderstand the rationale behind adoption is the right of couples who cannot conceive to have a child. It was not. Adoption is about, where needed, finding alternative family arrangements for a child and fundamentally it is about the best interests of the child.

Minister, I am keenly aware that as we stand here today there are approximately 50,000 adopted people in Ireland who have no automatic legal right to their birth certificate, no legal right to their medical information or history, or any legal right to tracing information about their identity.

I believe that we will be able to partly address these issues via legislation but aspects of this issue will need to be addressed at constitutional level. I noted last October when we were discussing the Children’s Referendum Bill that it was a missed opportunity not to address right to identity.

I realise that information and tracing is complex but we have to start moving on where change is possible. There is a clear lack of a legal framework. Is the State collecting and ensuring that it has access to important and vital records in relation to children’s identities? Have, for example, the religious orders handed over records to the State that will help when the necessary legislation is in place?

Specifically on the Bill here today, I say well done to the drafters who have worked hard to produce a clear, tightly constructed Bill.

As I stand here I am thinking that in less than 18 years these children will be adults – will they have access to information on their identity?

We saw the fall of Communism 14 years ago and the rush for adoptions? Will Ireland over the coming years have issues to deal with?

I think of Ireland’s history in relation to adoptions and how many ‘went to America’ or in reality were sold to so called ‘good called families’ for a better life.

I don’t think anyone who went to see the movie Philomena wasn’t touched and conflicted by her story. We don’t want to creating situations today that will be the films of tomorrow.

Are we setting a precedent today? The adage ‘hard cases make bad law’ springs to mind. Will we change the law for other groups of people who are not in line with our law and the Hague Convention? Does this not open the gates for other “one-off” fixes?

We have all heard the understandably emotional calls from the 4 or 5 prospective adoptive parents. But let us remember the law today will extend the period for up to 23 prospective adoptive parents.

When a country ratifies the Hague Convention we have seen again and again how the number of children eligible for adoption dramatically falls. Why? Obviously it is because the children were never legitimately available for adoption and often have fallen foul to criminal activity, including corruption and the sale or trafficking of children.

Can we be assured that in any one or more of these cases that significant money has not and will not change hands?

I ask these questions now because one or more of these children, upon turning 18, may have the same difficult questions for their parents. Will we be able to give answers?

It is critical that a rigorous verification process be put in place for all adoptions.

In ending, may I wish each of the children who are to be adopted and to their prospective parents a really happy and fulfilling life.

Nevertheless lets us not forget that adoption is the right of a child, not of adults, and we must ensure that this is not lost sight of. If anything is to be learnt from the Reports such as Ryan and Murphy, it is how crucial it is to have adequate systems in place to protect vulnerable children.

We urgently need to re-examine our approach to adoption. Let us lead and show that we really have learnt from our chequered past.

23 May 201316 December 2018

Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) (Amendment) Bill 2013: Committee Stage

Thursday, 23rd May 2013

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.

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.

26 April 201316 December 2018

Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) (Amendment) Bill 2013: Second Stage

Wednesday, 24th April 2013

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The Bill will transpose some important provisions of the EU anti-trafficking directive into domestic legislation, which is very much welcome. I thank the Minister of State for outlining the Bill’s contents.

I welcome the inclusion of a definition of “forced labour” based on the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 29 of 1930 concerning forced or compulsory labour. I called for a clear definition of “forced labour” last November in the context of the shocking exploitation and forced labour of Muhammad Younis when we debated in the House Senator Quinn’s Employment Permits (Amendment) Bill 2012. The Migrants Rights Centre of Ireland, MRCI, has called for a definition of “forced labour” in domestic law for many years. I welcome members of the centre to the House. They are present in the Visitors Gallery and they are accompanied by a number of survivors of forced labour in Ireland. They are the human faces of the laws we debate and their presence instills in me a sense of my responsibility and our collective responsibility to ensure the law protecting victims of forced labour is as robust as possible. I seek an assurance that the definition of “forced labour”, as intended by the ILO convention and as understood in international jurisprudence with respect to offering oneself voluntarily, means fully informed and free consent throughout the worker’s service period. It is my understanding that in a number of forced labour cases dealt with by the MRCI, the victim could be said to have offered himself or herself voluntarily and the features defining forced labour came into play thereafter. That is why I stress the need for an assurance from the Minister of State about that understanding of the definition.

I also thank the Immigration Council of Ireland, ICI, which helped me to examine a number of the gaps in the legislation. A number of outstanding issues need to be addressed to give full effect to the EU directive. These do not necessarily need to be dealt with through this Bill or primary legislation but I reserve my right to table amendments on Committee Stage because I received a copy of the Bill only last week and I am still trying to work my way through it. Many of the issues I would like addressed can be dealt with through policy or other primary legislation but they are covered by the EU directive and I would like us to uphold it in full.

The directive specifically highlights the gender dimension of the crime and requires countries to adopt a gender specific perspective in provision of support and assistance to victims and in prevention work but this seems to have been ignored. We need to provide gender neutral accommodation and services in direct provision centres, for example.

My second concern also relates to direct provision and I have pursued this issued via Adjournment matters, as the Minister of State will be aware. I feel at times, including yesterday, that inappropriate road blocks are put in my way but I will not be deterred. In addition to the overall gender specific approach to service and assistance contained in article 1, the directive also covers appropriate and safe accommodation and assistance. The current policy to secure accommodation and material assistance through the system of direct provision is controversial. Senator Bradford has raised several issues in this regard and it is perceived as inappropriate by many. We need to address these issues. I have asked for a debate on directive provision in the House.

Third, it is unclear what is the policy on provision of support and assistance to victims following criminal proceedings. Specifying a commitment in that regard would be in line with the relevant provision of the directive. Fourth, can the issue of victims of trafficking with special needs be addressed through policy or additional primary legislation? The EU directive obliges states “To attend to victims with special needs where those needs derive from pregnancy, health issues, disability, mental disorder or a serious form of psychological, physical or sexual violence they have suffered”.

In that regard, it is noted that the existing administrative arrangements only provide for the granting of a temporary resident permit on condition of co-operation with the authorities. Considerations of any of the listed special needs that I have outlined are absent, so I would like to know how we will uphold that part of the EU directive.

The identification of victims of trafficking is currently extended to a limited category of victims and appears to be an opaque and unlimited process. Even though the authorised personnel are trained and familiar with international guidelines for the identification of victims, no structure has been agreed for this process, including the number of interviews, minimum criteria and time limits, to give effect to the directive’s provisions for early identification. This is in addition to the problem that the vast number of victims remain ineligible for the identification procedure.

The EU directive obliges the State to ensure that victims have access to counselling without delay and, in accordance with the role of victims in the criminal justice system, to legal representation, including for the purpose of compensation. Victims in Ireland currently have access to legal counselling provided by the legal aid board by referral from the Garda National Immigration Bureau. However, access to legal representation has to be considered in full, in my opinion. For example, not all victims of trafficking would meet the eligibility criteria for legal aid in the State, including for the purposes of seeking compensation. It is worth exploring and eliminating any differences in eligibility that arise from the fact that the person is not formally identified as a victim of human trafficking or the victim is not habitually resident.

Article 19 of the EU directive provides for the establishment of a national rapporteur or an equivalent mechanism that will be in charge of statistical data, extraction of trends and evaluation of the adequacy of national measures against trafficking human beings. Currently, the anti-human trafficking unit collates statistics and presents trends in this crime. However, the element of independent evaluation cannot be provided by this unit because it is at the centre of decisions on measures and their implementation. Therefore, when a decision on such a rapporteur body is being taken, there should be close co-operation with civil society organisations to ensure we are compliant and fully in line with the directive.

Although they are not defined as workers under our current labour laws, but given the specific vulnerability of their class to exploitation, forced labour and human trafficking, I wish to flag my concern about the unregulated and scrutinising of the au pair industry. The vast majority of parents and au pairs have a really positive experience from this short-term cultural exchange with some child-minding duties. I am not talking about that area specifically but given the crisis in affordable access to child care, we have seen increased instances of au pairs being taken on as child-minders. To all intents and purposes, they have been exploited as domestic workers. I have met some of those au pairs and it is clear that their employment aspects need to be regulated.

We also need to examine the child protection concerns and the vetting of au pairs. There is no facility for parents to have an au pair vetted, unless they go through an agency, so perhaps we need to ensure that this is done through agencies. In addition, no guidance is being given by the State to parents and au pairs about their expectations. For example, how does an au pair, who is new to this country, raise concerns about child protection and alert the authorities here? I have heard cases involving au pairs whose documentation has been taken from them and they are not given access to the public. While I know it is outside this Bill’s remit because it is not a labour issue, the problem is that the au pair problem falls between so many gaps. I will raise the matter with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton.

Despite raising these issues, I fully support the Bill. However, I want the legislation to be fully in line with the EU anti-trafficking directive. I hope the Minister of State can assure me that the matters I have referred to will be addressed through policy or additional legislation.

26 April 201316 December 2018

Order of Business, 23 April 2013

Tuesday, 23rd April 2013

At the weekend I had the pleasure of attending the Scouting Ireland delegate conference, which brought together 800 delegates representing 40,000 members. Two motions which were voted on will be of interest to the House. One was on Scouting Ireland’s fears the proposed sale of Coillte will threaten its open access policy. Unbeknownst to me until I arrived, another motion had been tabled calling on the Minister for Justice and Equality to enact legislation requiring ISPs operating in Ireland to block access to all child abuse material, as has been done in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Malta, Italy and Britain. I have raised this issue in the House and we have had a good discussion on it. Scouting Ireland voted unanimously on the motion. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, has committed that blocking will be fully considered in the context of the development of the planned sexual offences Bill. I am very concerned this Bill is scheduled for 2014. This is an urgent matter. It is about protecting real children from real abuse in the real world. I call on the Leader to convey to the Minister a request to bring forward a separate Bill to deal with this distinctly.

Today is the national day of action and raising public awareness on direct provision. I am disappointed and confused the Adjournment matter I addressed to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, has been ruled out of order. Since the introduction of the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2009, asylum seekers cannot ever be considered habitually resident in the State. Since access to most welfare payments, including supplementary welfare allowance, is now restricted to those habitually resident in the State, and since asylum seekers cannot be considered habitually resident, I asked what is the legislative basis for the continued accommodation and payments made to asylum seekers.

This is a question for the Minister for Social Protection. For example, the payment slips to asylum seekers refer to the Department of Social Protection. However, I take the Leader on his word that the Minister has no responsibility for this matter, even though the payment slips clearly state “Department of Social Protection”. I am now being directed back to the Department of Justice and Equality where I did not get an answer to this question last week, so I ask the Leader to arrange for a debate on direct provision. I have been moved from one Department to another on this issue, yet nobody is willing to take responsibility for it. I believe that we are operating outside a legislative basis with the payments. We need an answer to this question, rather than being shuttled between Departments.

18 April 201316 December 2018

Order of Business, 17 April 2013

Wednesday, 17th April 2013

I am disappointed the matter I wished to raise on the Adjournment was not taken as it was lodged before some of the others that were accepted.

I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the cross-party Private Members’ Bill, along with Senator Ivana Bacik, to set aside the Statute of Limitations for the survivors of symphysiotomy. I am aware from the debate in the House last May that many Senators advocated this position. It is a horror story which I have followed closely as a member of the victims of symphysiotomy all-party support group. I pay tribute to the survivors, their families and supporters and those who advocated and campaigned tirelessly on their behalf. I pay tribute to Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin, convenor of the all-party group, whose determination and commitment to seek justice for the survivors has kept the issue firmly on the Oireachtas agenda. While I do not condone the length of time it has taken to get here, this is how things should be done. It has restored my faith in consensus politics and how we can work together to achieve good. While the agreement by the Government to support the Bill through Second Stage is welcome, I ask the Leader to urge the Government to begin actively engaging with the survivors and their representative groups to address their immediate health and support needs and, in parallel, to put a structure in place that will ensure redress.

I wish to raise the plight of the 32 thalidomide survivors. At an Oireachtas briefing they shared some of their specific support needs. Regrettably, they are being shunted between Departments. I ask the Leader to urge the Government to engage with them and their representative groups at the earliest opportunity.

On Monday, in response to the publication of the European Commission’s report on trafficking in human beings, I called on the Government to transpose immediately the EU anti-trafficking directive into national legislation. This was due to be done by 6 April. The directive has the potential to impact significantly on the lives of trafficked victims and will help prevent others from falling victim to this heinous crime. I welcome the publication yesterday of the criminal law human trafficking Bill to give effect to certain provisions of the EU anti-trafficking directive. I look forward to comparing the Bill against the directive and hope to find all the necessary elements incorporated. Significantly, the Bill defines forced labour in accordance with ILO convention 29. This is something I have called for in the past and I welcome its inclusion. I ask the Leader to commend the Government for initiating the Bill in this House.

I welcome the appointment of the members designate of the new Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. They are of fine calibre and will bring extensive expertise to their role. I hope a suitable chair can be found at the earliest opportunity.

15 April 201316 December 2018

Senator van Turnhout Calls on Ireland to Immediately Transpose the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive into National Legislation