Category: Social Justice and Protection

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.

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

 

Wednesday, 27th February 2013

I also welcome the publication of the report. I begin by asking that the Department of Justice and Equality ensures that copies of the report are provided to those survivors who do not have Internet access, including some who provided testimony to the committee and who have yet to receive a copy. I wish to pay tribute to the Minister of State’s own personal conviction and courage on these issues.

This report established, categorically, what survivors and their advocacy groups have told us for years, namely, that the State was directly involved and consequently, complicit, in the Magdalen laundry system. I very much welcome the State’s inclusion of all surviving women in the apology, thereby avoiding any distinction being made between survivors who were sent into the laundry system by their families and those incarcerated there at the behest of the State. This is a very important non-distinction which embraces the fact that the laundry system itself was inherently abusive, rather than the abuse stemming from the women’s and girl’s mode of entry. In this regard, however, I must express my disappointment that the report found little evidence of physical abuse, which seems contrary to the evidence handed to the committee by the Justice for Magdalene’s group, comprising 12 files of supporting evidence, including 795 pages of harrowing survivor’s testimonies from girls who were assaulted by nuns, often with keys, belts and other implements, as well as from independent witnesses who attested to the truth of these stories. In the Ryan report, volume 3, chapter 18, and in various documentaries and survivor testimony, it has been widely accepted that these institutions were inherently abusive. If gruelling and relentless unpaid labour behind locked doors is not physical abuse, I do not know what is. The report, in my opinion, should have been dedicated to the survivors of the Magdalen laundry system and all those who did not survive its brutal regime.

Whatever side of the political divide one is on, as Senator Power very clearly articulated earlier, the capacity of Deputy Enda Kenny, as Opposition leader, for example, in response to the Ryan report, and as Taoiseach in response to the Cloyne report, to speak with compassion and sincerity on subjects of the greatest sensitivity is beyond reproach. This was further exemplified when he made his considered official statement and apology on behalf of the Irish State on the evening of 19 February for what is, undoubtedly, our national shame. There has been much discussion following the Taoiseach’s formal apology about whether it was good enough, sincere enough or moving enough. I can only speak personally when I say that I was profoundly moved by the Taoiseach’s words. However, the apology was not for me. It was given on my behalf, but it was for the survivors and their families. The litmus test is them and I am heartened by reports from survivor advocacy groups and the survivor’s reactions to the news teams, directly after the Dáil address, that the Taoiseach’s sincere and heartfelt words were deeply meaningful to the survivors, who feared that day would never come.

We need to learn from our past, and several times in the Seanad I have quoted the Amnesty International report, In Plain Sight, which responded to the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloynes reports. In the report, which is still very relevant, Colm O’Gorman, a former Senator and executive director of Amnesty International Ireland, stated:

[T]he focus cannot be purely on the past, as if this history has no relevance for our society now. We must consider the degree to which this history reveals vital truths about the nature of our society today. The past only becomes history once we have addressed it, learnt from it and made the changes necessary to ensure that we do not repeat mistakes and wrongdoing.

Since having been appointed a Senator I have found myself questioning how much we have learned as a society and a State, when the culture of secrecy, collusion, cover-up and lack of accountability which surrounded institutional and clerical sexual abuse can still be seen in contemporary contexts, such as with regard to the survivors of symphysiotomy and the treatment of asylum seekers, particularly children, in the State-run direct provision centres which we have debated in the House. This is the Ryan report of the future if we do not deal with it.

Having now established categorically there was State involvement and oversight in the Magdalen laundries system it is also important to establish whether in more recent times the State and its relevant Departments knowingly made efforts to deny this fact or minimise its involvement. I speak, for example, of our testimony before the United Nations Committee against Torture in 2011. There are also outstanding issues involving unnamed graves at the Bohermore cemetery in Galway and unexplained and unregistered deaths in High Park in Glasnevin. On this point, this opportunity should not be allowed to pass without commending the late Mary Raftery on her efforts to bring the issue of the unexplained and unregistered deaths to the fore in her 2003 article in The Irish Times entitled “Restoring dignity to Magdalenes”. In it she raised allegations of the most serious order, including that the then Department of the Environment had issued additional exhumation licences for unidentified and unregistered human remains without a full investigation of the circumstances. That such an investigation did not take place at the time and still has not taken place beggars belief. Where was the accountability then and where is it now?

I have been very disappointed by the radio silence so far of the four congregations at the centre of the McAleese report. Where is the accountability and where is the media and public scrutiny of the wholly inadequate apologies they have issued? I have read their apologies very carefully. One congregation used the word “refuge” to describe the laundries eight times in seven sentences. We have established these institutions were anything but refuges. Other congregations acknowledge that the limitation of care during the time women spent with them was wrong and upsetting. I welcome the calls by the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, and by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, for the religious congregations to contribute to the compensation scheme. I would very much like to see the congregations offer contributions in acknowledgement of their direct role in the abuses suffered by women rather than coming forward on foot of pressure by the State.

The system of redress must be prompt, open, transparent, fair and non-adversarial. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice John Quirke to head up the three-month review to recommend criteria for providing support, payments and services to the women. Senator Power asked a number of questions about statutory footing and independent appeals and I will write to the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on these issues. I call on the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, to give full and frank consideration to the restorative justice and reparation scheme for Magdalen laundries survivors proposed by the Justice for Magdalenes survivor advocacy group.

It is good that the report has been published and it very clearly proves State involvement, but it does not mean the book is closed. It has opened a new chapter, and what belongs in this new chapter is up to us. We must support the women and the organisations supporting them. We can stand together on this and show we have learned from the mistakes of the past.

“Every day that passes there is a possibility of women and children being forced further into sexual exploitation in Ireland. We have to take action.”

– Senator Jillian van Turnhout

Tomorrow, Wednesday 18th April, the Seanad will debate a motion put forward by the Independent Group of Senators (Taoiseach’s Nominees), on criminalising the purchase of sex in Ireland to curb prostitution and trafficking.

This motion follows on from the Independent Group motion on the same topic which was debated in the Seanad on October 12th 2011. The result of that debate was a Government amendment stipulating that a public consultation process would take place in the following six months. No such consultation process has even begun.

The Independent Senators will call on the Government to uphold their commitment to engage in public consultation in order to decide whether legislation should be enacted along the lines of that already in place in Sweden and Norway to criminalise the purchase of sex.

The Senators will remind the Government that, as more than 1000 women are made available for paid sex on on any given day in the State, any further delay in consulting and drafting legislation means a perpetuation of ‘a modern form of slavery’ and an abuse of basic human rights.

Introducing the original motion, Senator Katherine Zappone said that “Our current laws are not working. Female enslavement in this country is alive and well and it is generating vast profits for those in control. There is an inescapable interweaving of trafficking with prostitution and this exploitation must be addressed. We need legislation that can interrupt this activity, which is an absolute infringement of human rights”.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout (Leader of the Independent Group in the Seanad) turned to the role of children in Ireland’s burgeoning sex trade. She argued that “the impact [of trafficking and sexual exploitation] is almost unimaginable for children.” Having detailed the harrowing experiences of children trafficked into Ireland and exploited for sex work, she pointed to documented cases of “eastern European girls as young as 14 being trafficked to Ireland, brutally and systematically raped over a number of days to ‘break them in’ and then shipped off to various brothels around Ireland. This intolerable situation is my motivation for fully supporting the motion proposed by the Independent Group.”

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail spoke as a middle-class, middle-aged Irishman, making the point that he is one of the demographic which is perhaps most likely to purchase sex in Ireland. “It was not until I read about the Turn Off the Red Light campaign recently that I awoke from my own ignorance with regard to prostitution. Prostitution is not one of those things a liberal country should tolerate. We cannot turn a blind eye to it.”

The Independent Group will call for the ‘considered public debate’ promised by the Government to take place by October 2012, and for a report to be produced for discussion of its findings by December of this year. The outcome will be to decide whether this Government should legislate to criminalise the purchase of sex outright in the State.