Pat Rabbitte TD Speech at Human Trafficking Conference
Issued : Thursday 25 September, 2008
Pat Rabbitte TD spoke at the open event 'Human Trafficking & the Sex Industry' hosted by Labour Women.
SPEECH BY PAT RABBITTE T.D.
Labour Party Spokesperson on Justice
To Open Event on Human Trafficking and the Sex Industry
Organised by Labour Women, the Metropole Hotel, Cork
Thursday, 25th September 2008
TRAFFICKING LAW MUST PROTECT VICTIMS: PUNISH TRAFFICKERS
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you about the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act enacted only this year. Although Ireland has been away behind the play in terms of compliance with our international obligations in this area, the level of public knowledge of the phenomenon of trafficking has not been very high. The very fact that the Bill has been enacted has in itself improved awareness of what is an evil practice and one that this country can no longer dismiss as having no relevance here. There is, at a minimum, anecdotal evidence that Ireland's sex industry has not been immune from the criminal networks that profit from the trafficking of vulnerable young women for the purposes of sexual exploitation
Trafficking in humans involves the movement of people from one country to another using coercion, force, threats, deception or fraud, or by abusing a position of authority for the purpose of exploitation. Law abiding citizens will be horrified to learn of the scale of this illicit human trafficking. Trafficking in human beings is a multi-billion dollar business - in fact it is believed that sex trafficking has become the third most profitable illegal trade in the world, after arms and drugs. Those trafficked are mainly young vulnerable women fleeing poverty in their own countries of origin or deceived into seeking a better life on the false undertakings of the criminal networks involved in trafficking. Apart from being sold into sexual slavery these vulnerable young women are often intimidated and subjected to physical violence. Is Ireland immune from this global illegal trade in exploitation? The answer is no even if there are differing assessments as to the extent of the phenomenon here. Organisations with some knowledge of the issue believe that human trafficking to Ireland is under-reported. As we know from a BBC documentary the related phenomenon of Ireland being used as a jurisdiction through which young Eastern European women are trafficked to Britain. In that programme we had a Bulgarian criminal boasting of regularly using Rosslare to transfer young women into Britain.
By definition human trafficking is a crime that is trans-national in character. Relevant international organisations have developed international conventions and instruments which seek to combat this modern-day version of slavery. In particular there are two important international treaties: The Council of Europe Convention on trafficking and the optional protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ireland has ratified neither. Nor is Ireland in compliance with the EU Framework Decision on combating trafficking in human beings.
The Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Bill 2007 has recently completed all stages in the Oireachtas. The Bill creates a criminal offence of trafficking persons into, through or out of Ireland for the purpose of their sexual or labour exploitation (or the removal of their organs). Before its enactment the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) has acknowledged that "this Bill will move Ireland towards compliance with international human rights standards."
The Labour Party has taken a similarly supportive position. However this new law is solely concerned with a criminal law response. It does not address the protection of, and provision of services to, victims of trafficking. At the time the Minister for Justice promised that he would deal with these issues in the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. Labour's position was that the trafficking of young women for purposes of exploitation is quite separate, and should be kept separate from, issues that arise in the context of immigration.
The Department of Justice concedes that it does not have reliable data on the extent of trafficking in our jurisdiction. They say "it is likely to have been a relatively minor activity but has the potential to grow" and they instance a figure of about 100 women having being trafficked into Ireland for sexual exploitation. This is close to the figure in the study prepared by Dr Eilis Ward of NUIG and Dr Gillian Wylie of Trinity College. However one organisation at the coalface, Ruhama, speaks about directly knowing 200 women in these circumstances and of having assisted a good proportion of them. Ruhama says that of the 100 odd women that they have helped each woman would say they know of five or six women in similar circumstances. Because of the illegal character and relative invisibility of the so-called sex industry it is difficult to know the extent of the problem in Ireland.
The nature of prostitution has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Up to relatively recent times, the majority of women who walked the streets operated for themselves or for pimps who generally were not connected to international crime. Brothels then were not plentiful and it would have been extremely rare to encounter non-national women in the industry. Ruhama speaks with direct knowledge of how the so-called industry has changed. They believe that the sex industry now has become highly organised and is linked to the global crime network. For example, in the Dáil debate the Minister seemed to concur with Ruhama when he said
"The office to monitor and combat trafficking at the State Department in Washington estimates that 800,000 people are trafficked worldwide each year. International experts estimate that some 2.5 million people throughout the world are at any given time recruited, entrapped, transported and exploited. This is abuse on a horrific scale and calls on the international community to effectively organise itself in the attempt to combat this criminality."
Of course, information technology is a major contributing factor in that new methods of communication have replaced street walking. Mobile phones not to mention internet advertising making it easier for pimps and procurers to exploit young women over whom they have control.
In a documentary only this week produced by TV3 it was claimed that there has been over the last decade an explosion in the sex industry in Ireland part of which is fuelled by trafficking.
The British "Independent on Sunday" recently instanced a typical case. A young woman from a poor village in Lithuania signed on for the prospect of a better life in London. Only when she arrived in London was she made aware
that she had been sold for £4,500 sterling to an Albanian pimp. She explained that on average she had sex with 15 men per day for which she was paid £10 per day. Otherwise she was not mistreated but she says other young women in the same circumstances are beaten. She managed eventually to escape but generally vulnerable young women who find themselves friendless in a strange environment and perhaps with language obstacles find it very difficult to escape their criminal exploiters.
Human trafficking, then, is a global phenomenon and affects virtually every country in the world whether as countries of origin, of transit or of destination. The existing law in Ireland has never resulted in a successful prosecution for the crime of trafficking although there have been individuals arrested and charged. As the law stands, victims of trafficking are subject to deportation in some cases making them vulnerable to the cycle starting all over again. Few victims of trafficking in Ireland have been able to access the asylum system. However, states that follow best practice such as those who have signed the Council of Europe Convention offer automatic reflection periods and/or humanitarian visas. As I have said Ireland has signed but not ratified the UN Trafficking Protocol which urges states "to protect and assist victims of trafficking, with full respect for their human rights."
It is also evident that people are trafficked into exploitative work conditions. Again we don't know the extent of this phenomenon in Ireland. From anecdotal evidence we know it exists. Little enough attention is paid to trafficking into sectors such as the construction industry, the hospitality sector, agriculture and domestic service. Two years ago the Labour party published a paper entitled: "A Better Place to Work and Live" and quite a few of its recommendations were taken on board in the Social Contract "Towards 2016" subsequently negotiated. However inspections are still inadequate and it is also the case that immigrant labour is abused here in domestic service.
As the Trafficking Bill travelled through Parliament I argued on behalf of the Labour Party that a distinction must be drawn between victims of human trafficking who require help, care and protection and migrants (including refugees) whether they are legal or illegal. I never accepted the argument that the protection of trafficking victims could only be addressed in the context of the Immigration and Residence Bill. And this remained the essential difference between our approach and the approach of the Justice Minister. Labour welcomes the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act in so far as it goes. But victim protection should logically, it seems to me, have been included in the Trafficking Act. I am sure it will be the case that creating offences criminalising the trafficking in persons for the purposes of their sexual or labour exploitation will enable the Gardaí to deal more effectively with the trafficking of human beings and will facilitate better international cooperation. However, let me say what I mean by enshrining victim protection by way of reference to a specific amendment I sponsored at Committee and Report Stages:
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;
(q) Compensation and facilitating legal redress against traffickers.
It seems to me that one can reasonably argue that if the criminal law provisions of the Bill are to work to maximum effect, protections such as are outlined in that amendment are necessary. In other words it may prove difficult to secure convictions, notwithstanding the new law, unless the victim can feel secure enough to come forward and give evidence. At the moment we have the grotesque situation where a victim of trafficking can herself end up in an Irish prison or even be deported before the case comes up for trial. I sought to include a provision at Committee Stage that would ensure that the victim should not be prosecuted for offences committed as a result of trafficking. The Minister objected to the provisions of our amendment on admissibility of evidence grounds.
The Labour Party did return to this question of protection of the victim in the case of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2008 - a Bill due to start its seventh day in Committee. The Minister has kept his commitment to respond to these arguments in this new Bill but the extent to which he has done so (to date) will attract criticism. In addition the protections he provides relates only to persons from outside the EEA area. There appears to be evidence that there are young women being trafficked into Ireland for exploitation purposes from some of the new accession states and their circumstances are not adequately catered for in either piece of legislation.
More controversially both Labour and Fine Gael ran with different amendments at Committee Stage the effect of which, in the case of Labour, would be to criminalise the user of the services of a person trafficked and in the case of Fine Gael to criminalise the purchaser of sex. Criminalising the user is one of the objectives of Ruhama who argue that there is evidence that addressing the demand does impact on the growth of prostitution and the exploitation of women. I say "more controversially" because there is divided opinion about the merits of seeking to criminalise the purchase of sex irrespective of trafficking. For example, the then Minister for Justice told the House that in this regard to have consensual sex with a trafficked person who is an adult would be "to create an offence that would be impossible to enforce." It would never be possible to prove that a customer knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the person was trafficked.
He argued that "where criminalising the purchase of sex was tried, the incidence of street prostitution had reduced and the manifestation of prostitution on the Internet and mobile phones has increased." And, he argued in response to the Fine Gael amendment that there "is no evidence that criminalising the purchase of sex reduces demand for it. It simply displaces it."
However in the Seanad the Minister said that he had reflected on the arguments advanced in the Dáil and brought forward his own amendment which he said took on board the substance of the Labour amendment. In fact, the Minister opted to fall back on the Criminal Law (Sexual offences) Act 1993 and to create in the Trafficking Act an offence of soliciting or importing a trafficked person for the purpose of prostitution. He argued that this is the most effective way to address this issue and highlighted that "no offence can be committed by the trafficked person". The Minister went on to argue that "This provision is not merely a decoration in the Bill that is intended as some form of moral judgement or a sigh of disapproval in respect of those who have sex with trafficked persons"
Ruhama and others will say that the Minister's amendment is not adequate. For example, Ruhama argues that new law in Sweden that brought in criminalisation of those who purchase sexual services of people in prostitution has led to a significant decrease in trafficking. In other words the nub of the Ruhama argument is that society must also address the question of demand. The British Home Office is currently examining what legislation might be brought forward and apparently have a more divided opinion on the Swedish experience. Nor is it a male/female divide. Even some people who believe that in all circumstances prostitution is the degradation of women are still hesitant about the unpredictable impact of criminalising the purchase of sex. Not even the feminist movement is of one mind on this aspect. It doesn't seem feasible to criminalise the user in the case of a trafficked person and therefore would be necessary to criminalise the purchases of such sexual services.
As the law stands the act of prostitution does not create an offence on either side. Soliciting is an offence. Maintaining a brothel is an offence. Living off immoral earnings i.e. pimping is an offence. Writing in the Observer, Catherine Bennett expressed her scepticism in these terms . . . .
"If, in reality, men and women bought and sold sex in roughly equal numbers, with neither group economically superior to the other and no question of one half of the bargain acting under duress or abject necessity, there may indeed be nothing obviously wrong with the transaction."
The point being, of course, that it is not a bargain of equals and more often than not there is duress and/or abject necessity.
The Criminal Law (human Trafficking) Bill 2007 has now been enacted. Although imperfect, it represents a step forward - perhaps, even a major step forward. It means that offences have been created criminalising trafficking in persons for the specific purposes of their sexual or labour exploitation and that severe penalties apply for anyone found guilty of committing these offences. It also criminalises the selling or purchasing of human beings for any purpose. It also makes plain that it is an offence for a company or body corporate to commit any of the offences in the Act. It clears the way for Ireland to come into compliance with our international obligations.
Although it has taken the modern Irish Parliament an uncommonly long time to legislate to outlaw trafficking, there is a certain historical resonance that reflects better on Irish Parliamentarians. For a number of years at the end of the Eighteenth Century and at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, the legendary M.P. William Wilberforce had brought forward his Bill to abolish slavery. Each time he was defeated. Suddenly his prospects of success looked better when he reintroduced the Bill in Parliament in 1804. Following the Act of Union in 1801 there were now some 100 Irish M.P.s at Westminster. On the day the Bill was to be voted on, a large number of Irish members happened to be dining together. A member raised the Wilberforce measure to abolish slavery. The Irish members there and then resolved to support the Bill and when a division was called nobody was more surprised than William Wilberforce that he had a majority of 75!
ENDS.
For more information, contact Pat Rabbitte at 01 618 3980
