Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, line 3, after "child," to insert the following:

"or

(c) supplies or avails of the services of the child which the child has been trafficked to provide, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the child was trafficked,".

This relates to section 3 of the Bill, which provides for action against the trafficking of children in particular. I seek for the avoidance of doubt to include this amendment, which would criminalise the person who supplies or avails of the services which the child has been trafficked to provide, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe the child was trafficked in the first place. For the avoidance of doubt, it is necessary to criminalise the user in those circumstances where the user has reasonable grounds to believe the person was trafficked.

The Minister drew our attention to the fact on Committee Stage that there is a law dealing with the issue of sexual exploitation of a child under 17. I am sure the Minister is well aware that in the definition section of the Bill, a child is defined as a person under the age of 18 years. That is different. The Minister's argument on Committee Stage was that it would deter the user co-operating in the implementation of the legislation or the prosecution or enforcement of the law. The user would be deterred if he or she believed there may be liability.

Is there a single example in Irish case law where prosecution depended on the user coming forward? Is it the expectation of the Minister that leaving it as it stands is likely to induce the user, in some circumstances, to come forward? I greatly doubt it.

The other objection of the Minister is that it would be very difficult to prove if this requirement was put into the Bill. I accept it would be difficult to prove in many cases but every case, as the Minister knows, is different. There may well be cases where it would be possible to prove the matter.

In any event, a question arises which I thought Deputy O'Rourke was going to touch on. With regard to our treatment of prostitution in this country, the act of prostitution does not create an offence on either side, although to solicit does. There is no penalty attached to the user in any set of circumstances. I am raising the relatively narrow area here of where the user has knowledge, or there are reasonable grounds to conclude the user had knowledge, that the person in question was trafficked.

When I referred the Minister to the definitions section, I drew his attention to the fact that a child is defined as a person under 18 years. We are discussing a person who trafficks a child for the purposes of exploitation. Exploitation is also defined in the Bill. Exploitation can be for labour or sex. The focus of this debate has been such that we have forgotten about labour exploitation. That is an added argument for my more elaborative amendment which ought therefore to be included.

The only difference between my amendments Nos. 4 and 15 is whether the person is a child or an adult. I do not wish to delay the House on the issue later. We ought to criminalise the user when a child has been trafficked to provide a service.

Deputy Coveney adverted to the wider debate on this subject but concluded that this statute is not the place for that debate. He is probably right and we have a great deal more work to do before we are ready to discuss that issue. People have presented arguments to me about similar legislation in Sweden which was enacted in 1999. The statistics show that there has been a serious diminution in trafficking and prostitution there as a result. Is it the male mindset that contributes to the view that we cannot discuss or deal effectively with this subject because no one has dealt with it since time immemorial and that if it could have been dealt with in a civilised way it would have been? Does the Minister dispute the submission that the legislation has been effective in Sweden where there is no significant trafficking problem and prostitution is less prevalent than it was? The purpose of my amendment is to avoid doubt and include the knowledge that the person has been trafficked.

See this speech in context