Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that a victim of an offence created by the Bill cannot be prosecuted for having entered the State or for carrying out the labour or sexual acts envisaged. The Minister objected to these amendments on Committee Stage on grounds of admissibility of evidence. We have sought to meet that objection, but the nub of the argument still applies. Reference has been made by a number of Deputies to Ruhama and the work it has done in this area and with women in prostitution. It is an admirable organisation which does very commendable work and it has been carefully following the enactment of this Bill. It remains absolutely persuaded that the victim should not be prosecuted for offences committed as a result of trafficking.

We talked earlier about the position on prosecution where an offence is not created on either side. However, as I recall, there are three offences in this area, namely, soliciting, maintaining a brothel and living off immoral earnings. Will the Minister say what the situation here would be if a woman was prosecuted for soliciting and it turned out she had been trafficked? Is that a defence that can be adduced in these circumstances? In the circumstances envisaged by Deputy Naughten, can we still have a situation where somebody can be deported as a result of being the victim of an offence created under this Bill?

The general idea is that the victim should not be liable to prosecution. He or she is the victim of gross exploitation, given the nature of this Bill. What we are seeking to ensure is that the victim should not end up being prosecuted for being in the State. Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to the type of labour exploitation that goes on in this State and which is encompassed in this Bill. The definition of exploitation in this Bill does not just relate to sexual exploitation but also covers labour exploitation, including in domestic service. How quickly we have become accustomed to domestic servants in certain parts of the country. Whereas I have no objection to domestic servants being employed, it is appalling to hear that they are being exploited in some circumstances, required to work all the hours that God sends and being paid nothing near the national minimum wage. That is an area of exploitation as well. I certainly will find it very interesting to see whether there are any prosecutions under this Act, as proposed, in respect of the labour dimension. In a way, it will be a test of how easy it will be to prove trafficking. It may be that it is more equally shared here as between citizens of the European Union and those from outside the EEA area, but it is going on.

I was in a restaurant recently where I could not help but overhear the conversation at an adjacent table between three very well-heeled ladies as they complained about their domestic servants. I learned enough to know that I should contact the labour inspectorate to check out conditions. Such is the way that we have changed in this country. The argument being advanced to ensure the victim does not end up as the one being prosecuted is reasonable.

See this speech in context