Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

As regards these amendments, the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 established the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP. Under section 2 of that Act, the holder of the office is independent in the performance of his or her functions. That is a basic principle of our polity. The functions of the DPP include all those capable of being performed relating to criminal matters, which of course includes the prosecution of offences. The independence of the DPP is something we must cherish. I do not believe it is appropriate to interfere with that independence, discretion or control in the prosecution of offences.

I understand the reasoning behind the amendments. No person could defend the prosecution of victims of trafficking for offences concerned with the purpose for which they were trafficked. However, in this area we have to rely on the Director of Public Prosecutions and on the discretion that office can exercise in this matter, which it is entrusted to exercise. That, I suggest, is the way this matter should be dealt with.

In a sense the provision of section 124 of the immigration Bill is the substantive way in which the concern raised in these amendments has been addressed. The provision of a path to residency for the victim of trafficking and for recovery and reflection in a sense addresses the concerns which motivated this amendment because within the context of the residency legislation a lawful residence is now envisaged for the victim of trafficking. It would be unthinkable, then, that such a person could be prosecuted for entering the State illegally.

See this speech in context