Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate on these amendments. All of these amendments would grant total statutory immunity from prosecution to victims of trafficking in the various circumstances provided for in the amendments. I have major concerns about amendments like these which I mentioned before and to which I will refer briefly.

I draw the House's attention to section 124 of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. It provides for a no-strings-attached 45-day period of recovery and reflection for victims of trafficking. At the end of that period, the victim is entitled to a further period of temporary residence of six months, which is renewable, where that is necessary for the victim to assist the Garda or other relevant authorities in respect of any investigation or prosecution arising in respect of the trafficking.

In respect of people who have been trafficked into Ireland from within the EU, who would probably be relatively few in number, the simple fact of the commission of an offence is not sufficient reason to deport a person. Persons who are citizens of another EU country have a high standard of rights of residency in our country.

An action plan is being drawn up by the high-level group which we discussed earlier. The group is contacting stakeholders, including the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning all matters of relevance to human trafficking. While I cannot predict the detail of what may be in the plan, it is relevant that in other jurisdictions, such plans offer guidance to prosecutors concerning persons who have trafficked into their countries.

On Committee Stage, I referred to the independence of the DPP. This is not something we can shrug off when it suits us. As Members are aware, under section 2 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1994, the DPP is independent in the performance of his functions. This is something we should cherish and I have every confidence that he performs his functions in an independent, fair and effective manner. The DPP may decide not to prosecute where it is in the public interest not to do so.

On Committee Stage, I also referred to the dangers of offering a blanket immunity from prosecution in legislation from the point of view of it being seen as an inducement that could be cited by the defence in the trial of an alleged trafficker. Again, this argument was shrugged off as unimportant. It is great to be able to do so when one has no responsibility for the fallout from those particular amendments. I, on the other hand, must be cognisant of the advice I receive and cannot ignore very real arguments about the DPP's independence and the possibility of a statutory immunity being interpreted by a court as an inducement. I understand the thinking behind the amendments and the supporting comments made by the different Senators. No reasonable person could defend the prosecution of victims of trafficking for offences concerned with their fully accepted status as victims. I have full confidence in the ability of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Síochána to use their discretion and good sense and have regard to the public interest when dealing with the alleged victims of trafficking. For those reasons I regret I cannot accept these amendments.