Alex White (Labour)

I am surprised at the Minister of State saying at least twice in his contribution that this amendment proposes blanket immunity from prosecution. It does not. The reason I read out the text of the amendment was to try to convey to the House that it is not a proposal that comprises blanket immunity from prosecution. It is most unfair for the Minister of State to describe it in those terms. There is not much difference between this proposal and the other two, with which it is grouped. My amendment proposes immunity from prosecution in respect of "entry into or presence in the State or for carrying out the labour or sexual acts". However, that immunity attaches only to possible prosecution in respect of those offences where they happened as a consequence of the trafficking of that person. It is not the sort of blanket immunity from prosecution about which the Minister of State talked. It is confined to these alleged acts.

We say, as others have said, that with all the infrastructure we are rightly putting in place to address trafficking it is wrong to leave this thread hanging, whereby a victim still has an exposure to prosecution. Victims of trafficking will remain exposed to prosecution in respect of their entry into or presence in the State or the carrying out these acts in circumstances where they were a consequence of their trafficking to this country. I am surprised the Minister of State has characterised in the way he has.