Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman. The main purpose of amendment No. 1 which I hope will be welcomed is to extend, for human trafficking offences, existing rules that make it easier for children to give evidence in criminal prosecutions. Article 15.4 of the EU human trafficking directive provides that member states shall take the necessary measures to ensure that in criminal prosecutions of human trafficking offences all interviews with a child victim or, where appropriate, a child witness may be video recorded and that such video-recorded interviews may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. For the purposes of the directive, a child is any person below the age of 18 years. Amendment No. 1 effects two significant changes to section 16(1)(b) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 in respect of human trafficking offences. First, to comply with the directive, it increases, from 14 to 18 years, the upper age threshold for out-of-court video recording of a complainant's evidence. Second, the amendment also applies to a child witness, other than the accused, who is under the age of 18 years.

While the scope of the amendment is limited to human trafficking offences, the extension of child evidence rules in the Bill is the first phase of plans for a wider extension of the rules. There are provisions similar to Article 15.4 of the human trafficking directive in an EU directive on combating sexual abuse and exploitation and also in the EU directive on victims' rights.

The other elements of amendment No. 1 are of a consequential nature. The amendments to section 15 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 provide for consequential changes to the rules of criminal procedure. At present, the prosecution must give notice to the accused that it is intended to give evidence in the form of an out-of-court video-recorded statement of a victim under the age of 14 years and give the accused an opportunity of viewing the video recording. The amendments to section 15 extend this requirement to reflect the new categories of child witness whose evidence can be video recorded out of court. Section 19 of the 1992 Act cross-references other provisions in that Act so as to apply rules relating to child evidence to vulnerable persons under 18 or 14 years, as the case may be. The amendment to section 19 adjusts these references to reflect the new categories of child witness whose evidence can be video recorded out of court.

Amendment No. 2 makes a consequential change to the Long Title of the Act.

These are significant and worthwhile developments in assisting child victims of human trafficking offences in criminal investigations and proceedings. I hope Senators will support them and I commend them to the House.