Deputy Wallace has three minutes remaining in this slot.
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I hope I have not frightened the Minister. Has she gone?
She will be back.
I have already had 27 minutes on the issue. In my last three minutes I will refer to an article in The Guardian this year by a lady called Laura Lee. She has engaged in sex work in Northern Ireland. She pointed out that she was enraged by the decision of the Northern Ireland Executive to bring in changes to the law governing prostitution under the Northern Ireland Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act. She believes this policy is motivated by the moral conservatism of the parties concerned but that it is cloaked in the more universally acceptable anti-trafficking justification. Under section 15 of the new Act anyone convicted of paying for sex can be sentenced to a maximum of one year of imprisonment or a fine or both. Currently, she works 50% of her time in Northern Ireland and the other 50% in Scotland. She says that since the introduction of the law, she has found working in Northern Ireland far more dangerous. People are not willing to use online booking forms or to divulge their details. Everyone suddenly has become John, she said. She maintains there has been no reduction in demand but that it is far more difficult to keep herself safe.
During the past decade women have increasingly relied on the Internet to protect themselves against violent or unpleasant clients and they turn to sites such as the National Ugly Mugs website and others to help to make themselves safe. She points out that because of the new legislation clients are far less likely to be open or to give their details. It amounts to life becoming far more difficult and dangerous for sex workers. They used to share information about difficult clients to help with the safety of others, but that is no longer an option.
The police have made it plain to her that they are already stretched to the maximum. She says there is a hierarchy of crimes. Let us suppose someone is zooming around Belfast in a stolen car at the same time as consenting adults are behind closed doors having sex. It is pretty obvious who the police are going to go after. The idea that putting pressure on adult consensual sex work will make it disappear is not a human-rights-based approach.
I would like to make a comment to all speakers. You should not make any reference to anyone outside the House. Please take that into consideration.
I welcome this Bill which seeks to give effect to European Parliament and European Council directives aimed at combating the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and child pornography. Its wide-ranging provisions include new criminal offences to protect children against grooming. I believe that is important given online use and the use of smart phones as well as the total change in access. As a parent, I have to fight with my children to get them offline and off the Internet. It is obvious that this is a dangerous area. We cannot be certain about what information they are receiving and what is coming into their devices.
There are new measures to protect children from online predators. I cannot overemphasise the numbers of parents I meet and others who contact me on a daily basis who are concerned. It is a major issue. It affects children right from the age they access these devices. Unfortunately, they are accessing them at younger and younger ages. We need to be aware. As a parent, I cannot be sufficiently aware of the kind of material they access or the people and predators who are ready to prey and intrude. Some change their identities, age and photographs on Snapchat to deceive younger people.
New and strengthened offences to tackle child pornography are vital. Harassment orders to protect victims of convicted sex offenders are vital too. This is because offenders can serve their time and their sentence and then return. We know some of these smart phones and other devices are available to offenders from the confinement of prison cells. They can go through the walls. The Internet is a dangerous and powerful tool.
New provisions are to be introduced regarding evidence by victims, particularly children. I welcome this because it is so difficult for minors and children to give evidence, even with the supports of social workers, siblings and parents. However, we need to strengthen the protections further.
I salute the work done in this area by the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, especially his attempts to highlight the protections that need to be put in place around child grooming. I heard Deputy Naughten many times during the last Dáil raising this issue with successive Ministers. His passion and zeal to get this area tightened up must be commended. The Minister, Deputy Naughten, has declared, however, that he is deeply disappointed that under this Bill additional powers have not been given to the Garda for post-release supervision and monitoring of sex offenders. Indeed that can be applied to victims of all crime. There may be victims' rights Bills and guidelines but we know that in many cases, unfortunately, the victim may be the last person to know what is happening to the person who perpetrated the crime. This can apply even if they have gone through due process and served a sentence, whether a jail sentence or community service or whatever. They are not kept up to speed with where it is at, where the perpetrator is and whether he has been released.
Neither does it include electronic tagging which is a big issue in many areas of crime. The Tánaiste is soon to meet the Save our Communities group from Tipperary. It has a big issue about tagging ordinary criminals. We are going to have to consider it. The monitoring by the Garda and other authorities would be made a thousand times easier if there was tagging because it is electronic and not intrusive. It is a slight little monitor and it is available. I was brought recently to see the attempt to monitor the spread of bovine tuberculosis, TB, in Scotland. They were blaming the badgers and they put tags on them to monitor them.
It is amazing how simple it would be to see and monitor people's movements without depending on meeting or seeing or physically following them. I thank the Garda superintendent who brought it to my attention. It is vital that we consider that because it would be so easy and transparent. I know people have fundamental issues about rights and so on. The protection of our children, of minors and our communities from sexual predators cannot be understated and the victims’ rights cannot be understated. The perpetrators up on charges often get free legal aid and can offend and reoffend when they are out on bail. We must bury any inhibitions about this and go for it. I am sure when the group from Tipperary meets the Tánaiste on 23 November it will make that case quite strongly too.
I am disappointed that this Bill does not mention electronic tagging for monitoring sex offenders. It is vital. It would save an enormous amount of Garda time. It is instant. I am not comparing children with animals but it amazed me that they could track a wide area of a parish or community by night to see where those animals were going. The technology is proven and should be used.
The Bill does not go far enough in disclosure of information under certain circumstances relating to an offender on the sexual offences register. That should be tightened up greatly. Thanks to the gardaí in my community, we found out that an offender from a different jurisdiction had arrived in our country only last weekend. He was under obligation to notify the authorities if he left that jurisdiction but he did not. He was picked up in my area by very active and engaged gardaí. I am delighted that happened because people can be scared. This person had gone to great lengths to evade detection. He had gone to the Netherlands from the other jurisdiction he had been in and had come back to Ireland. He was discovered by the movement of a car associated with him through the port and he was found living in a very remote area about two miles from my village. People did not know he was there but they were relieved to know that he is back in prison awaiting trial today for being in this jurisdiction.
I support the local garda, Niall O’Halloran, and the other detectives who were swift. This happened in the dead of night and it was a great service to the community. Electronic tagging would make that so much easier. We are always looking for extra resources for An Garda Síochána and that would cut down drastically on the need for extra resources. We have to consider it seriously. A working group should be set up in the Department of Justice and Equality to examine that.
Sections 7 and 8 introduce additional specific offences in respect of the grooming of children. I welcome that. While grooming is not defined in the Bill, it is generally understood to mean making contact with a child with the aim of sexually exploiting him or her. This is done through the Internet and modern devices that young children have. We all know they get them as presents for their first communion and earlier. It is very scary because it is a groomer’s paradise. They can use all the modern jargon and can have conversations, as we have seen, and we know to our cost the impact that has on young people’s lives. I plead with the Tánaiste and her colleagues here today to examine this area because it is fraught with danger and many teachers, guardians and parents are not abreast of and up to speed with this kind of technology. They need supports and they need to be reassured that when we enact legislation, we are ever cognisant of the dangers.
I also acknowledge the work done by different organisations such as Ruhama which has worked tirelessly for several years to see some of the provisions in this Bill introduced. I compliment those organisations on their work. They have experience, have done a lot of research and have a lot of know-how. We must listen to them. In that vein, I note that Ruhama also has concerns about this Bill. I am sure the Tánaiste is well aware of them and has met and listened to Ruhama. It holds the view that while the Bill is an important step forward in combatting sexual exploitation within the sex trade, concerns remain that the spirit and intention of the law cannot be fulfilled without also removing the offence of soliciting. That should be obvious to anybody without a legal mind who reads this. We have to consider the spirit of the Bill as well as the printed version. It is Ruhama’s view that this continues to subject highly vulnerable and exploited women and men, based in street prostitution, to criminalisation.
I listened to Deputy Wallace quoting what happened in another jurisdiction. It is not much good introducing legislation if it is not going to be policed or seen in the hierarchy of crime. We need to have a holistic view of this and see if we can change attitudes and people’s minds about this. We have often introduced legislation here, with no disrespect to people who have tabled Private Member’s Bills, myself included, without having done an impact assessment. That is very difficult for the drafters or the departmental officials. It is fine to introduce and pass legislation but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and there can be defects or unintended consequences. We need periodic checks on the working of legislation to see how it is bedding in and impacting on society in general and on the people it is intended to bring to justice. Legislation needs to be aimed at the right place and its impact needs to be accurate, justified and beneficial to society.
It is important that our society is better and safer as a result of the introduction of any legislation. In this instance, the legislation is important.
While I welcome many aspects of the Bill, I have concerns that it may have a number of shortcomings. There should be a mechanism whereby we could review all legislation introduced. I have seen legislation brought in on which there was an outcry for years in terms of trying to get any aspect of it amended. It is as if the people who drafted it were infallible. None of us is infallible. None of us know everything about the law and its impact, therefore, we need to take a holistic approach.
The main provisions of the Bill are long overdue. We live in a highly technological society and this has produced a new set of challenges with respect to protecting children and vulnerable adults from sexual exploitation. That is probably the understatement of the year. I know - from the Minister's party, its members and her dealings with the different groups - that it behoves us all to try to grapple with the legislation but the area it covers is huge. The level of exploitation is increasing every day as a result of the misuse of modern technology or its use for purposes for which it was never intended. It is one thing having the legislation in place but it is another to provide An Garda Síochána with the powers and the resources to police it. As Deputy Wallace stated in the context of a jurisdiction not far from here, the police can be just too busy and may be unable - on foot of the hierarchy of crimes that exists - to deal with certain matters as a result of being obliged to respond to major road traffic accidents, bank robberies or whatever. If this statute is put in place, it must be treated seriously. In that context, An Garda Síochána must be given the requisite resources and tools and its specialist units must be properly staffed in order that they might monitor and combat the trafficking conducted online and behind closed doors in the comfort of people's homes. The latter can, of course, intrude on families, and young people in particular.
While the Bill does not go far enough, I welcome it and look forward to debating it further. I also look forward to the Minister accepting some of the recommendations and suggestions made to her.
The next slot is the Social Democrats and the Green Party. I call Deputy Catherine Martin who, I understand, is sharing her time.
With Deputy Shortall, yes.
The Green Party broadly welcomes many aspects of the Bill before the House and commends the Minister and the previous Seanad on all the hard work they invested in it. We are particularly pleased to see the proposed new criminal offences to protect children against grooming, new measures to protect them from online predators, new and strengthened offences to tackle child pornography, harassment orders to protect victims of convicted sex offenders and new provisions to be introduced regarding evidence by victims, particularly children.
The Green Party recognises the ambition to bring Irish law into line with a number of international legal instruments. However, we have serious reservations regarding Part 4 of the Bill, which deals with the purchase of sexual services. While we agree with the policy aim of reducing the levels of prostitution, we believe that this must not be done at the expense of increasing the safety risks or the health risks sex workers face.
In the past ten years, organisations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Population Fund and the well-known and esteemed medical journal, The Lancet, have all called for the full decriminalisation of sex work. While there are many different countries and approaches to learn from, what the Government is proposing is known as the Nordic model. This form of law usually involves the formal removal of criminal sanctions against sex workers and instead criminalises the buyer. What the Government is proposing is to criminalise the buyer and remove one of the criminal sanctions against solicitation but also to create a new solicitation crime and leave brothel keeping as a criminal act. The Nordic approach has received a significant level of criticism, particularly when it comes to the health and the safety of sex workers. From the point of view of the increased health risks stemming from the introduction of similar laws in other jurisdictions, I draw the Ministers' attention to the report from HIV Ireland, which states that schemes to promote harm reduction and lessen the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, STIs, by sex workers are basically incompatible with the Nordic law model. The report notes that when sex workers are arrested in Sweden under this law, the police use the fact that they have been carrying condoms as evidence. Similar concerns have been expressed in Canada.
The Green Party is concerned that by criminalising the client, the more marginalised sex workers who continue to engage in prostitution will have to take on the burden of ensuring that the buyer of sex does not get arrested. The Vista Analysis report, which was undertaken for the Norwegian Government, indicates that sex workers were more likely to agree to go to the homes of clients following the introduction of the law there, thus lessening their control of situations and exposing them to increased risks. The same report indicated that following the introduction of the law, sex workers exhibited a higher tolerance for violence before they reported it to the police.
We fear that the compromising of the relationship with the Garda that would result from this law poses a risk that sex workers, particularly the most marginalised, would not receive redress for crimes committed against them. Under the proposed law, sex workers are still penalised for working together in order to keep themselves safe. It has been shown that in other states, sex workers can also face difficulties in securing accommodation as their landlords can be prosecuted for letting premises to them. This can lead to forced evictions of sex workers from their homes.
Significant questions remain about the Nordic model. The Green Party’s key concern with it is that a sufficient evaluation has not been carried out upfront to show whether the changes brought in had any impact on the health and well-being of sex workers. Stories are emerging of sex workers driven further underground and, therefore, out of safety in order to protect the identities of their clients. The latter means that they place themselves at even greater risk.
The UK is currently revisiting its approach. The select Home Affairs Committee has said that the Home Office should immediately introduce legislation to allow for solicitation by sex workers and to change brothel-keeping laws to allow workers share premises so that they are safer.
I know the legislation before us has been worked on since 2012 and I accept that everyone who has contributed has done so in absolute good faith and with an overarching desire to protect sex workers. However, I am concerned that we are rushing to enact it without full research and understanding in terms of identifying a baseline against which we can measure its success or otherwise. Most legislation requires an impact evaluation and consultation on the likely outcomes. That is what the UK is now seeking to do and we should consider doing something similar. Further, why does this proposed legislation not incorporate some element of a review mechanism to allow legislative reflection on its impact over a number of years? A similar provision is incorporated in the Gender Recognition Act 2015. It will be very difficult to make a judgment on the impact of the legislation when we have refused to undertake any prior evaluation of the existing situation.
Sex workers are a vulnerable group. It is wrong of this House to undertake a major public policy change that will impact on them without carrying out prior research or giving real consideration to the impact of similar changes in other countries. The crucial question we need to ask is how to reduce the number of people involved in sex work but in a way that does not risk the health or safety of existing sex workers.
The Green Party believes that the existing research does not at this stage sufficiently validate the Nordic model for us to believe it is the right choice for Ireland. We call on the Minister, therefore, to initiate a comprehensive baseline study on the practice of prostitution in Ireland. Such a study should be undertaken from a human rights perspective, considering the welfare of sex workers, the reason people enter the industry, the barriers to leaving and their experiences while in sex work. We also need to have a proper understanding of the current numbers of people working as sex workers.
In conclusion, the Green Party welcomes the bulk of the measures in this Bill. It contains many provisions which are excellent and we commend those involved to date on its thoroughness and its intention. However, we believe Part 4 will present a problem for the health and safety of sex workers, and reluctantly, we will be abstaining on Second Stage with a view to tabling an amendment to this on Committee and Report Stages to remove Part 4 which will allow us to support the Bill in the future. If not removed at that Stage, we will have no choice but to oppose the Bill on Final Stage.
I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. In the main, I would say that the Social Democrats broadly welcome this Bill which updates the law in respect of sexual offences. It has been quite a long time in gestation. It is hard to know why it has taken so long but now that it is here, many aspects of the legislation are to be welcomed. I would also have some reservations which I will detail.
The Bill, in respect of the updating of the law in relation to sexual offences, gives effect to considerable work that was done over a number of years by two Oireachtas committees, and it is good to see that work finally being taken on board. It also updates primary legislation in respect of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935. It reforms the law in respect of sexual offences relating to children. All of those sections are very much to be welcomed. However, in respect of Part 4, which criminalises the purchase of sex, the Social Democrats have a number of concerns.
The Bill addresses crimes which are regrettably all too common in this country at this stage and which need urgent response. It addresses offences such as obtaining and providing children for the purposes of sexual exploitation - a problem which, by all accounts, seems to be relatively common and which must be addressed as a matter of urgency. It addresses sexual touching and sexual activity in the presence of a child, and makes offences of them. It also addresses causing a child to watch sexual activity, grooming a child, and travelling or making arrangements to meet a child with the purpose of engaging in sexual activity.
The Bill also addresses the gender imbalance in the penalties for incest. At present, a female convicted of an incest offence is liable to up to seven years imprisonment as opposed to life imprisonment for a male offender. I welcome the fact that there is an equalisation in that regard. Section 40 provides for a harassment order whereby a court can impose an order prohibiting a convicted sex offender from contacting or approaching his or her victim for a specified period after his or her imprisonment.
There are also changes to the legal system. There are improvements for the protection of child victims within the courts system by allowing for the removal of wigs and gowns, the opportunity for children to give evidence from behind a screen and prohibiting cross-examination of a child by the accused. All of these provisions are welcome indeed.
According to the SAVI Report, which was carried out in 2002, there is a significant problem in this country in respect of sexual abuse, particularly in relation to children. The details of that report were quite shocking. It showed that, in terms of sexual exploitation and abuse in childhood, some 23.5% of men surveyed reported having been sexual abused as children. The corresponding figure for women is even worse. Some 30.4% of women interviewed for SAVI reported having been sexually abused in childhood. Those figures date back to the 2002 report and we know little or nothing about what has happened since then.
Over the past couple of years, I have been raising with various Ministers the need for a SAVI II to be carried out. I understand such a report, which would be informative and would provide a good evidence base for work in this area, would cost €1 million to conduct and that would be money very well spent. I recognise that the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality has agreed on the need for such a second SAVI report to be done and had offered to participate in the funding of that but, unfortunately, the other Ministers who were involved at that time in the previous Government, the then Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the then Minister for Education and Skills, were less than enthusiastic about it, while the then Minister for Health refused point blank to provide the necessary funding. In view of the fact that it would only require a contribution of €0.25 million from each of those four Departments, it is regrettable that was the case. I would certainly hope now that funding restrictions are freed up a little the Minister would give early consideration to providing the relatively small amount of funding in order for a second SAVI to be conducted so that we can find out, on an evidence basis, whether steps that are being taken and the services that are in place are making a significant difference to the level of sexual abuse across the population but particularly in relation to children. It is important that we have access to that kind of information.
Regarding children who have been sexually abused, we have nothing to be proud of in terms of the level of services that are being provided. Recent figures showed that some 5,000 children, where serious concerns of neglect or abuse have been raised, have not yet been allocated a social worker. These are not minor cases, these are cases where there is serious concern. Five thousand children is an extraordinary number of children and they are waiting months, in many cases, up to a year, to be allocated a social worker. Changing and tightening up the legislation is an important matter, but ensuring that the resources are there to provide the required support services, such as counselling, is just as important for victims concerned. We rightly express serious concern about the level of sexual abuse, especially relating to children, but we must put our money where our mouth is in terms of providing the necessary funding to provide the counselling and support services.
Part 4 relates to the purchase of sexual services. This area, also an area of serious concern in this country, received a lot of attention when this legislation was being prepared initially in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 period. I very much commend the formation of the Turn Off The Red Light grouping at that stage. It was a network or umbrella group of several different prominent significant organisations which lent their name to this campaign and lobbied hard. They did that because of the kind of statistics that were coming out and the evidence which showed that we have a significant problem in this country in relation to women being the victims of sexual exploitation in respect of the sale of sexual services, particularly non-national women where there is evidence of significant levels of exploitation. Women and children are very much exploited in Ireland's sex industry.
That industry is valued at approximately €180 million a year and it is present in every county in the country. It is reckoned that, on average, approximately 1,000 women are available for sale on any one day in this country, and the vast majority of them are migrants of poor economic means and other vulnerabilities. Several of them are children.
There is no clear line between where the elements of trafficking end and consent to become involved in the sex industry begins. We know that many of the women involved in Ireland's sex industry, who do not meet the definition of a victim of trafficking, had no real choice. Poverty and life circumstances, combined with deception and gross exploitation, are evident in many of their stories that we hear. One exception to the legality of purchase of sex indoors is the Criminal Justice (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 whereby it is an offence to purchase sex from a trafficked person. Buyers of sex are only brought to account when they knowingly purchase sex from a trafficked person. There have been no prosecutions to date - and none is expected - due to the burden imposed on the State to prove that the buyer is aware of purchasing a person who is a victim of human trafficking.
As regards criminal records, including the risk of disclosure has been identified by the buyers as a reliable deterrent of their actions. Penalties are the most efficient proven approach to deter men who contemplate buying sex. It is believed that the reduction of demand for paid sex leads to decreased supply of prostituted people, among them those who have been forced, controlled, trafficked and those who are minors or who have other vulnerabilities. Once in prostitution, nine out of ten surveyed women would like to exit it but feel unable to do so. We know that from surveys and evidence that has been produced.
The Turn Off the Red Light network was strongly of the view that we should learn from what happened in Sweden where the authorities have criminalised the buying of sexual acts. Very quickly after the introduction of the relevant legislation in that jurisdiction, there was a significant reduction in trafficking and prostitution and the recruitment of new women was halted. Many positive indications came out of the experience in Sweden initially but that was four or five years ago. At that stage, I was very strongly in support of the Turn Off the Red Light campaign. However, I have been forced to reconsider that a little. I have not completed my thinking on the matter but significant concerns have been raised. A number of these are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. The basis of the Swedish model is the criminalisation of the purchase of sex rather than the criminalising of sex workers, with the aim of reducing overall demand. That is a very laudable objective. The logic of this in regard to sex trafficking is very clear. However, under the Bill's current design, sex work will not be decriminalised. There is still a significant and potentially punitive restriction on the women involved regardless of the reason they entered the sex trade in the first instance.
Part 4 increases the penalty for suspected brothel-keeping and penalises women who do not leave an area after being directed to do so by the Garda. Consequently, there is a clear danger that these measures may force those engaged in sex work to do so in isolated areas or to work alone in order to avoid arrest. This will significantly increase the risks many sex workers face and highlights how important it is that they are provided every protection under the law. When similar legislation was passed in Northern Ireland the PSNI warned that it did not have the resources to enforce it. Is that a concern here? It probably is. The Stormont justice committee said in February 2014 that prosecuting anyone under the law would require large-scale effort. Is our Garda force in a position to undertake such efforts and, more importantly, are its members equipped to do so effectively, particularly in the context of victims of trafficking?
In the P case, the High Court ruled that gardaí failed to identify a victim of human trafficking. The offence in that case was not related to the sex tax but to drug dealing. The failure of the gardaí to identify the fact that this woman was a victim of trafficking resulted in her being imprisoned for two and a half years. That sentence was overturned on appeal to the High Court. That example highlights this State's failure in respect of the identification of victims of trafficking. In addition, a case earlier this week raised a number of questions regarding how victims continue to be treated. According to reports on Monday, four young women from Romania appeared before Galway District Court where they pleaded guilty to operating a brothel. While the women stated that they were working for themselves, gardaí believed they lacked the wherewithal to organise themselves and were most likely to have been trafficked into the country by either a Dublin or Belfast-based pimp group. These were very young women, most of them in their very early 20s. Despite the reservations of the Garda, all of those women were each fined €200.
If we are to approach prostitution in this manner, it is vital that gardaí are trained in recognising victims of trafficking and that suspected victims do not face prosecution - that is the fear. Similarly, when two or more prostitutes choose to work from the same location for safety, they should not be prosecuted for brothel keeping unless there is clear evidence that one is profiting from the work of others. As the law still stands, if two prostitutes work together, they can be accused of brothel-keeping. Are we going to force a situation where women working in the sex trade will be forced to work alone in order to get around this issue and to avoid prosecution under this legislation, obviously putting themselves at further risk? There are significant issues here.
I very much welcome the provisions in respect of the purchase of sexual services and, in the context of trafficking generally, Part 4. Most of the principles involved in that are right but I would caution that gardaí need training and resources. Also, we need to properly invest in and resource the support services that should be provided for women who find themselves in this situation. The Immigrant Council of Ireland is very much supportive of this aspect as well. I am of the view that it can be effective in tackling the growing issue of trafficking.
In respect of women involved in the sex trade who have not been trafficked, these are Irish women in the main, we know that the vast majority of those women got involved in prostitution for socioeconomic reasons. Again. we must ask why is that the case. Why do women find themselves in such vulnerable and desperate situations that they have to turn to prostitution in order to survive? I am not talking about women who would claim that they entered into this trade freely. The vast majority are under duress and are forced, as a result of their socioeconomic circumstances, to enter this trade in order to raise money, very often for their children. What impact will this legislation have on them? Where will it leave them? Will they be in an even more vulnerable situation? Will they be in even more danger? We need to rethink that. Certainly the vibes coming from Sweden, and later Norway, a number of years ago were that the indications were very positive but there is some rethinking of that now. It seems the new legislation has certainly acted a deterrent for the purchasers of sex but it has also acted as a deterrent for women or men contemplating going into the sex trade.
There are questions remaining about people already working in that trade to ensure their position is not made even more vulnerable and precarious as a result of this legislation. To some extent, the solutions are legislative ones, which I have indicated, in respect of the existing law not being amended and the fact we are not decriminalising people engaged in prostitution. There are also significant resource issues that must be addressed.
With regard to this legislation, leaving aside Part 4, the vast bulk of it is very much to be welcomed. I fully appreciate the intent of Part 4. Its intent is very admirable and to a large extent correct in its principle. The operation of this new kind of legislation needs to be reviewed. We should revisit some of the aspects of Part 4 in light of the experience in Sweden in particular. On that basis, the Social Democrats are not opposing the legislation but we will propose amendments to it on Committee State which I hope the Tánaiste will be open to considering. I agree with calls from a number of Members of the House that there should be some kind of a sunset clause to enable us to see how the operation of this legislation goes. We need to review it after 12 or 24 months because we cannot be sure that, in the case of some very vulnerable people, it will not make the situation worse. With those comments, I complete my contribution.
Glaoim ar an Teachta Madigan. An bhfuil sí ag deighilt an ama?
Tá cúig nóiméad agam, ceapaim.
In her song, "Sexcrime (Nineteen Eighty-Four)", Annie Lennox of the Eurythmics belted out these lyrics:
And so I face the wall
Turn my back against it all
How I wish I'd been unborn
Wish I was unliving here
There are many victims of sexual violence who can identify with these words. The consequences and repercussions of a sexual offence on a victim are multifaceted. The scale of the damage inflicted varies from one victim to the next depending on the level of depravity. We know the physical wounds will heal eventually, albeit leaving nasty permanent scars, but psychological wounds remain open, sore and exposed. More often than not the right balm to soothe the psychic wound cannot be found and it continues to ooze throughout a person's life, manifesting in multifaceted anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders. The overriding sense of shame and even guilt is a common trait among victims of sexual violence. Some of the more long-term devastating effects of such violence, because all forms of sexual violence are violence, is the pervasive sense of fear and vulnerability, deep emotional pain, difficulty forming and maintaining relationships and the development of psychological illnesses, including addiction.
I very much welcome this Bill. I will talk about the matter of consent which I know the Tánaiste is open to discussing and re-examining. As legislators, it is wholly incumbent upon us to do all in our power to ensure we enact laws to protect victims and prosecute offenders. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre told me that in 2015, 11,789 women, children and men sought its counselling services. One in three women and one in five men have been the victims of sexual crime. One in eight women and one in 20 men have been the victims of rape or attempted rape. These are shocking statistics. The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 is a vitally important step towards protecting our most vulnerable from sexual crime.
We are living in a digital world where technology is expanding at a ferocious rate. The development of social media is a communications technology breakthrough which has revolutionised how we communicate with each other, especially young people, but these online forms have a darker side. They can be used as a conduit through which predatory and devious men and women target and attract children. Parental responsibility is crucial in ensuring children are safeguarded from straying onto online forums where their safety is jeopardised. The policing of children 24-7, however, as I know as a parent, is unachievable and unrealistic in many households.
We, as a country, are all too familiar with the reprehensible ravages of child abuses. The One in Four campaign, for example, tragically highlights that child sex abuse is all too prevalent in Irish society. That any child has to undergo the trauma of sexual assault is heartbreaking, so a figure like one in four is simply not good enough.
It is heartening that this Bill provides significantly greater protections for those vulnerable children. I welcome that it brings us in line with our international obligations, as has been said by previous speakers, laid out by EU directives and that it will also facilitate our ratification of the very important Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse.
Previous legislation could never have envisaged these new communication platforms and how they would be exploited. I welcome section 8 on grooming and section 15 which redefines a person of authority. It is a vital inclusion. The nature of authority, the power imbalance and the abuse of authority is clearly delineated in this Bill with its reference to current and former positions of responsibility. The Bill's inclusion of a proximity test regarding the age of consent ensures the focus of our criminal law legislation remains the protection of children and sexual assault rather than interfering in consensual sexual activity between young people.
The mammoth work of the Rape Crisis Centre, for example, with its Ask Consent campaign, is to be commended. The very simple message is that sex without consent is rape. In addition, the introduction of sexual consent workshops in universities is vital to educate young people on the issues surrounding the grey area of consent. Universities are rife with sexual dalliances, flings and one night stands, none of which is any of my business so long as they are consensual. I am interested in the non-consensual. Peer pressure, FOMO, which means fear of missing out, and alcohol can be a toxic potent mix, and I know many women and men who have free-fallen into a hotbed of desire where consent has been left standing at the corner of the room, a silent witness, watching events like a voyeuristic room-mate.
Four years after Annie Lennox's "Sexcrime" song, Jodie Foster starred in the blockbuster movie, "The Accused", which highlighted the issue of rape and consent and brought it back into the zeitgeist. One of our own Irish best-selling authors, Louise O'Neill, has achieved that recently with her best-selling book, Asking For It, and the resulting television documentary thereby ensuring the word "consent" remains in our vernacular and nomenclature and helps us all to focus our minds on what defines consent. I firmly believe it is in the interest of victims to have a statutory definition of what constitutes consent in our legislation. I call on the Tánaiste and the Government to include a definition of consent in the Bill. Section 9 of the Criminal Law (Rape)(Amendment) Act 1990 states that the failure to offer resistance does not amount to consent, but it does not go far enough. In England and Wales, section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines consent in the following way: "a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice".
Freedom of choice is of interest here. What defines freedom? Is it finally relenting or giving in to a sexual act? Is it easier than pushing the person away? Is that consent? Is it consent if a person is too weary to say no again after the hundredth time? What if they are afraid if they say no the person will find someone else or do something worse and so they give in? We need a definition of freedom if we are going to use a reference from that particular Act. What defines freedom? What defines capacity? Was the person drunk? Did they have three drinks or ten drinks? How drunk were they? Were they wearing a provocative short skirt, dancing on the dance floor all night, leading someone on and being consistently flirtatious? Were they dealing with some serious personal issues at the time and their judgment was clouded? Could they be blamed for trying? This is no longer a grey area; it is now white haired.
I commend the Tánaiste and everyone who was involved in bringing this Bill to the floor of the House. It updates many of our laws on sexual offences, many of which affect children in particular. I will make some general remarks on the administration of sexual offences legislation to lay the groundwork for remarks specifically on the Criminal Justice (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 and sexual offence statutes in general. In doing so, I will refer to the work just completed by Conor Dignam, senior counsel, into the foster home abuse issue. I will make some comments at the end about where I think the gaps are when it comes to sexual offences legislation.
It is fair to say that the foster home abuse issue began in earnest when I met two members of a local family in my office in Dungarvan in 2014. It is important to repeat what they told me. That is not purposefully to shock people but to remind them of why Deputy John McGuinness and I pursued this issue so strongly. They told me that their daughter-sister ended up in the foster home for respite reasons. To make a long story short, they discovered that their daughter-sister, who is not verbal, had been raped anally with implements over a prolonged period of time. All of this had been medically attested and confirmed. The young woman cannot be operated on today because so much damage was done that to do so would threaten perforation of her bowel, which might kill her. This is not Grace. This is another individual.
It is worth repeating what we are dealing with here, because much of the verbiage Mr. Dignam uses is, understandably, very legalistic. It is complex. The report is 300 pages long. I do not wish to oversimplify his work but, generally, he outlines the grounds for an inquiry - in fact, the inquiry will be quite broad - and affirms the work conducted by the Committee of Public Accounts on this issue. To be honest, it goes further than what we considered. What he did not, and could not, deal with were the human elements of the foster home issue, the political ramifications or the relevant criminal statutes, which I will mention later.
One question that has arisen is whether the HSE misled or misinformed the Committee of Public Accounts and the Ministers dealing with the issue. The head of the HSE informed the Committee of Public Accounts that the three people who were responsible for making the decision to leave Grace in the foster placement, even when it had been decided no other children should be placed there, had all left the health service and were no longer in the public service. I question now whether that is true. I am informed that one of the individuals is still in the public service and works at a senior level for Tusla.
One of the big issues is what, if anything, will happen to those responsible for leaving Grace in the foster placement in the 1990s, those responsible for failing to act subsequently to protect her and others and those responsible for attempting to cover up the HSE's failings in this regard. The HSE's view is that it is powerless to discipline, dismiss or sanction those responsible. Those individuals were investigated in the Conal Devine report but the HSE operates differently from every other organisation in the country, whereby it can only issue sanctions against employees if the report is available publicly. We know that the Devine report is not subject to any legal challenge and the HSE continues to emphasise that it has not waited for the publication of the report to act on its recommendations. Here is where the contradiction occurs. It is really problematic that all of the findings except those relating to HSE personnel being disciplined can be implemented without the report being published. I believe I am not the only person to have a problem with that.
I refer to the whistleblower. It is the main point of what I wish to convey, and I believe the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality has a role in this. The whistleblower received a letter in July 2014 from the HSE's authorised person informing her that the file related to her protected disclosure was "closed". She had alleged that the HSE had covered up its failings with regard to 47 children and adults who had been left at risk. The HSE launched two inquiries, neither of which investigated the allegations of a cover-up. The first inquiry was conducted by a former HSE official. The same person wrote the terms of reference for the second inquiry. The HSE then wrote to the whistleblower to say that the file was closed. The head of the HSE assured the Committee of Public Accounts that the protected disclosures received in 2009 and 2010 had been investigated. He refuted the assertions that there had been a cover-up, explaining that neither inquiry found evidence of a cover-up. Of course, he chose not to mention that neither of the inquiries had this included in its terms of reference. Allegations of a cover-up were never investigated.
Another issue has come to light. The HSE refused to make Grace a ward of court, even after her removal from the placement. I believe its reasons were that it would probably have to tell the court she had been left at risk and that she would take a civil action. The whistleblower then personally petitioned the High Court on the matter. The HSE tried to stop her. It referred to the funding it gave to her organisation. It contacted the chairman of the board she worked for and put as much pressure as it could on the whistleblower. The HSE managers involved wrote letters, including several solicitor's letters, to the whistleblower's manager, the board of directors and the High Court. She claims these letters contained fabricated information alleging misconduct by her in the course of performing her duties.
This is important for every whistleblower now and in the future. What I am about to say is critical and must be dealt with in the interim before this inquiry happens. The letters to the High Court were drafted by HSE solicitors at the request of a HSE senior manager. They alleged serious misconduct and requested that, owing to this misconduct, the whistleblower be removed as a court-appointed representative for her client. The letters suggested that the whistleblower was not a fit person to represent her client and, as a result, the HSE could not be expected to work with her. What is interesting is that another HSE manager has since provided the whistleblower with a signed statement that the information contained in those letters had been fabricated. Why? The strong suspicion is the HSE management, about which she had made certain allegations, did not want her to have information to which she was legally entitled and did not want her to continue to expose its failures.
She was required to get legal advice and send solicitor's letters on her own behalf in an effort to ensure she was not removed from her position. No protections were afforded her by the protected disclosures office in the HSE. She will give full details of this and the supporting documentation to the commission of inquiry. None of this has been investigated by either of the previous reviews of these matters. According to the whistleblower, the HSE manager who fabricated this information and sought to destroy her career has been promoted to a new post in Tusla. No disciplinary action has been taken against him. It is worth pointing out that she briefed the head of the HSE, Mr. Tony O'Brien, about all of this last February. Neither Mr. O'Brien nor anybody in the HSE has contacted her in the interim or apologised to her for their conduct.
I will quickly discuss the legislation governing this area. In 2010, allegations were made, a Garda investigation ensued and it ended in June 2015. Five files were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, and no charges were directed. Of course, this does not mean there was no criminality. The primary alleged abuser was deceased at that point. Gardaí repeatedly made the point to the whistleblower that none of the alleged victims could give evidence in a trial or be cross-examined. She asked them what they did in a murder trial when the murder victim cannot be cross-examined or give evidence in court. They had no response, so I think she made her point.
She decided then to walk into a Garda station and make a new statement of complaint. Under existing statutes it is an offence if a person is left at risk of sexual abuse. It is not just an offence if the person suffers sexual abuse. The Garda is now investigating whether the HSE recklessly endangered these people and left them at risk of sexual abuse. The investigation is well under way but the fear is that our existing legislation is not robust enough to secure a conviction. I will explain that.
While there is legislation that protects children from abuse and neglect, which is what the Bill is all about, there is no corresponding legislation for adults. It is not an offence to neglect, emotionally abuse or starve a vulnerable adult unless the result is significant harm or death. If what happened to some of these people had happened to a dog, there would be a greater chance of securing a conviction, given that Ireland, in some circumstances, affords greater protections to animals than to adults with disabilities. It is easier to secure a conviction for animal cruelty, and those responsible can receive legal penalties which include prohibition from caring for animals. There is nothing in the Statute Book that could have prevented certain individuals from continuing to care for people with disabilities for 20 years after the allegations came to light, or to prevent them from doing so today.
If one asked ten people in the Chamber who are the most vulnerable people in our society, one would get ten different answers, and they might all be reasonable. Somebody might say it is the elderly.
I have given the Deputy great latitude. He must speak on the Bill.
Thank you. Give me 40 seconds more latitude. My vote would go to the individuals to whom I refer. Regarding what must happen now, given what the HSE knew back in February, one step needs to be taken by the Taoiseach and his office. I thank him for moving on the issue when I raised it here two weeks ago. The report has been published and I appreciate what he did. The Taoiseach must examine the behaviour of the HSE and how it treated the whistleblower. If half of what I am being told is true, it must be acted on immediately. The only office that can deal with it is the Taoiseach's office dealing with the HSE directly.
An Teachta Chambers.
Which Chambers? We are the first two in the House.
Deputy Lisa Chambers is listed first. I will let you decide between you.
I will start. Fianna Fáil supports the Bill and I am delighted to speak on it. I thank the Minister for progressing it. It shows leadership and a process of change which is important in the context of many of the provisions in the Bill. However, there is scope on Committee Stage to strengthen certain parts of the Bill. I am sure the Minister is open minded about amendments that will be tabled by various Members. It is welcome that the provisions are being put forward on a legislative footing and that we are codifying many important facets of our law where there are many lacunae, recommendations of Oireachtas committees and directives of the European Council and European Parliament. I particularly welcome section 8 on trying to prevent the exploitation of children. The Minister mentioned a number of provisions around coercion, IT and child pornography. It is important that the State acts properly and decisively on a legislative footing on what is a core problem in Ireland, Europe and beyond.
The Bill replaces the public indecency provision in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act which dates all the way back to 1935, and criminalises the purchase of sexual services. Fianna Fáil supports this important measure. Having met with various expert groups and individuals in the area, including Denise Charlton of the Turn Off the Red Light campaign last week, I am aware of the support for it. My party will continue to work towards ending human trafficking in Ireland. In 2008, the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act saw dedicated anti-human trafficking provisions established in the law enforcement agencies and health services. Significant numbers of women were given vital help through these bodies. In the intervening years, the nature, approach, operations and scale of prostitution and abuse of women and children has transformed dramatically, with street prostitution largely replaced by an underground industry which is more sophisticated, ruthless and harmful, and highly profitable, and it is important that many of the measures in the Bill are enacted quickly in order to target it. The increase in the number of foreign prostitutes operating in Ireland compared to a decade ago raises questions around the extent of trafficking of women into and within Ireland for sexual exploitation. What Deputy Róisín Shortall mentioned about the recent case in Galway is evidence of how prostitutes are being used as a front by pimps and people who operate on an underground basis. It is important we tackle such cases to ensure we are not prosecuting the most vulnerable. It is important we get to the bottom and reach the people who are using them as a front for the operation.
The precise scale of the sector is not well known. Various groups estimate that there could be anything from 700 to more than 1,000 sex workers operating each day. Proper information is vital so we can get a handle on the growing issue. What is most pressing is the need to stop the exploitation of these people, and the Bill is a necessary response to the need to develop a fresh approach to all this. The degradation and exploitation of many of these women is shocking. Trying to flip our laws towards tackling the purchase goes some way, although not all the way, to trying to address the problem. Equally important, although not contained in the Bill, is the need to commission another report on sexual abuse and violence in Ireland, another SAVI report. The original SAVI report was release in 2002, and was crucial to the delivery of the Ferns, Ryan and Murphy reports, which followed and revealed in horrific detail the scale of the sexual abuse that has occurred. The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and various Oireachtas committees have recommended a fresh report. Surely, after 14 years, a new report is well and truly overdue.
I am happy to support the specific protections the Bill contains for children in the area of combating the sexual exploitation and abuse of children and child pornography. The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ISPCC, has welcomed the Bill, given that it offers greater protection to the youngest and most vulnerable in society. The ISPCC has also warned that the lack of risk assessment guidelines and provision for post-release supervision are worrying omissions. There is room to work on, and I am interested to know what the Minister has to say about it. I am concerned about the deficiency of support for victims of sexual violence in the Bill. The National Women's Council of Ireland, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and One in Four are all concerned that there is no definition of consent in the Bill. Deputy Josepha Madigan mentioned it in her contribution and I am happy that she said the Minister is examining it. In the week when the fascinating RTE documentary, "Asking for It?" by the writer Louise O'Neill highlighted in very stark terms the lack of education, understanding and knowledge in this area I share these concerns. A statutory definition of consent would be effective in tackling stereotypes about what constitutes rape. Such a definition exists in other jurisdictions and we should consider it very carefully.
The Bill also covers the issue of counselling notes and their role in the criminal justice process when somebody is accused of rape or sexual assault. The idea that defence counsel can access this information and try to use it to discredit the victim can have the effect of a victim suddenly becoming the one on trial and having very personal details revealed in a court setting. It is important we examine the provision very carefully to ensure we do not disincentivise women from coming forward and make a very difficult situation worse. I have concerns about it. This can have an incredibly traumatic effect on a person who is already feeling extremely vulnerable. While it is welcome that the Bill ends this fishing exercise, it does not altogether ban defence teams from accessing counselling notes. Rather, they must make an application and argue why it is relevant to the case, which may adversely impact on somebody in a particularly acute and sensitive situation. If victims of sexual violence think something as private as their counselling notes could be aired in court, it could render victims unwilling to come forward and report sex crime. The Bill represents a golden opportunity to address it and properly protect all victims of sexual violence.
I welcome the fact that the Bill makes it illegal to cross-examine a person under the age of 18.
We should consider if this right could be extended to all victims of sexual violence, as is the case in England and Wales. The thought of a victim having to undergo a verbal assault by the person who physically assaulted him or her or a defence team is particularly horrifying. As part of the future examination of the Bill on Committee Stage, some amendments must be constructively examined to make this the right Bill for the long term. We should not push into future legislation any of the positive measures that many of the Deputies across the House are suggesting. As we all know in the context of this Dáil, the legislative process has been especially slow and it has been difficult to get even this legislation progressed over recent months. It is important, now that we are here, to make every effort to make this the best possible legislation to help those in particularly sensitive and difficult scenarios in their lives. We must give them protection and tackle those who exploit the most vulnerable in society, those who are trafficked and the children who are most vulnerable.
My colleague, Deputy Lisa Chambers, will speak next but I reiterate that Fianna Fáil fully supports this Bill and feels there are further measures that could be taken to strengthen its potential legislative effect.
I welcome the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 as it is good legislation. As has been pointed out by other speakers in this debate, there are gaps. It is the purpose of this debate and the process of legislating to identify these gaps, have a conversation about the issue and, as a House, try to make the legislation better and more effective.
I welcome very much the aspects in this Bill that relate specifically to the protection of children and the introduction of new offences in this regard. Certainly, the Bill provides a more effective response within our criminal justice system to sexual offences and it also responds to new and emerging threats, such as predatory activity targeting children via the Internet and social media. This is a very important aspect of the legislation because often the law has rightly been accused of lagging behind in terms of developments in technology. We can be very slow in catching up. It has been quite obvious for a number of years that online forums, social media and the Internet have been used to target and groom children who are quite unassuming and assume the best in people. They believe who they connect with online and that what the person is telling them is entirely factual, which is often not the case. Legislation like this extends protection to those children and creates offences where necessary, bringing us in line with European directives and law.
There are certain concerns around those aspects of the Bill and we certainly must ensure the legislation is robust and that we can improve conviction rates. We must also ensure there is proper supervision of offenders, that they are properly rehabilitated and that when they return to society, they are properly monitored and people do not re-offend. That must be one of the cornerstones of our approach.
In particular I will refer to the protection of women, specifically those who have suffered from sexual crimes. The National Women's Council of Ireland has said significant gaps remain in this legislation in the protection of women who have been victims of sexual offences. As has been eloquently described by Deputy Josepha Madigan, the absence of a definition of consent is a major concern. This has been highlighted by the Rape Crisis Centre, the National Women's Council of Ireland and a number of Deputies in the Chamber. Consent is defined in the UK and other jurisdictions and it is incumbent on us as legislators to ensure the definition is provided to the public and we legislate for it. At this time we can say that consent is a grey area, and it gives me no joy to say that. It should not be a grey area, as consent should be clear and defined. People should know what consent means. How can we be expected to educate young people on what consent is if we, as legislators, cannot put pen to paper and put a definition in place for the public to see in black and white?
It is very important that in line with this legislation and the proactive approach we are taking to tackling sexual offences crimes in this country, we tackle the perpetrators of these crimes and assist victims. We certainly need to include that definition of consent, and alongside that we should embark on a process of educating young people on what consent means. We should teach people not to rape and we should not go about teaching people how to avoid being raped. That is what we have done for recent years. We have looked to women to say how they can avoid being attacked and stop themselves being preyed upon. It is the wrong approach, and because of it, we have become quite complacent in society as to what is a sexual offence, assault and rape.
Every weekend women go into a bar or a nightclub and are groped and felt up, for want of a better phrase. People will turn to them and say their skirts are quite short or they had too many drinks, or they will ask if they were looking for it. That is the attitude taken by far too many people. I hope and I like to think the majority of us see that type of attitude as totally inappropriate and quite disgusting. Unless we go about educating our young people from early teenage years as to what consent means, we will continue to have the devastating effects on victims of sexual offences within society. We will continue to see case after case going before the justice system, with people outlining cases in which they have been sexually assaulted or raped. They have to go down that horrific process involving the courts system.
The next part of the legislation has been addressed by my colleague, Deputy Jack Chambers. It is the access of counsel for the defendant to the counselling notes of the abused person. I am not sure how that is justified as any access to counselling notes should be completely prohibited. Therapy or counselling should be taken with the knowledge of the person seeking those services that it will always be in confidence and what people say to their counsellor or therapist will always be in confidence. It completely undermines access to those services if, in the back of a person's mind, he or she thinks that at some point the public or the person who has committed abuse could have access to those notes. Not only could the abusers have access to the notes but they can be used as a tool to beat the defendant and hurt that person. I welcome that access is limited and that is a positive step. However, I fail to see how in any circumstances counsel for the defendant or the defendant himself or herself can make any argument for access to counselling notes. I just do not see the reason, although I am open to being corrected. On balance, it is far more detrimental to the victim and we should look at it.
I will comment briefly on the broader issue of trials for sexual offences, especially the traumatic and harrowing process that victims must often go through. It is widely known that if an individual is put through the criminal justice system, with a case taken to the courts and a wish to prosecute the person who has hurt, harmed or sexually assaulted or raped the individual, that individual will have to give evidence in open court. There is often the possibility or probability that previous sexual history will be brought up for all to see and know about, and it will be used somehow to discredit the testimony of the person against a defendant. That is the reason so few women are willing to come forward and go through the court system. They know that previous sexual history and character will be attacked, and it will be there for family, friends and the public to see and hear about. For many victims, it is just too much to deal with and they do not want to go down that path. It is something we must certainly examine.
I will take the final few minutes to address the aspect of the Bill that criminalises the purchase of sexual services. I welcome this but I do so with caution. It is a positive step in that it puts the responsibility and onus back on those who traffic women, purchasing sex from vulnerable women and, often and unfortunately, vulnerable minors. We know many of those who work in prostitution are considered children as they are under 18. These are clearly very vulnerable women if they are going into that work.
It is worth noting that some women enter into that type of work consensually, but it is a very small number. For most people, they are in that position because they have nowhere else to go or turn to. It is a case of doing this or they do not survive.
Until now, all the responsibility rested on the shoulders of those selling sex without any consideration as to why they were doing it. However, I worry about the effects the legislation may have on the industry. It is one of the oldest industries in the world and this type of work was around before many other types of work existed. We would find it difficult to eradicate the selling of sex in this or any other country. However, that should not prevent us from protecting those in the industry or from doing everything we can to get them out of it while ensuring they are not criminalised or prohibited from accessing services. Deputy Shortall referred earlier to courts fining women for selling sex when they are clearly victims. They are not engaged in this practice because they want to nor are they consenting to engage in it because they have been trafficked or forced into it. It may seem like a small sum of money but the fact that a punishment was dished out to these women sends out the wrong message to those in the industry that if they seek help, it is possible they will be locked up or face other criminal sanctions. That would leave many women and children feeling vulnerable and feeling that they have nowhere else to turn.
We need to examine how we deal with victims in the context of trafficking and prostitution and ensure that if there is any way they can get out of the industry, they know where to go and who to turn to, and that they know they will be protected and looked after and given the treatment they need to make a recovery. We are not doing enough in this regard and I share the concerns of other Members that the criminalisation of the purchase of services could drive the industry further underground. Everything we do to assist women who are being trafficked needs to upset the criminal gangs and their operations and make it as difficult as possible for them to traffic women into the country, hold on to them and to make a profit out of vulnerable women and children. I welcome the provisions in this regard. They are a step in the right direction but, as previous speakers said, we will need to review the legislation in a year or two using data to assess its impact on the industry to ensure what is proposed does not harm victims further.
I wish to share time with Deputy Coppinger.
People Before Profit opposes the Bill on a number of grounds and I will outline our concerns. I have concerns about access to children's psychotherapy notes and believe this should be restricted to exceptional circumstances where more general information from the therapist is not available.
However, my chief concern relates to the criminalisation of the purchase of sex. Approximately three years ago, the union I worked for at the time, Unite, was lobbied by the Turn Off the Red Light, TORL, campaign and we had a debate in the equality and women's sections of the union. I was the only person to advocate that TORL had it wrong but I lost the vote when it came to the union adopting a position. Like the Union of Students in Ireland and Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, Unite is reconsidering its position on this. It is healthy that organisations that advocate on behalf of women and that represent women and others should examine where the criminalisation of the purchasers of sex may lead us.
I object to the conflation in the legislation of a number of different and complex issues. The issue of consensual adult sex work should not be conflated with the issue of women and, indeed, children being trafficked and coerced into sex work or the issue of child abuse or pornography. They are different issues and the Bill attempts to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, which is not an appropriate response. The conflation allows for many Members to express outrage and moral revulsion but the previous speaker made an eloquent case for looking after prostitutes and trying to get them out of the business of providing sex. I do not at all disagree with that but, at the end of the day, what the Bill sets out to do will end up doing the opposite. Much of the justification revolves around references to the Nordic and Swedish model, which has been instanced by the TORL campaign, Ruhama etc. as a good model, with research showing it addressed the issue. However, the model does not consider the complexity of the issue or the social and economic realities that lie at the heart of the criminalisation of the purchase of sex.
It appears the legislation would decriminalise prostitution, although I am a little confused because section 25 refers to reinforcing the offences of loitering, working indoors or running a brothel and making them subject to harsher sanctions. However, the Bill provides that those who purchase sex will be liable to criminal charges and, therefore, they can be arrested and brought before the courts. It is regrettable that the Bill does not acknowledge or address how the law interacts with sex workers. Although it does not discriminate against sex workers, it makes their lives more dangerous and precarious. This is based on research conducted by Amnesty International and people who look after female prostitutes in the Scandinavian countries who have operated under this model. By targeting the purchase of sex, the industry at large will be driven underground.
There were cases in Scandinavia where clients of sex workers were brought to court and the clients were required to give evidence against them. There were also cases of clients having their personal possessions searched and if they carried condoms, for example, they were used as exhibit A in the case against the purchaser of sex. HIV Ireland wrote to us recently about this. Aids Action Alliance has also conducted research in this regard which has found that if women, in particular, and children are driven into a position of having to hide the fact they may be selling sex because the purchasers are liable to end up in court, they may end up not protecting themselves. There is evidence that HIV is on the increase among sex workers in Sweden and Norway. Criminalising the purchase of sex creates a buyer's market but it determines from the buyer's point of view where the act should take place and in what surroundings it should take place rather than the sex workers having control of where and how the act takes place. It drives the industry into a dangerous and dark place, particularly for the women concerned.
According to the Amnesty International report, sex workers whom this kind of criminalisation befalls are subject to surveillance because if the police want to catch the purchase, they surveil the sex workers. This leads to a situation where the sex workers and the treatment they receive at the hands of the police is often dangerous. In this country, many sex workers have complained openly, and it has been reported in the media over recent years, that they can be persecuted, harassed and often put into troubled areas by the gardaí who are pursuing them. There is no attempt to separate the dangers of sex work from the reasons people are engaged in it. They can be driven into it or they could choose this work rather than choosing a different life. This legislation will not help women and children in this position.
The conflation of that and trafficking is even more worrying because we should be going after traffickers. Trafficking human beings for the purposes of the purchase of sex and forcing people to engage in the sale of sex is a serious crime. A court case was reported in the news over recent days in which 20 Romanian women were fined for running a brothel in the west having been trafficked into the country but there was no sign of those responsible for trafficking them.
I would much rather see the State produce a strong Bill with financial and resource supports for the Garda, which already has a budget and a dedicated unit for trafficking but which seems to get very few results, and put efforts into that rather than the criminalising of the purchaser. As I have argued, the latter will drive the situation for women into more dangerous territory, drive the whole thing underground and make them even more vulnerable in terms of the protection of their own health.
I will finish by reading a little from a piece by two Swedish researchers who looked at the decriminalisation of prostitution and beyond. The research concerned the experiences of women in Sweden since the introduction of the Swedish model, which is marketed around the world as the way to go when in fact it is not the way to go and has had very serious effects on prostitution and prostitutes in the countries that have adopted it: "It is said to have ... had a deterrent effect on clients, and to have changed societal attitudes ... without ... any negative consequences." That was the intent of it. However, these claims have been evaluated since and are, according to the report, inconsistent, full of contradictions and haphazard, with "irrelevant or flawed comparisons and conclusions [that] were made without factual backup and were at times of a speculative character". Therefore, organisations which work with prostitutes, all for very good reasons, and which say that we must criminalise the purchase of sex are actually getting the opposite result and a much more negative response from those who work in the sex industry.
The reality is that we are not dealing with these issues solely by legislation but that we need to recognise, as previous speakers have said, that there are economic and social complexities that surround sex workers and that unless we offer alternatives to women and tackle the root causes of the oppression of women in general, we will simply end up worsening the position of the most vulnerable women in society. What this Bill does not do, and what those who drafted it did not do, was talk to the very people whom they claim to protect, namely, the sex workers themselves, who are very recognisable, very easy to contact and in some ways much better organised than they used to be. Before we vote on this Bill, we have a moral responsibility to talk to these groups that represent sex workers, to read the reports by Amnesty International and HIV Ireland and to represent the issues for sex workers rather than thinking we are doing the morally correct thing by going after the purchasers of sex and ending up making women even more vulnerable.
This is a very complex Bill that deals with legal changes to a very wide range of sexual offences. There are some generally welcome attempts to fill gaps, particularly in existing laws on sexual offences against children relating to child sex abuse, child pornography, child sex tourism and statutory rape. However, the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ISPCC, has raised the omission of risk assessment guidelines and post-release supervision of child sex offenders, which should be addressed on the next Stage.
Regarding sexual crimes against adults, there is another important omission. It has been referred to by other speakers. I refer to the call by the Rape Crisis Network of Ireland for the specific inclusion of a definition of consent in the Bill. The issue of presumed consent is now a critical issue in sexual offences, especially for young people, and is regularly argued by the defence in rape cases in court. The Ministers had months to address this, and it is extremely disappointing that it has not been included in the Bill. The Anti-Austerity Alliance will table an amendment to rectify this.
It is also inexplicable that a range of measures requested by the Rape Crisis Centres, which would more positively assist rape victims, have not been included, such as helping people to take court cases to their conclusions, a ban on the cross-examination by defendants of alleged victims, in certain cases by video link, and a ban on the worrying practice lately of judges allowing financial compensation to be used by the culprit without any reference to the victim. These matters should be considered.
Regarding Part 4, which relates to prostitution and sex work, mindful of the wishes of many of those involved in the sex industry and how they wish to define themselves, I will hereafter use the words "sex workers" rather than "prostitutes", which is a misogynistic, loaded term in any case. However, that is not to say that an equal comparison can be made between selling one's labour and being compelled to sell one's body. Violence and rape are prevalent within prostitution. Socialists are opposed to the sex industry as a massive, global, profit-making industry. Under capitalism, everything becomes a commodity, including women's bodies, as well as the bodies of trans people and vulnerable young males involved in prostitution. The industry is obviously gendered. It profits from sexism and oppression. It both reflects and then perpetuates the oppression of women and girls. Buying sex is an example of exerting one's power over another human being, and most of those who work in the sex industry do so due to a lack of choices: migrant women, poor women, women with addictions etc. Of course, a small minority does have the freedom to choose to be involved but it is overrepresented in many of the debates.
The Socialist Party does not pass any judgment on those who work in the sex industry, whatever their reasons. The industry does perpetuate a culture, however, that women's bodies are objects and commodities and that women's sexual desires are subservient to those of men. This has an impact in wider society of women suffering harassment, violence and sexual violence in a macho culture that is pushed. When Ministers give interviews about there being a need for prostitution in society, whose needs do they mean and who should serve those needs? Over 99% of the buyers of sex are men, and the majority of sellers are women, including many trans women. We support the idea that men who believe in equality should not buy sex, that trade unions should campaign on this matter and that we should have education on it. However, we should have secular schools where there is progressive, LGBTQ-positive sex education in the first place that discusses consent and educates young men that women's own desires and sexual needs are as important as theirs. People might have read the article in The Guardian entitled "Why men use prostitutes". I do not have time to go into it. However, regarding laws about the sex trade and provisions in this Bill, I do not have any illusions that laws will end the exploitation of women or trans people involved in the sex industry. As long as there is gross material inequality, which is growing daily, and the sexism we see under capitalism, the sex trade will continue.
I am utterly opposed to the discredited Netherlands and German model, whereby pimping has essentially been legalised. It has massively grown the sex industry with horrific consequences for many people. However, it is very important to say we support sex workers' rights and the elimination of any risks to sex workers. I am disgusted and disturbed by the fact that this Bill continues aspects of criminalising women, men and trans people for selling sex. The Anti-Austerity Alliance will table amendments to stop the criminalising of sex workers, for example, to delete paragraph (c) as inserted by section 25, which concerns loitering for street prostitution. We will also table an amendment to exclude the criminalisation of two women working together in a brothel, not pimping, one not benefiting from the proceeds of the earnings of the other. Sex workers should not be subject to harassment and prosecution and it is utterly backward that the Tánaiste has not taken these amendments on board.
Reference has already been made to the court case on Monday in which four Romanian women had money taken from them on arrest and were further fined €200 each by a judge. What benefit is that to anybody? Then, of course, they were deported. The Government has sent out a signal with that. We support stronger measures to criminalise pimping, trafficking and the organising of prostitution and to increase dramatically up to €1 million the fines on those who organise prostitution, as opposed to the current €1,000 to €5,000, which is not a deterrent at all. We will table amendments to that effect and we will not support or vote for legislation that continues to criminalise sex workers. We will also table amendments to ensure, as I said, that women who are independently working but together for more safety are not criminalised.
I want to comment on the criminalisation of the buying of sex and the impact it can have on the sex industry, especially if it is not accompanied by real supports. Women are likely to continue to be involved in prostitution and there could certainly be an increase in risk. The basis of the sex industry is twofold. First, there is a sexist culture in society, which is reflected in men buying women, and second, poverty and oppression mean vulnerable women still have a lack of choices. For the vast majority who sell sex, this is the case. Only those of a small unrepresentative section within the sex industry have many other choices but choose to sell sex. On the first point, the Government and the Irish State have an absolutely appalling record of doing anything that would benefit women. It is ludicrous that a country with the eighth amendment, for example, would now pose itself as being somehow progressive on women's rights, despite our history of the Catholic Church controlling people's lives, the Magdalen laundries, symphysiotomy etc. On the second point, the Government is doing nothing. This legislation is not accompanied by any serious measures that would give supports to vulnerable people who are involved in prostitution and sex work.
This certainly is not the Swedish model, although the Government may have thought it was. The Swedish model was originally introduced in the context of a movement against sexism in Sweden, but legal changes were accompanied by major investment in social services to aid sex workers to exit the industry. There is nothing included in the Bill on help for drug addiction. There is nothing that relates to the case of the Romanian women in the sex industry who, instead of being assisted, were instantly deported. How will that assist women to get out of prostitution? The two things are absolutely non-existent in this legislation. The Government is showing no concern in that it is not providing them. While I would be sympathetic to the idea of criminalising the purchase of sex in that it is wrong to purchase sex and criminalising it sends that message, I am very sceptical that it would have a positive impact unless it was accompanied by massively increased supports, health care, specially trained gardaí to report crimes, counselling for people, education and training, and language classes to assist women and vulnerable people to exit the sex trade.
I believe it is much more likely that those things will come about when there is a movement for women's rights in this country. We need only look at the Repeal the Eighth movement as a recent positive example of that. Such a movement would fundamentally challenge sexism and inequality, fight for the separation of church and State, challenge private ownership of wealth and the worshipping of the private sector, build the homes that people need and give people a decent life in order that they are not forced into the sex industry in the first place.
First, it is important to say that there are many very good aspects to the Bill. The issue of dealing with sexual offences is long overdue. However, the Bill is so big and deals with so many different and diverse areas that its weakness lies in trying to do too much. We run the serious risk of leaving ourselves open to doing damage where none is intended. Some of the areas can be addressed through amendment at a later stage, such as issues of consent, people with disabilities and so on. However, Part 4 on the proposal to criminalise the purchase of sex is, to my mind, not amendable and should be withdrawn if this Bill is to go further. The reason for that is quite simple. The Government's position in putting this forward is done from a point of view that we would all agree with, namely, a desire to end prostitution and to protect sex workers. We would love to do that. However, my starting point is that the legislation has the very real potential to do the opposite of what it intends to do and place sex workers in more danger rather than less. We have to take that on board. I do not say it lightly. I say it in light of the very serious research that has been done in this area.
The current proposal before us contrasts sharply with international trends that are moving in the direction of recommending decriminalisation of sex work as the best way of dealing with this complex and multifaceted issue. That decision or trend is based on research and data-based evidence. Anything we legislate for should be based not on emotion or generalisations but on research and data. It is interesting that a month or two ago, Deputy Catherine Martin asked the Minister for Justice and Equality a question about the research carried out before the drafting of this legislation. The Minister in her response correctly pointed out the difficulty in collecting data when she said, "This is owing, at least in part, to the covert nature of the activity and the understandable reluctance on the part of individuals to identify themselves as sellers or buyers of sex." If that was the case before this legislation, introducing a criminal penalty to sex work will make it even more covert and hidden and lessen further the chances of us getting those data. How can we measure whether something is successful if we have not done the homework beforehand or we do not know the starting point?
The experience of other countries is that anything that changes the dynamic between the buyer and the seller of sex can have the effect of disempowering the sex worker and putting sex workers under greater risk. Where buyers of sex face a risk of prosecution, they are inevitably going to take steps to avoid attention. It makes perfect sense. That essentially means making the activity less visible. Some people might like that, but the consequence of it is that the health and safety of sex workers are being threatened.
A huge amount of evidence has come to light since this legislation was first drafted in 2013. That evidence is not being taken into account. The debate on this issue has moved on. Since the time the legislation was first mooted, we have had the first and only comprehensive island-based research into this precise area through a study done by Queen's University Belfast. It is incredibly comprehensive and it is incredibly clear. The overwhelming majority of sex workers and their clients would not be deterred from the activity if this legislation were introduced. They would feel more unsafe and, in fact, their experience since then has been that the activity is more unsafe. It is a key flaw that the legislation does not take account of the evidence from other jurisdictions where this type of model has been put forward or of the changes that have taken place. Critically, the lack of consultation with those involved in the activity is quite glaring.
I find it utterly condescending that people would make comments about other people's lives without asking them first. Sex workers, like everybody else, are not a generic group. People end up in the activity through many different routes. Anybody who tries to say they are all the same, all victims, all drug addicts or all trafficked is not seeing the entire picture. To have a consultation process on draft legislation which saw only two people currently engaged in sex work make an appearance before the justice committee, despite months of deliberations, and saw those who organise sex workers in Ireland have only a one-hour meeting with the Minister is not good enough. It is silencing a legitimate voice in our society. It is very much doing the opposite of what we are saying we are doing. I find that regrettable.
It is utterly in contrast with the incredibly interesting approach taken by the Union of Students in Ireland, USI. The USI's consultation was about 20 times bigger than the consultation of the Minister's office, and the USI is not even bringing in legislation. It spoke to men and women, trans men and women, current students, ex-students, Irish and non-Irish and, as a result of that engagement with students who engage in sex work, it changed its policy. It moved from a position of supporting the idea the Government is putting forward as the best way of dealing with the activity to a different position. I believe that is incredibly important. It carried out a two-year research programme and provided an environment for students to talk safely without being shamed. It is worth pointing out that its evidence showed that, in response to the growing cost of education, there has been a comparative rise in students engaging in sex work. How could there not be? It is the economic imperative that is again putting that so-called choice or limited choice, or whatever one wants to call it, in front of those people. As a result of that engagement, the USI now fully supports decriminalisation.
It is not the only one. Many organisations are beginning to look again at this issue, yet the legislation has not caught up.
The Migrant Rights Centre Ireland reviewed its position and concluded that Part 4 of the Bill is a knee-jerk reaction and that the legislation needs to be clear or else it will cause more damage. The centre's view is that sex workers themselves are best placed to assist the Garda and victims of trafficking. It took the view that the regularisation of the undocumented is far more important than criminal legislation. Amnesty International, HIV Ireland, the UN special rapporteur on health, the Global Commission on Health, the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization and countless other bodies all support the model of decriminalisation of sex work. Why would these reputable human rights organisations support that view if sex work was trafficking and presented in that manner? Trafficking is an abhorrent crime which is already criminalised. That should be even more the case, and those who conduct it should be severely punished. We have laws to deal with the issue.
Other Deputies spoke about children being involved. It is criminal to have sex with children and that should remain the case. It is criminal to engage in violence against women. Whether a woman is involved in sex work or not, it is a criminal action and we have laws dealing with that. We should enforce the legislation in this regard. Of course trafficking and violence go with what is badly called the "sex industry". They are very much part and parcel of it, but there are laws in place dealing with those aspects of it. Conflating that with a consensual arrangement between two adults takes away the limited resources of the State in its ability to be able to deal with that.
Let us look at it in the following way. I am not in any way being flippant about it, but violence and bad attitudes to women exist regardless of whether sex work is involved. The statistics show that the most violent place for a woman to be is not working in the sex trade but in a relationship or married. Domestic violence is the biggest cause of harm and violence perpetrated against women but nobody is seriously putting forward the idea that we should ban relationships and outlaw marriage as a way of protecting women. That would be totally unrealistic. We need to educate society and invest the resources in order that women in that situation have the ability to leave violent relationships and we must educate men and women on how adult human beings should deal with each other in terms of human interaction.
It is unacceptable to say that the people involved in sex work do not know what they are talking about or that their views are not relevant. That might not be something people would like to hear. It is not an activity I would like to engage in myself or to have my daughter engage in, but many people who make the choice do so because their other options are limited. It is not necessarily their first choice but regardless of whether we like it, it is a rational choice and the only way to deal with it is to remove the barriers that put people in the situation whereby they have had to make such a choice, be it to get money for college fees, for their children or because they cannot get a decently paid job to allow them to be able to look after their children and organise childminding or whatever else. Unless we deal with those issues, then the compulsion or choice will remain. The day of Frank Duff’s moral crusade to save women is long gone. We must hear the voices of those engaged in sex work.
I will return to the comprehensive academic research conducted on this island with people in this situation and read its findings. One could not read the findings and support the model that is proposed by the Government in Part 4 of the Bill. Kate McGrew, one of the organisers of Sex Workers Alliance Ireland, SWAI, made the point that a crusade to shut down prostitution and to turn off the red light really just leaves them in the dark. That is not going to be a step forward. The idea of shaming sex workers or portraying the narrative in the context of men’s violence against women, assuming that all clients are male and all sex workers are female, is an imbalance. It is not the full story. Obviously, the issue is rooted in women’s inequality and how society is organised, but that is not the full picture. To say that the women involved have not made a rational choice that is best for them or that they do not know what they can do with their own bodies is not an appropriate way to go forward.
I do not have a great deal of time but some incredible testimony was given by students involved in sex work. One such was Keelin, aged 26, a sex worker from Cork. She is a student who had been active as a sex worker for five years. She made the point that there are no frills involved. It is not the way it is portrayed on the screen with "Belle de Jour" glamour or "Pretty Woman" where the clients fall madly in love with the sex worker. She said she did not feel a connection with her clients but she does have some clients of whom she is fond. She said she mostly works with men and that some of them had been disrespectful but none of them had been threatening and caused her harm. She said she knows that is not everybody’s experience but it was hers. She had met women who were forced into doing sex work, which is utterly awful, who want to leave but cannot. That should be examined. Bringing in this measure and criminalising what they do will not help them. She said those women would still be desperate and in need of money but they would be driven underground to get it. Her view was that supports are needed for those who want to leave the industry and safe working environments. She said the Bill would not do either. That statement is important.
The work by the barrister, Michael Lynn, and commissioned by Sex Workers Alliance Ireland, SWAI, is an incredibly well-grounded, academic and research-based piece of work in this area. He evolved into a position of coming to the conclusion that the Bill would violate the human rights of sex workers. His key points on that were, first, the lack of assessment of the real impact of the Swedish model, the fact that the penalties against brothel keeping and so on are likely to contravene the human rights of sex workers, and he was very critical of the fact that there is no review in the legislation.
There has been much talk about the Nordic or Swedish model but the reality is that this is really the American model, namely, to outlaw prostitution, criminalise the purchase of sex and it will all go away and we will not need to trouble ourselves about it. Sadly, there is no model, shortcut or magic formula to do that. The idea that by criminalising the purchase of sex one will minimise demand, that people will not want to engage the services of sex workers and that will in turn reduce the market for trafficking is utter nonsense and does not stand up to any serious examination of the research.
The points relating to Sweden are at best ambiguous. A report by the British Society of Criminology into the effects of Swedish laws on sex work published in 2014 found there were no reliable data to the effect that there was any overall decline in people selling sex and that the law had increased the dangers. The report said it made it harder for people to access harm reduction services, that people were not able to carry condoms in case they were caught and that buyers had more power, thus forcing sex workers to negotiate and go to an area in which they did not feel safe. The initial decline that was evident in street prostitution in Sweden is not unique to that country and it has been shown to be a correlating trend in other countries where new technology has been introduced and people do not go on the streets as much because they use the Internet among other changes. Bringing in this measure does not end prostitution or sex work. It just hides it better and that makes it more dangerous for the sex worker.
The most comprehensive report, which I will not have time to deal with in detail, carried out by Amnesty International on Norway, clearly stresses the lack of evidence to support any claim that the laws there have decreased prostitution at all. In Sweden it is said that at best they have not increased prostitution. The Nordic model in Norway has certainly not reduced prostitution. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, will be aware that Amnesty International has called on the Government to refrain from the criminalisation of any aspect of the transaction and instead to look at the 1993 Act and distinguish between the exploitation and coercion of a third party rather than third parties who do not cause harm. That has been a recurring theme of some of the other speakers. Everybody knows that pimps and people who profit off women, using violence and emotional abuse, are reprehensible and should be dealt with, but often working with another person is one's best protection, be that two sex workers working together or a friend a person might employ as security to watch his or her back. However, if a person wants to take those measures, under existing legislation that third party could lead the person to come under the umbrella of the Act.
In that sense, I think all the evidence suggests that the criminalisation of any aspect of consensual adult sex makes sex workers more vulnerable rather than less vulnerable. Sadly, that is the unfortunate reality of it.
Deputies have referred to the case in Galway yesterday. I thought it was interesting that the sergeant in court referred to women between the ages of 20 and 30 as "little girls" who would not have "the wherewithal" to organise things for themselves. The State claimed that these women were trafficked, but they denied this. What does it say about our laws if the State is bringing to court and prosecuting women it considers to be victims of trafficking? If we fine them and thereby take from them what limited money they have, how do we expect them to pay? The only experience these sex workers have to draw on as they seek to pay these fines is to engage in more sex work. Even though this type of approach was adopted for the best reasons when measures were pursued by previous Governments in other jurisdictions - they thought they were doing the right thing for their societies by distinguishing between the third parties who were violating people and the women who were involved in that activity - sadly, those laws have already been used to undermine the position of the women everyone wants to protect. I do not think anybody wants sex workers to be injured as a result of this legislation. We have to step back and look at what has happened in other jurisdictions. We need to be aware that if we go down this road, it is likely that our actions will have unintended consequences.
It is very important that we consider amendments on Committee and Report Stages. I know there has been a move to provide for the legislation to be reviewed after 12 months. I suggest the benefits of doing that would be negated by the continuing inclusion of the clause I have mentioned in the interim. If we include this clause, as night follows day sex work in Ireland will be driven even further underground than it is now. As the Minister has said previously, this would make it even more difficult to get the evidence - not the emotion - to achieve what I think all of us want to achieve, which is a society in which women are respected and the human rights of sex workers are respected rather than undermined. All the research shows that we are going in the wrong direction. I urge the Minister to consider that this debate is now very different from how it was when it started three or four years ago. Many organisations with a long history of protecting women's rights and human rights have changed their positions in light of experience. We are lucky in the sense that the delay in introducing legislation in this country has allowed us to catch up with the changed debate and to introduce the best practice model rather than a model that has proven not to have the impact that other countries and jurisdictions thought it would have.
Ós rud é nach bhfuil cainteoirí ó aon ghrúpa eile ag iarraidh labhairt, leanfaidh mé ar aghaidh leis an ngrúpa Independents 4 Change. Is mian liom cur in iúl don Teach go gcuirfear an díospóireacht seo ar atráth ag a hocht a chlog. An bhfuil an Teachta O'Sullivan agus an Teachta Pringle ag roinnt a gcuid ama?
Más rud é go mbeidh mé críochnaithe roimh a hocht a chlog, beidh an Teachta Pringle réidh chun tosnú. I acknowledge the work that has gone into this Bill and what it is trying to accomplish, especially in the protection of children. Ireland has failed very dismally in this area in the past. Like others, I want to concentrate on Part 4 which is causing a great deal of concern. I honestly admit that I find the whole idea of sex work disturbing. While I would not like my daughter, if I had one, or my sister or niece to make such a career choice, I accept that such choices are made. It is a sad reflection on our society that people buy sex and that so many young people, especially men, turn to prostitution rather than forming relationships and getting to know people before having sex with them. I suppose it is part of the culture of instant gratification of the society we live in.
I have met sex workers and I have listened to their well-articulated views and opinions. I have also listened to the various groups and organisations involved with sex workers and their rights. They make the point that consenting adults have the right to sell or purchase sexual services from other consenting adults and that all adult sex workers have the right to determine whether to stay in that work. These sex workers say they are in control and their circumstances are totally different from those of girls, women and boys who are forced or trafficked into prostitution. Those who have to sell their bodies for sex to make money for traffickers often live in appalling conditions with little or no money and poor access to health services. Many of those who had passports in the first place have had them taken away. There are sex workers who have been forced into prostitution because of their particular social circumstances. Some people are working in the sex industry as a means of feeding their addiction to alcohol, drugs or gambling. Sex workers who have been forced or trafficked into the sex industry or who have got involved in it through poverty or addiction need our support to get out of the sex industry. I have to ask what the Bill will do to facilitate that.
I understand what the Bill is trying to do. I would like to see an end to the buying and selling of sex, but I have to accept the reality that sex work happens and that there are sex workers who have decided that this is their work and that they want to be sex workers. Any sex workers I have met are totally and utterly against trafficking and forced prostitution. What will this Bill do for them and for the members of organisations like Sex Workers Alliance Ireland? They are adamant that this Bill, by criminalising those who buy their services, will be "detrimental" to their safety and "will increase risk of abuse and violence". They feel that the Bill is saying their rights and safety are worthless. They claim that the proposed legislation goes against international best practice and the advice of organisations like Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, UNAIDS, the UN special rapporteur on the right to health and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, which is that the decriminalisation of sex work is "the preferable approach in securing, as far as possible, the safety, physical security, health and equal treatment of sex workers". That is what the various organisations are saying. This is echoed by Irish non-governmental organisations that are working with sex workers in Ireland. They are advocating for a human rights-based approach and for harm reduction measures. They are convinced that if this legislation is passed, it will lead to more attacks and violence against sex workers. They also believe it would have implications for the Garda, which is already under-resourced, in its fight against trafficking. Is the Bill considering these unintended consequences? Is it considering the concerns of sex workers who choose to be sex workers?
I would like to refer to a three-year study that was conducted by Amnesty International in four countries - Papua New Guinea, Argentina, Hong Kong and Norway - that covers a range of low, middle and high incomes. The study found that criminalisation means a rise in HIV and sexually transmitted illnesses. It means the industry goes underground, thereby pushing sex workers into dangerous situations, forcing them to work in isolation and affecting the relationship between the sex workers and the law enforcement agencies. It is considered that this proposal follows the Nordic model, but according to the Amnesty study it is more similar to the American and South African models, which criminalise everything. According to an analysis of whether the Nordic model keeps sex workers safe, the Nordic model is not as efficient as claimed and there are serious issues around the criminalising of the purchase of sex.
The Bill seems to suggest that criminalising the buyer will provide safety for the sex workers, but the sex workers say this is not so. The Bill will make the prosecution of sex workers possible in new ways. There will be more risks for street-based sex workers who are already in vulnerable positions. There will be increased penalties for loitering, so sex workers will go into more secretive and dangerous locations. Therefore, sex workers will not have control over venues. They will be forced into even more vulnerable situations because they will have to work alone.
According to a report from Sweden, which criminalised the purchase of sex in 1999, there has been an increase in the number of migrant women in sex work there. The report acknowledges that it is difficult to conclude whether the legislation has had any real impact and suggests very seriously that the legislation is opening sex workers even further to traffickers. The Norwegian Government's own evaluation of the legislation in that country found that the law is leading sex workers to be increasingly dependent on traffickers. It has seen no appreciable difference in the number of cases of trafficking for the purposes of sex since the legislation was introduced.
I refer also to the work of HIV Ireland. Last year the organisation produced a report with overwhelming evidence that criminalisation of sex work leads to the further spread of HIV and AIDS. Separately, a survey of sex workers in Northern Ireland showed 98% of those surveyed opposed the new law criminalising clients - this was one and a half years ago - while 61% of local sex workers thought the Swedish model directed at those who buy sex would make them less safe.
Debate adjourned.