Vol. 937 No. 2
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 19, line 21, to delete “sexual.”,” and substitute the following:
“sexual.
3) Money or any other form of remuneration or consideration that is paid or given for the purposes referred to in subsection (1) shall not, by reason only of that subsection, be the proceeds of crime for the purposes of the Proceeds of Crime Acts 1996 to 2016.”,”.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 19, to delete lines 27 to 30 and substitute the following:
"(d) in section 9, by the substitution of the following subparagraphs for subparagraphs (i) and (ii):
"(i) on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or
(ii) on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both.",".
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 20, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(g) in section 11—
(a) by designating the existing section as subsection (1), and
(b) by inserting the following subsection:
“(2) No person shall be prosecuted for an offence under this section where—
(a) the premises is used by that person to provide his or her own sexual services, and
(b) section 10(1) does not apply to that person.".".
Amendment No. 15 arises out of committee proceedings.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 20, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
“(g) in section 11--
(i) by designating the existing section as subsection (1), and
(ii) by inserting the following subsection:
“(2) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section that--
(a) the brothel is used by that person to provide his or her own sexual services, and
(b) section 10(1) does not apply to that person.”.”.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 20, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
“Amendment of Act of 1993
26. Section 11 of the Act of 1993 is amended--
(a) by designating the existing section as subsection (1), and
(b) by inserting the following subsection--
“(2) No person shall be prosecuted for an offence under this section where the brothel is used by that person to provide his or her own sexual services.”.”.
Amendments Nos. 17 to 24, inclusive, will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 20, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Report on operation of Act
27. (1) The Minister for Justice and Equality shall, not later than 3 years after the commencement of this Part, cause a report to be prepared on the operation of section 7A of the Act of 1993 and shall cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
(2) The report shall include--
(a) information as to the number of arrests and convictions in respect of offences under section 7A of the Act of 1993 during the period from the commencement of that section, and
(b) an assessment of the impact of the operation of that section on the safety and well-being of persons who engage in sexual activity for payment.”.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 17:
To delete the proposed amendment no. 17 and substitute the following:
“Review of operation of this Part
27. (1) The Minister for Justice and Equality shall, not later than two years after the commencement of this Part, review its operation and report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.
(2) The report shall include--
(a) information disaggregated by gender and nature of offences on the number of arrests and convictions in respect of offences under this Part, under sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of the Act of 1993 and under the Act of 2008 during the period from the commencement of this Part,
(b) information on the nature and extent of prostitution connected to human trafficking, and
(c) an assessment of the impact of the operation of this Part, sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 of the Act of 1993 and the Act of 2008 on the safety and well-being of persons who engage in sexual activity for payment.”.
I am introducing amendment No. 17 to provide for a review of the operation of the new provision contained in section 25 of the Bill to criminalise the purchase of sexual services. A number of amendments have been tabled by Deputies proposing similar provisions and that are alternatives to amendment No. 17. I am referring to those tabled by Deputy Coppinger and the Anti-Austerity Alliance, amendment No. 18 from People Before Profit, amendment No. 19 from Deputy Jonathan O'Brien, amendment No. 20 in the name of Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, amendment No. 23 in the names of Deputies Clare Daly and Wallace and amendment No. 24 from Deputy Pringle.
My amendment states that the report shall include information as to the number of arrests and convictions in respect of the new offence under section 7A as created by this Bill. This is the provision that targets the demand for sexual services and I have limited the review to this particular provision, as it is this that has given rise to some concern regarding the impact on the safety and well-being of sex workers. A review of prostitution legislation by an Oireachtas committee three years ago recommended the introduction of this offence, and there is nothing to stop a similar review from happening in the future. It does not require legislative provision.
However, in focusing the review provision in the Bill on the single offence of criminalising the purchase of sexual services rather than including it in a large review of trafficking legislation and prostitution legislation generally, which can be the subject of a separate review, we can concentrate more deliberately and forensically on the impact of the offence with less risk of it being minimised in the context of a much larger review.
I have set a date for the review being completed within three years of the section being commenced. I am recommending this because it is pragmatic and will afford the best opportunity to ensure that the legislation has been embedded for a sufficient period to measure its impact adequately. To begin the review at too early a point may result in an inconclusive report. Northern Ireland committed to reviewing its legislation after three years, and it would be useful to have a comparable period to measure the impact of the offence in this jurisdiction.
I remind Deputies that, under Standing Order 164A, the Minister with responsibility for implementation of an Act shall provide a report that shall review the functioning of the Act and must be laid in the Library. This must be done 12 months following the enactment of a Bill. Therefore, a report will be prepared within one year because that is the normal statutory provision.
The Opposition amendments, including amendment No. 1 to the Government amendment, are too broad. The Deputies are familiar with their own amendments. Some seek to include in the review the impact of our existing human trafficking offences under the 2008 Act on the safety and well-being of persons who engage in sexual activity for payment. The existing laws relating to human trafficking target those who traffic human beings for the purpose of exploitation, be it labour exploitation, sexual exploitation or exploitation of some other form. No one is suggesting that our human trafficking laws have impacted on the safety and well-being of sex workers and require a review in that light, yet that is the implication contained in some of the Opposition amendments.
I wish to make a general point about the work that has been done in monitoring the State's response to human trafficking. Last October, I launched the second national action plan to combat human trafficking in Ireland. It has been published and is available on our website. It is extensive in terms of setting out the goals and work, including interagency work, that are required if we are to deal with this issue. The goals include the identification of victims of trafficking, protection and support for its victims and ensuring an effective criminal justice response. The plan outlines many initiatives across the agencies, including NGOs and the Garda, to monitor the provision of support to victims and so on. The plan is being overseen by a working group and was sent for evaluation by the Council of Europe in December. I met the Council of Europe and it will revert to us with its assessment. If it has recommendations, I will be open to implementing them.
I am satisfied that my amendment achieves the purpose that was debated on Committee Stage, namely, that we needed to review this legislation. I am happy to do that. We should examine the impact of the new offence of purchasing sexual services in the context of prostitution. Regardless, there will be an overall review in the usual statutory way after one year. I hope that the Deputies will consider accepting this as a way forward.
I thank the Minister. I would have been happier had we managed to reduce the time to two years. The Minister probably considered the possibility of doing so. Her amendment reads "shall, not later than 3 years", so there is no legal barrier to her producing a report within two years if the data exist. If she could give a commitment to that effect, I would be willing to withdraw my amendment.
Something that is missing from the Minister's amendment that is contained in all the others is the provision relating to "evidence of the extent to which this section has operated to reduce human trafficking". We were told that combatting trafficking and brothel keeping was one of the rationales for introducing this legislation. Any report that is laid before us should at least reference this, given how it has played a central role in the reasoning behind the section.
I welcome the fact that the report will assess the impact of the section's operation on the safety and well-being of persons who engage in sexual activity for payment. This important provision is contained in all of the amendments.
I am willing to withdraw my amendment if the Minister can commit to producing a report after two years, if possible.
A report will be undertaken after 12 months. We included this requirement in our amendment.
It is important, given that the reasoning behind Part 4 initially was to reduce trafficking that any report which is published must at least reference that. If the data are there and they suggest it is having a positive impact then that should be included.
The Labour Party amendment is No. 20. I too welcome the progress we have made with the Minister. We also sought to have the review after two years. The Minister has used wording which is similar to our amendment in terms of the extent to which, in the Minister's opinion, the operation of this Part has reduced human trafficking and the impact of this Part on the safety and well-being of sex workers, and also in relation to the data on the number of arrests, prosecutions etc. The Minister's wording is not unlike ours, apart from the fact that the review will happen after three years rather than two, but I do not think we are going to get any further at this stage so I signal that I will withdraw the amendment.
Deputy Jonathan O'Brien made a very good point and it is the one I wish to emphasise most, although there are a number of other issues of which we need to be very cognisant when dealing with the question of having a full report on the implementation of the law that will be enacted. He referred to human trafficking. The justification for the campaign on the criminalisation of the purchase of sex was based on the concerns we all rightly have about human trafficking, in particular for the purposes of sex, where such unfortunates are, in effect, being kept in prison against their will and trafficked across borders. They are expected to carry out sexual activity to make lots of money for their traffickers. That is a concern for all of us.
However, as I said last night when I introduced our amendments, there has been a lot of conflation in this debate. The argument is fundamentally about whether criminalising the purchase of sex will deal with human trafficking. I do not believe that is the case and I have not seen any evidence to convince me otherwise. I have read lots of documents from Sweden, Norway, Amnesty and others that show quite the opposite is the case. Criminalisation of the purchase of sex does nothing to deal with the plight of those who are the victims of human trafficking or the criminality in that regard. We are in danger of conflating issues, which is the reason we specifically mention in our amendment that we want to see the impact of the legislation on the level of human trafficking. Whether the review is in two years or three years it must specifically focus on the impact on human trafficking. The Minister's amendment does not do that. I intend to press my amendment.
I will also press the Minister further on the question of timing. It will be three years and probably four before we get a report if we opt for the Minister's amendment and the issue is too urgent to leave it for that length of time, not specifically just on the trafficking issue but because there is a plethora of issues we have tried to amend. For example, the definition of a brothel is being taken to include a case where a number of sex workers work together in an apartment. They could be considered to be running a brothel and it could be shut down. If I was a sex worker vulnerable to all sorts of creeps out there with money to buy services I would much rather operate alongside a companion in the same apartment. Working together is not just a sign of being organised in an industry, it is about the health and safety of sex workers. Health and safety at work is a big part of legislation no matter what job one performs, whether a firefighter, nurse or sex worker. The health and safety of sex workers must be given a certain degree of priority, in particular because they are already extraordinarily vulnerable. The issue of working together does not necessarily mean people are running a brothel, it may just be a case of safety in numbers.
I am concerned about the heavier penalties for loitering that are contained in the Bill. We must also examine the impact of that on the human rights of the sex workers involved. Crucially, we must focus on health. I have just been going over the report on the Swedish model carried out by HIV Ireland and it is very worrying how such a measure could impact on the health of sex workers. As we said last night, very often sex workers are searched to see whether they are carrying condoms and the implication is that they are carrying them in order to facilitate the purchase of sex. There is evidence in the report that sex workers are less likely to carry condoms, which help protect their safety. There is evidence that the level of HIV is on the increase among sex workers in Sweden. There have also been statements from people connected with the Swedish department of health that they refuse to issue condoms to sex workers. I have two young nephews who have grown up in Sweden and I am aware that every school there has a nurse who provides condoms to teenagers if they request them because they are concerned about their sexual health. However, it seems all of a sudden we disrespect the sexual health of people who are engaged in sex work. That must be taken into account and in the shortest possible time. Two years is much healthier than the three years proposed by the Minister. A reference to human rights and human trafficking must be contained within the review. I intend to press amendment No. 18.
I intend to move amendment No. 23. We have looked at this entire issue the wrong way around. Rather than start with data, evidence and research and then deciding what policy to adopt, we started with a model that was an alleged solution and we are talking about carrying out a review after the event. That is regrettable. It contrasts sharply with the approach taken in the UK where a significant body of research was undertaken in advance of any proposals being put forward to alter legislation, which to me is a far better way. Interestingly, the Home Affairs Select Committee interim report found disadvantages to a sex buyer law based on the fact that provisions already exist for criminal offences associated with the sex industry. The finding is that demand is not reduced, just displaced. The committee also very worryingly cited harassment and other negative effects on sex workers. That bolsters the point I made last night that already sex workers are very vulnerable to exploitation by the Garda who are in a position of power. There were 70 reports to GSOC of threats and demands for sexual favours from the Garda. The health and policing implications are important as well. The conclusion of the British report is that the sex buyer law is based on the premise that prostitution is morally wrong and therefore illegal, whereas the law at present in Britain makes no such moral judgment.
We acknowledge that the intention of many of the supporters of the sex buyer law is to protect sex workers, especially women, from the harm, violence and exploitation that can occur in the sex industry but we also note that the sex buyer law makes no attempt to discriminate between prostitution which occurs between two consenting adults and that which involves exploitation. Much of the rhetoric also denies sex workers the opportunity to speak for themselves and to make their own choices, which is absolutely critical in terms of our amendment because we have devised the Bill while excluding the voice of the sex workers themselves. Our amendment calls for any review to put those people, and the organisations which work on the front line in harm reduction, as the core component. That is absolutely critical.
I echo the points made by Deputy Jonathan O’Brien. Given the Minister's proviso is "not later than three years" I hope she will commence the review earlier. We, like many of the others who proposed amendments suggested a two-year provision.
A review of this type is not expensive. The representative organisations for sex workers and harm reduction agencies have their own records and data and publish yearly statistics, as do the gardaí in some instances, so it is just a matter of centralising data. However, we need to engage with the sex workers themselves.
The only contention put forward by those supporting the so-called Swedish model is that if we criminalise the purchase of sex, we will reduce demand and therefore have an impact on trafficking. This proposition is nonsense and I would love to see the evidence for it. There are already laws dealing with trafficking, which is the abhorrent forced bonded labour, abduction, kidnap, false imprisonment, rape and exploitation of women. Human trafficking is abhorrent. I am intrigued in some ways by the over-concentration on sex trafficking in contrast with the coercion and exploitation of people who are trafficked for other purposes, which is an interesting point. Given that we are talking about the health and vulnerability of a very marginalised group of people, we need to move far more quickly than three years. Our legislation should have been about enabling those vulnerable people to take control over their own lives and protect their health but we have disempowered them through this legislation by putting the power of negotiation, place of work and so on much more into the hands of the buyer by criminalisation. Our starting point should have been the health and human rights of sex workers. Part of the problem with the legislation is that if all sex work is exploitation and there is no room for distinguishing between forced and voluntary sexual activity between consenting adults, in essence, you are saying that all women are victims and that the women or gay men involved do not know their own minds and cannot make a rational decision. We might not like that decision, it might not be one we would pick for ourselves and it might not be one that those people would pick for themselves if they had an alternative but it is a valid decision and choice for them to make and it is wrong for us to say that they do not have that right or do not know their own minds. People may say that only a few people are in these circumstances. Is it the case that minorities do not deserve protection and that just because somebody is in a minority, we should exclude their voice and silence them? It is completely wrong.
Our amendment puts the focus on the sex workers themselves. A very worrying trend in other jurisdictions that I could see happening here is moneys being diverted into organisations that worked with people to help them exit the industry. We are all in favour of people exiting the industry when they have choices and alternatives but the problem has been that much of the energy has been taken away from groups engaged in harm reduction which has put people's lives at risk. This part also needs to be analysed.
There is general agreement that there should be a review of this legislation and that a report should be produced. That is a good idea. When we introduce new laws, it is important that we review them on an ongoing basis and come back with recommendations where they might be improved. It is important that we are not too prescriptive with regard to the legislation in terms of setting out what needs to be done when the review takes place. I know very many people in the Chamber have strong and certain views about what they think the outcome of this legislation will be. I think the legislation will be to the benefit of sex workers and Irish society. I am not certain about that nor am I certain about what the definite consequences of this legislation will be. I do not think anyone can be sure about what the consequences will be. For that reason, I think it is important that we leave any report and review open so that things that may happen which we did not expect to happen can be properly considered.
For that reason, I think the amendment put forward by the Minister is probably the best one. It states that the review will commence not later than three years after the commencement of this Part. We need to give legislation some time to settle down in order to get a good overview of its impact. I know that the Defamation Act 2009 has a review section that provides for a review after five years. We need to give the legislation some time. I also note that the amendment put forward by the Minister does take into account some of the concerns referred to by Deputies Clare Daly, Bríd Smith and Jonathan O'Brien. Under the Minister's amendment, section 27(2)(b) would provide that the review would conduct an assessment of the impact of the operation of the section on the safety and well-being of persons who engage in sexual activity for payment. An appraisal of people involved in sexual activity for sale will be at the forefront of the review to see the extent to which this legislation has affected them.
We need a broad overview of that. We cannot have a situation where we just review a piece of legislation from the point of view of one or two sex workers. We have to look at legislation in general to examine its impact on society and whether it has achieved the benefit for which it was designed and introduced and if not, what are the proposals to change it. With respect to Deputies Clare Daly, Bríd Smith and Jonathan O'Brien, I think it is appropriate to go along with the amendment put forward by the Minister. In reality, the difference between all the proposals that are being put before the House is not huge. I would be concerned that if we had a very detailed section setting out what the reviewing body or section within the Department should do, it would find itself limited to what is set out in the statutory regime. Any review is better when it is given broad parameters because we do not know with certainty what the consequences will be as a result of the introduction of this legislation.
This is the first debate in which I have engaged since the new rules were introduced by the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform. Essentially, we are meant to cover between five and six very complex amendments in seven minutes. This needs to be reviewed in light of the practical application of it because I think everybody agrees that this is an extremely complex Bill. It is unfortunate that many different things ranging from sexual offences to prostitution and sex work have been put into one Bill. They are huge and complex areas with many differences between them. To try to speak on particular amendments and the entire Bill in effect in seven minutes is extremely difficult.
There have been some important progressive changes in this Bill, some of which we argued for. Examples would be a legal definition of consent, for which rape crisis centres argued; the deletion of the criminalisation of sex workers with regard to loitering, for which many people, including myself, argued; and increasing penalties for criminal gangs which organise trafficking or prostitution. Those are positive elements in the Bill.
However, many other amendments for which we have argued have not been taken on board. For example, there has been no change in the definition of brothel keeping so that one or two sex workers not living off each other's earnings could still be harassed. Another example is the refusal to rule out going after the finances of sex workers. The amendments we are approaching will have a bearing on how people vote on the Bill. In respect of amendment No. 17, there is a difference between what we are proposing and what the Minister is proposing. The Minister proposes to review the ban on the purchase of sex but not to take up anything broader than that. Our amendment to amendment No. 17 proposes reporting within two years on arrests and convictions for all existing prostitution-related offences, the new offences created under Part 4 of the Bill dealing with prostitution with information aggregated by gender and offence, the nature and extent of prostitution that may be linked to human trafficking and the impact of all laws on prostitution-related offences and the safety and well-being of persons who engage in sexual activity for payment.
We are proposing a much broader review to see what the impact will be, particularly of the criminalising of the purchase of sex. The Minister has not agreed to that.
Amendment No. 21 is extremely important and I will be pressing it. This amendment calls for a review and an outline of exit services for sex workers who want to get out of prostitution and sex work. People have suggested this is the Nordic model, of which I have criticisms, but it is not even the Nordic model because that model was accompanied by a number of supports that are not even envisaged by the Bill.
I believe that buying sex is an expression of power over another person. Some 99% of buyers of sex are male; it reflects the gender inequality in society. Therefore, I would be sympathetic to women, trade unionists and others who are calling for the criminalisation of the purchase of sex. However, the Bill provides zero exit strategies to accompany that move. No special measures are being introduced and no social services are in place to ensure that criminalisation does not make conditions more dangerous for sex workers. On that basis, I cannot support the Bill and will abstain on it.
Obviously, we need a transformation in our society's cultural attitudes. We have a male patriarchal society which objectifies women. We also have massive economic inequality which leads to many women and vulnerable transgender and LGBT people engaging in prostitution, which will persist until we eradicate those attitudes. It is very unfortunate that the Minister is not willing to countenance very important amendments and for that reason it is very difficult to support it. While the Bill contains progressive elements, the Minister should have taken on board the amendments we proposed.
We also tabled an amendment calling for a review within two years.
On the trafficking issue, it is important to note that Norway, which has a similar system in place, carried out a review of its legislation in 2014. It found that its law was actually leading to sex workers becoming increasingly dependent on traffickers and exploitative third parties. The number of cases of trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation reported in Norway did not change significantly between 2006 and 2014 after the change in the legislation, with 34 cases reported in 2006 and 37 in 2014.
Deputy Jonathan O'Brien was probably being nice to the Minister in saying that the Government was allowed to review it in less than three years. However, she would forgive us for suspecting that the Government would wait for the full three years before looking at it. Given that there are so many issues with the Bill from our point of view and from the point of view of the sex workers, and given the serious lack of sound evidence that the Nordic model has a positive impact on the people it claims to protect, I would rather see it being reviewed no later than two years after enactment.
The proposed Government report will include information on arrests and convictions made in this regard and an assessment of the impact of the operation of the section on the safety and well-being of persons who engage in sexual activity for payment. However, no details have been provided on how this assessment will be made or who will be consulted. We have repeatedly made the point that the voice of sex workers is absent from the Government's work to date, which is disappointing given that this is the very group the Government claims to want to support. The law should make specific provision to include sex workers and their representative organisations in any review.
Last night, I mentioned the Queens University survey of sex workers in Northern Ireland, which has been ignored by our Government and sadly also by the Northern Ireland Executive. Obviously, the findings are not in tune with the ideology driving the legislation down here. That Queens University report found that 98% of sex workers surveyed opposed the Swedish model; 61% felt this model would make them less safe; and 85% said this legislation would not reduce sex trafficking. The PSNI also expressed concern that this legislation would be unlikely to be effective against exploitation. Only 8% of clients surveyed said that criminalisation would stop them paying for sex.
We should review it earlier. Too many issues are at play, mostly relating to the fact that the sex workers have not been given any voice. I reiterate some of their main points. They insist that the Swedish model negatively impacts on the human rights of sex workers and further pushes people away from the police. That has to be a big problem. We are not taking on a harm reduction approach. As Deputy Bríd Smith said earlier, forcing people to work in isolation cannot be good. I do not understand the rationale. People who even use their own home can be addicted and obviously the legislation will not make it safer for immigrants who face the potential of being deported. Given what we are going into, there does not seem to be much evidence to suggest this is a good idea. It should be reviewed earlier because it is totally unfair to the sex workers, who also have rights that are sadly being ignored.
Everybody has said there should be a review of the legislation and I agree. Three years is the appropriate time to begin to see the impact; that is the right approach.
I point out to Deputy Bríd Smith that the offence of loitering has been removed from the Bill. We build in reviews to legislation all the time. We do not define in legislation all the different aspects of the review. That would be quite an unusual thing to do, but I am happy to put the following on the record of the House. Obviously when doing a review of this new offence we would seek submissions from everybody, including those involved in sex work. I met representatives of the association and heard their views. People keep repeating that I have not taken into account the views of that group. I did take them into account, but I still think the approach taken in the legislation is the right one.
I will not repeat all the research I have used. Deputy Wallace keeps talking about an online anonymous study that was done; that is one study. I can quote to him the work of the Swedish Government, and the most recent report from the European Commission done by the University of Lancaster. I can also quote the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality all of which suggest this is the direction to take.
As Deputy O'Callaghan said, we have to review it. This is a very important issue. I note there has been much focus on the individual independent sex workers. There has been a focus by some Deputies, but not by others, on the wider exploitation associated with prostitution which is driven by demand.
All of those studies refer to reducing the demand and the very close link between human trafficking and prostitution. We see that repeatedly. All of the statistics indicate that the vast majority of people involved in prostitution now have been trafficked, and also that they are extremely vulnerable. I ask Deputies to accept that the review will involve all interested groups including An Garda Síochána and those involved in helping people to exit prostitution.
Deputy Coppinger should know that I have outlined a series of initiatives under the national action plan to support people to exit prostitution. There is greatly increased funding to the organisations working on the front line. The Deputy's amendment seems to imply that those supports are not available. Obviously, they are not written into legislation but all she has to do is look at the website of the Department of Justice and Equality to see the work we are doing.
I make the point that the statistics Deputies say they want to insert in the legislation are available from An Garda Síochána and from the Central Statistics Office.
On the Minister's last point about exit strategies, the type of strategies needed genuinely to assist people who want to exit prostitution are financial support, language support and treatment for those who may have an addiction. A range of supports would be needed to allow those who want to get out of prostitution do so.
The Minister would argue that the reason criminalisation of the purchase of sex is being introduced is to send a message from society that buying sex is not acceptable, and that it will reduce demand for the purchase of sex. That is fine but if there are no real ways for people to get out of prostitution, they have to remain in it. The question arises that if we criminalise the purchase of sex without ways and avenues to help people get out of prostitution, we may make it less safe. That is a genuine concern. People are not saying that the buying of sex is wrong, but it is wrong. That message should be discussed in schools and in workplaces. It is an expression of power over another human being. On the idea that 99% of it is male, why are 50% not female? Obviously, it is related to gender and power in society.
It is all very well giving money to an organisation but the Minister is not allowing women who, for example, report traffickers, illegality and criminality to be dealt with in a very fair way. It is very likely, therefore, that it will continue. In any case, the Minister is not bringing in the Nordic model but if she were, I would look at it in a different way. I am not surprised by that. The Irish State does not have a great track record of doing these things for women and ordinary people in general.
The reason we concentrated on those people who engage in sexual activity for the exchange of money on a consensual basis rather than those who were coerced into it is that that is the legislation we are dealing with here today. Substantial bodies of legislation already exist to deal with people who are coerced or trafficked into this activity. The Minister, I or other people may not like the fact that some people choose to engage in that activity or the reality that their choice is restricted by their economic circumstances does not make it a less valid choice. It is a choice people will be making today, tomorrow and the day after that.
We are putting forward this legislation against the backdrop of the week when the report on consistent poverty levels in Ireland was produced, which showed that the children of lone parents are three times more likely to be in consistent poverty than children who were not the children of lone parents. Deputy Collins highlighted earlier the statistics on the number of low paid workers in the State. Economic circumstances are the reasons people end up in prostitution because of the nature of work that is available and their status. It is laughable to say that giving money to organisations that will tell people to exit the industry will solve that problem. It will not solve the problem, and the current economic circumstances will mean that more people will be involved in prostitution.
We urgently need a review of this for the safety and welfare of the people involved. I would like the Minister to give an indication that she would be prepared to look at it again perhaps in two years rather than three. The justice committee might work on that and put it in that direction also because that will be critically important into the future.
I will leave the last point with Amnesty International, which classifies the Nordic model as a method of crushing the market. It states that all the focus is on the sex trade itself, which completely dehumanises the people involved. It states that we need a human rights based model and that Ireland needs to stop its moralistic crusade of violating the bodily integrity of its citizens and start allowing the full enjoyment of their human rights.
As I said, a report has to be done after a year anyway, and that report will go to the justice committee. I am very happy to put on the record of the House that I will come back at the end of a two-year period with the most up to date information, including all the information we have on the impact in so far as we have it at that point. The formal review, however, would be after three years during which we would get the submissions. Data is available all the time and we will be gathering that together. As I said, it is available from the CSO and the Garda Síochána. If the justice committee wants to examine this on an ongoing basis, there is no problem with that. I have to do a formal review after a year anyway so information will be coming together. To be realistic in terms of impact and examining all the issues, a three-year period is appropriate but it will build on the one-year report and the ongoing statistical information that is available on trafficking and everything else. I believe that is a reasonable approach to it.
In terms of the exit strategies and supporting women who are vulnerable who might make a different choice if they had better supports, I would want to see every possible initiative being taken in that regard. However, it is not just about funding an organisation. It is about funding the organisation, as we have done in recent times, to put training programmes together that include the point Deputy Coppinger made about language, for example, and skills development, and that an alternative is available. Increasingly, we are putting supports in place to have that kind of practical initiative so that the exit routes can be clear. Women find themselves in a very difficult situation when trying to seek an alternative if they have got enmeshed in prostitution or sex work. There is much talk about free choice. All the studies indicate that these women often have very little choice for a range of reasons in the variety of circumstances in which they have found themselves over the course of their lives.
I now-----
Is there not a third round when one is proposing an amendment?
Who proposed it?
There is a group of amendments.
No. It is the proposer of the amendment. The one who moved the amendment was Deputy Coppinger.
Can I clarify that? What the Minister is saying is not clear.
There is a group of amendments.
I know that, but it is whoever proposes the amendment.
Each Deputy proposed an amendment. I am not being funny-----
I know that.
-----and I am not saying that everyone in our group should be allowed come in again, but one person from each group can come in.
The Deputy spoke for seven minutes-----
And the two minutes, but there is another two minutes.
-----and two minutes. The only one who can speak now for the final two minutes is Deputy Coppinger. The Minister has-----
They tabled amendments as well.
It does not matter.
I did not get two minutes.
It does not matter. It is whoever proposes the amendment.
We all proposed amendments.
You all tabled amendments, but it is the Deputy who moved the amendment.
But you asked Deputy Daly whether she was moving her amendment.
Yes, because it-----
You did not ask me that.
-----is linked to this. The only person who can come back in for two minutes is Deputy Coppinger who moved the amendment to amendment No. 17, and I have double checked that.
Can I check the new rules? Is it not the case that anyone who tables an amendment can speak again?
They have spoken twice.
I have not.
They have not.
Deputy Smith has not.
Then Deputy Smith can speak again. Deputy Smith is entitled to come in now for two minutes.
I seek clarification, not just for this, but for the future, that if a Deputy is asked whether he or she is moving an amendment the Deputy can speak again. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle did not ask me or Deputy Daly that. He asked Deputy Coppinger.
We are dealing with amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 17 and amendment No. 17, and they are being discussed together. I will ask Deputies to move amendments when we come to them. It is nothing different to the past. Deputy Smith has the right to come in.
From everything I have heard from the Minister I do not doubt her sincerity, but I am a complete opponent of a system that exploits all workers. Since I joined the Dáil I have been on my feet, along with other Deputies, defending workers' rights, from Luas drivers to teachers to nurses to Tesco workers to Dunnes Stores workers. There is a system of exploitation of workers that is at the heart of this society and beyond. This leads to people being impoverished and living in the circumstances exposed by the report on inequality published yesterday. It leads to people taking measures to find an income which are often distasteful to many of us, not necessarily always distasteful to those who take the measures but distasteful to broader society. We should not have to see anybody put in this position. We need far more equality in society and this is not just something that we legislate for by passing nice words, it is how we implement it in deed. These deeds must be about sharing the wealth and economic opportunities available to anybody.
The Minister spoke about the exit strategy for those engaged in sex work and the opportunities that should be given to them through education. Twice yesterday, a serious cohort was mentioned as there is a rise in sex work by students. If we were to graph it we would probably find a similar trajectory on the graph with the rise of student poverty. Students are being impoverished because of enormous fees, including registration fees, the lack of grant support and the enormous rents they must pay to be able to live in a city or town to be a student. Many of them supplement their income with sex work. I regard the legislation as a whole as being totally inappropriate. I will vote against it and against the amendment on the three-year report because I do not think it is sufficient.
We will not have a meeting of minds on this. This boils down to whether or not we support the model proposed by the Turn Off the Red Light campaign and it will be an ongoing debate. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality and I would like to see us take up a body of work in this regard. We hear many different views on whether it works or not and much research has been done. We will not resolve it here on Report Stage of this legislation. As a member of the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality, as are three other Deputies who are present, I propose the committee examines this issue, including all the research, and issues a report. I would like to think if this report comes back with information contrary to the Minister's research that it would feed into any report under the legislation. The drafting and rationale of the legislation is based on the Turn Off the Red Light campaign. If there is significant research to contradict it the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality has an onus to look at it, compile a report and feed it into any report under the legislation. We will not come to an agreement on whether it is done after three years or two years, but the important work will be done by the committee between now and the report on the outworkings of the legislation.
Deputy Wallace may speak if he wishes.
Why can he speak but I cannot?
Because he has spoken only once. Deputies can speak twice. Deputy Wallace does not have to speak if he does not want to.
I am prepared to speak but I have to be honest, I did speak twice.
That is why I was asking.
I am afraid not according to the list I have here.
I will talk away so.
As the Deputy has told me he had spoken twice he may sit down.
Honesty gets you nowhere. Just ask NAMA.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 20, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“27. The Minister shall commission a report on the impact of Part 4 within two years of the passing of this Act to ascertain if this Act has seen a reduction in human trafficking and to see its impact on the human rights, safety and well being of sex workers.”.
Amendment No. 18 arises from committee proceedings and has already been discussed with amendment No. 17. Is Deputy Bríd Smith pressing the amendment?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 20, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
“Review of supports and exit services for sex workers in prostitution
27. The Minister for Justice and Equality is to report on the education, language, training,financial, housing, healthcare, social welfare and rehabilitation services that should be provided by the State to support sex workers and assist them in overcoming the barriers and forms of exploitation that prevent them from exiting prostitution, within six months of the enactment of this Act. The needs of migrants, in particular the need to regularise their immigration status in order to afford them full employment rights and full access to legal employment and social welfare services, must be central to this review.”.
Amendment No. 21 arises from committee proceedings and has already been discussed with amendment No. 17. Is the amendment being pressed?
