Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)

I have been listening to the arguments of the Turn off the Red Light campaign, Stop Trafficking, in which I was involved in Cork, Ruhama and all the other NGOs involved in the campaigns down through the years and I sometimes think it is quite difficult to have a debate on the law in a dispassionate way in that one is dealing with a subject which is emotional, and rightly so.

I fully accept it is quite difficult to have a dispassionate debate on the exploitation of children, whether male or female, and on women or men involved in prostitution, whether trying to earn a living, as a result of being trafficked or being used by other people. I also accept that there has been debate among various groups. The NGOs in this area have informed us extraordinarily well. The Government's amendment refers to bringing this to a broader audience rather than a broader debate and no one would disagree with that. That needs to happen.

I congratulate the Independent Senators on tabling this motion. It is an excellent subject for Private Members' time. I hope this debate, however it may pan out, will be the start of the political-public discourse that needs to happen in this area. It is very important that we start from here with the knowledge we have received from the debate up to this point. Those of us who have been involved with and informed by other groups have a degree of knowledge which can be brought to a wider audience.

I thank the Senators who tabled the motion on an issue which causes incalculable harm and acute distress to untold numbers of women and children. The amendment to the motion calls for a public debate on the issue of criminalising the purchase of sex. By tabling the motion, Senators have facilitated that debate and I will take careful note of what they have to say. There are more Members in the Chamber tonight than on any previous occasion I have been here. I am sure Members agree this issue should not be allowed to become a political football. We all share the desire to deal as effectively as we can with the immeasurable harm caused by prostitution and trafficking. This debate presents a useful opportunity to consider what measures might be effective because, even if there is not full agreement on the precise measures to be taken, we can at least advance an informed public debate on the issues involved.

Mental and physical harm and violence can be intrinsic to prostitution and women caught up in it experience objectification and dehumanisation. Many of the women involved in prostitution have limited life choices, whether because of poverty or the circumstances of their lives. They are often vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation by others. It is hardly credible to believe they are providing sexual services for a commercial return as a result of a free choice and the physical and emotional consequences they suffer make this clear. For the wider society, prostitution presents a serious social problem and, with increasing globalisation, an increasingly complex one. It is not always the case anymore that one can reach the women while they are on street. While I am concentrating on the plight of women caught up in prostitution, I am conscious that other forms of prostitution are equally objectionable and can exploit young men, in particular. The Minister shares the view expressed in the first part of the motion that trafficking for sexual exploitation is a modern form of slavery and a form of sexual abuse. The amendment builds on this by deploring any form of sexual exploitation which might be financial but could also manifest itself in other ways such as emotionally and which represents an attack on the core of a person's dignity. The amendment abhors, in particular, the trafficking of children.

This debate is taking place in the context of legislative changes in Sweden and subsequently in Norway and Iceland. In Sweden since 1999 a person who obtains or attempts a casual sexual relation in any place in return for payment commits the offence of purchase of sexual service. The legislation applies equally to men and women. In addition to money, payment can be made by means of, for example, alcohol or drugs. A person, other than the person who avails himself or herself of the sexual service, who provides or promises the consideration also commits an offence. I understand the penalties are a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of 12 months. The offences appear to be absolute liability offences, as there is no specific legal defence available to defendants. The legislation is focused on addressing demand for sexual services. The rationale behind criminalising the buyer rather than the seller is the prostitute is the weaker party and, therefore, being exploited. The main purpose of the legislation is to criminalise the purchase of sex and protect those who are or risk of becoming involved in prostitution. A second purpose which is regarded as equally important is to create an environment which promotes gender equality and human rights. I understand why that rationale is worth pursuing.

In July last year the Swedish Government presented findings from Sweden's first formal evaluation of its ban on the purchase of sexual services. The evaluation readily admitted that analysing the effects of the ban on the purchase of sexual services proved to be a difficult task because prostitution and human trafficking by their nature are clandestine activities and use of the Internet as a new arena for prostitution makes it difficult to assess its prevalence. Consequently, knowledge of the scale of prostitution and human trafficking for sexual purposes is limited. This is particularly the case outside Sweden's main cities. Despite these reservations, the inquiry team felt that it was possible to draw conclusions based on the material to which it had access. The evaluation concluded that the incidence of street prostitution had been halved since the ban, representing a real reduction in the incidence of prostitution overall. The ban is also believed to act as a barrier to human traffickers and procurers who might otherwise consider establishing operations in Sweden. Given the clandestine nature of prostitution and human trafficking, it was always going to be difficult to source reliable data to assess the effectiveness of the ban. However, even making allowances for this serious constraint and assuming there was sufficient material available to permit conclusions to be drawn, a number of critics have argued that the findings are tenuous, inherently biased and speculative. I mention these criticisms not to question the value of the experience in Sweden but to recognise the complexity of the issues involved.

Dignity is an EU funded research project examining services provided for victims of human trafficking with a view to replicating best practice models in partner countries, one of which is Ireland. In September 2010 Dignity arranged a trip to Sweden by a group which included representatives of what was then the Department of Justice and Law Reform and An Garda Síochána to discuss with officials and experts the Swedish legislation and its operation. A report was prepared by the Department for the then Minister following the trip and after consideration it was submitted to the Office of the Attorney General. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, has carefully examined the report, as well as the advice subsequently received from the Attorney General. He recognises there is public interest in the Swedish experience following the legislation introduced there. To inform public debate, he intends to make arrangements for putting the report in the public domain on Monday.

The current law relating to prostitution in Ireland contains offences which are aimed at the purchaser of sexual services, as well as the provider of such services. In this area, criminal law has traditionally had two objectives. The first objective is protecting society from the more intrusive aspects of such activity from a public order perspective. For that reason, under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 which codified the law relating to prostitution, it is an offence to solicit in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution. The offence can be committed by the client, the prostitute or a third party such as a pimp. The second objective is to protect prostitutes from exploitation. Accordingly, under the 1993 legislation, it is an offence to organise prostitution, coerce or compel a person to be a prostitute, knowingly live off the earnings of a prostitute or keep or manage a brothel.