Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, seek to create an exemption from the offence of brothel-keeping under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993. They would, in effect, decriminalise brothel-keeping. I would have serious concern about this. The reality is that very often trafficked women are in brothels. Under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993, a person who does any of the following is guilty of an offence:

"(a) keeps or manages or acts or assists in the management of a brothel;

(b) being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of a premises, knowingly permits such premises or any part thereof to be used as a brothel or for the purposes of habitual prostitution, or

(c) being the lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such lessor or landlord...

The Act is intended to target those who allow a premises to be used as a brothel or who manage a brothel. It is also the case that for a premises to constitute a brothel, there must be more than one person engaging in prostitution. If the intention is to allow women and-or men to work together but independently, as with a number of the amendments brought forward to the 1993 Act, the risk of exploitation is very high. The effect of the amendments, in reality, would be to decriminalise brothels in certain circumstances. I am concerned that decriminalisation of brothel-keeping would create a legal loophole that would be ripe for exploitation by the organised crime gangs involved in the trafficking and exploitation of women involved in prostitution. Women would come under pressure to claim that they were working independently when that was not the case and the Garda would be limited in the actions it could take to close brothels and disrupt the activities of pimps and criminal gangs. There is evidence from New Zealand that some women have been so used by pimps to establish businesses that appear legitimate but from which the organised gangs of the pimps profit. Creating exemptions from existing criminal law is a clear signal to those who seek to exploit such exemptions and the opportunity it presents. I do not wish to accept that scenario. If there were to be amendments to the offences under the 1993 Act, very wide consultation would be required with law enforcement agencies and so forth.

I wish to make a number of broader points. A study by the European Commission, probably its most recent, entitled, Study on the Gender Dimension of Trafficking in Human Beings, published this year, concludes that evidence of the harmful effects of the sex purchasing law in Sweden, the approach we are taking in the Bill, is very low. The study makes the point that it is clear that prostitution, legal or not, is an underground activity and carries risks for all involved. The new offence we are creating in the legislation is about targeting the demand which feeds both the trafficking and the exploitation of persons for the purposes of prostitution. It is expected that, in time, this will reduce the number of young women and men involved in prostitution, which will result in an overall reduction in the levels of harm. That is a valid aim.

In 2009 the Norwegian Government criminalised the purchase of sex. It carried out an evaluation of the law and the findings of that study did not report any evidence of more violence against prostitutes after the ban on buying sex had entered into force. An important point is that young men in Norway have changed their attitudes towards the purchase of sex in this way. Interviews with police forces indicate that the law has had a normative effect on people's behaviour. Obviously, there are issues relating to accurate data, but despite the lack of accurate data for the size of the market for prostitution either before or after 2010, estimates of the current market show a decline in the demand for prostitution after the introduction of the law.

On the amendments, many people who are taking this route suggest New Zealand is the model we should follow. That country had an amendment similar to the ones being proposed today. There has been huge concern in New Zealand that the model it adopted, similar to the one proposed in the amendments, has potentially been open to abuse by those intent on profiting from the prostitution of others. The danger lies in having unregulated brothels, without proper measures being in place to identify or tackle the human rights abuses that can take place in the sex industry. In New Zealand researchers have noted that even when genuinely independent women involved in prostitution have sought to avail of this type of model, it has not been entirely effective. The women concerned have not been in a position to have a premises, for example, and even if they wanted to do so, they could not afford to set up their own businesses. There is the problem of criminal gangs abusing them and that is precisely what has happened.

There is much evidence to show that decriminalising brothels in this way, which is what thee amendments would do, is not the way forward.

I do not know if the Minister read the legal opinion of Michael Lynn SC on the matter. He argued that this legislation will violate the human rights of sex workers. According to him:

Human rights are universal and sex workers are entitled to have their human rights equally with others. The fact they engage in work that many people do not approve of does not mean their rights are negated and in order to protect the rights of sex workers, decriminalisation is the best approach.

A big problem for us in trying to ascertain the best way to move forward is that we have not listened to sex workers. The former Minister, Alan Shatter, won his case because Sean Guerin did not give him a voice. He was wrong not to listen to him and hear what he had to say. Likewise, the Government should listen to, and at least entertain, the opinions of sex workers. They are at the coal face and it beggars belief that we have not listened to what they have to say. I assure the Minister that if she were to listen to them, they would be open about telling her that they would like to be able to work with other females for protection because that is a safer environment. Working with another woman or two rather than alone has to be safer and they argue that they should be allowed to work in small groups. It is not outrageous to argue that by criminalising the purchase of sex, more sex workers will be driven into the hands of pimps. They will be less safe and they will feel less secure. They will need security and he is called a pimp. We are going in the wrong direction.