Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Tánaiste is right and there is no doubt that sex work is incredibly dangerous and violent. The purpose of this amendment is to make it less so, to be honest. It deals with a deficit that currently exists. There is the very valid objective of trying to catch those who exploit people through prostitution by running brothels etc. The law, as it stands, has an unforeseen or unintended consequence because the people who pick up the pieces and are being penalised are the very victims that we say we are trying to protect. We are trying to address that deficit in these amendments. It would help to go after the big boys. Currently, the policing resources, etc., are diverted into areas dealing with issues where two people are working together who may not be doing any harm or annoying anybody. Rather than the Garda having to deal with that under brothel-keeping, it would be simple for people to say they are working together. This is particularly pertinent against the backdrop of criminalising the purchase of sex.

The Tánaiste has indicated that there is no evidence that women have been harmed in Sweden or Norway by this measure. Equally, there has been no indication that it has worked. These are complex issues and there are good arguments to say that because of the lack of data or research done at the start, any comparisons being made now are fundamentally flawed. In Norway there is a sizable body of academics that disputes the claims of that country's Government and there is a very valid argument put forward that demand has not been reduced but rather that it has been displaced and put somewhere a little more hidden and, sadly, much more dangerous.

If the Tánaiste is going to push through the criminalisation of the purchase of sex, which she has the numbers to do, as an absolute minimum this protection must be put in place. Against the backdrop of criminalising that activity, it will be much more dangerous for sex workers. The power will transfer to the buyer. There will be less time to negotiate, perform checks, use condoms, etc., because of the fear of being caught. Deputy Wallace made the point earlier that the buyer will be found through the seller, so people will be harassed in that way. We must reduce that pressure, which will inevitably come about. The Minister mentioned Ruhama but there are significant numbers of organisations and people at the coalface who would take a very different view, including social workers, HIV and AIDS activists and so on, and who would point to the evidence in countries like Sweden where people got less protection and help. The people there did not access the outreach programmes and there was a "moralistic" intervention put in place, with individuals being encouraged to leave the industry. I am all in favour of people getting help to get out if that is their wish. However, I do not favour people passing judgments on the way others live their lives and using that to coerce them or prevent them from accessing help. This has occurred with those trying to access condoms and outreach support against the backdrop of criminalisation and is not the way forward.

The only academic study carried out on this island that interviewed sex workers in a comprehensive way was done by Queen's University in Belfast. The information from that was incredibly enlightening with regard to people involved with prostitution. As in much of Europe, many of the people engaged with sex work were not born in this country. Many would say they came to the country voluntarily to sell sex, although the study indicated that some were encouraged to come here but did not get the money they were told they would get. That is a different issue from trafficking. Trafficking has no place in this discussion. There is, rightly, strong legislation to deal with rape, kidnapping, sex with minors, holding somebody against his or her will, trafficking and other issues. The Garda has indicated that using its resources for tracking down people who have agreed between them to have sex in exchange for monetary benefit or whatever is a diversion from targeting some of the key offenders. This is a protective measure that is necessary against the backdrop of what is being proposed elsewhere in the Bill.