Ms Rachel Woods:

The two questions were quite closely linked, as it happens. Very few other jurisdictions have an offence in this area. Those that do, such as Britain, prosecute it as part of payment for sexual services or prostitution because they have defined prostitution as any payment or consideration including accommodation. I was interested to hear the comments from other witnesses before the committee that they are not happy with that and that they believe it is not working. It should be examined to determine why it is not working.

Northern Ireland also uses the same legislation for payment for sexual services, and it does not define that in terms of prostitution at all. It refers to any consideration exchanged for sex and it does not define it in terms of prostitution. Again, it would be worth considering how that is working there given that jurisdiction has not based the issue on prostitution. Our legislation is not suitable in this area because the provision is very much defined as for the purposes of prostitution, but we could look at amending that area of law and widening what is in that legislation. Waiting for the review to see whether what is there is working would be sensible before amending the legislation because amendments may be required following the review.

The alternative is to proceed with Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's Bill. The Department does not have a firm position on what the best way to do this is because we do not have the review of the 2017 Act. As for what we have looked at in other jurisdictions, nobody seems to have gone that way. We are probably just not in a position where we know, or have a view on, what the better policy option is.