James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the benefit of those joining us in this session, I wish to inform them that the committee already sat this afternoon and considered another Bill. We are now moving on to the next item. All of our guests are very welcome.

I particularly welcome the sponsor of the Bill, Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, whom I will be inviting to make some opening remarks shortly.

The purpose of this session of our meeting is to begin the pre-legislative scrutiny of a Private Members' Bill, the Ban on Sex for Rent Bill 2022. We are joined by a number of witnesses, whom I believe are all here in person. I am not sure if we have anybody online; I think everybody is in the building. The witnesses are Ms Caroline Counihan, legal policy director of Rape Crisis Network Ireland; Ms Ann Murphy, a journalist from the Irish Examinerwho has covered this area in a number of pieces; Mr. Gavin Elliott and Ms Ann-Marie O'Reilly from Threshold; and Ms Rachel Woods, assistant secretary in the legislation division of the Department of Justice; and Ms Lisa Doherty, principal officer in the criminal legislation division of the Department of Justice. They are all very welcome.

Since we are under pressure for time, I am going to take it as read that the witnesses joining us and the members are au faitwith the rules on privilege and procedure in terms of not defaming anybody in their remarks or identifying or speaking unduly about another individual or entity that may be outside the remit of the committee today or may not have a right to respond. There is a long preamble but it is really just good manners and common sense. I will take it as read that members are au faitwith all that.

I will invite Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, the sponsor of the Bill, to make some opening remarks. When he has done so, I will proceed to the witnesses. Some of them are here on their own steam and some, such as those from Threshold, are here as a group. Each organisation will have a three-minute slot in which to make an opening statement. Once we have taken opening statements from each group, we will go around the table. The members will have different questions to put. Each member will have three minutes in which to put questions and receive answers. We will keep it moving because we are under pressure for time. At the end of the public session, we will have a private session in which we will take some legal advice on the items we discussed. The advice has been prepared by the Office of Parliamentary Legal Advisers.

I invite Deputy Cian O'Callaghan to address the committee. He can take perhaps five minutes if he wishes to set the scene for the Bill and outline how he hopes it might be advanced.

Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for facilitating the scrutiny of the Bill at this stage. I very much welcome that it is taking place. I thank the organisations and individuals taking part. I very much welcome any constructive suggestion as to how the Bill can be improved. I am very open to amendments that members of the committee or other Members of the Oireachtas may have to strengthen it on Committee Stage. It has two specific intentions, the first being to introduce a specific criminal offence for anyone who demands sex in lieu of rent or for reduced rent and the second being to introduce a specific offence for advertising sex in lieu of rent, for individuals placing an advertisement, a platform or publication or anyone involved in facilitating it.

To give the background to why I introduced the Bill, there have been many reports, particularly in the Irish Examinerby Ann Murphy, who has done very good work on this, and also RTÉ's "Prime Time" on the practice of putting renters under pressure to offer sex for a reduced rent or making available of accommodation in this regard. There have been reports over a number of years. More recently, and very disturbingly, we have heard about some people trying to exploit people fleeing war in Ukraine. We can all agree this is an abhorrent practice. We must ask whether legislation is necessary. In the Dáil the Minister of State for Justice confirmed that no specific criminal offence exists for the practice, and the Garda confirmed for the housing committee that the PULSE system does not specifically record sex-for-rent complaints as a specific category. That is not surprising given that it is not a specific criminal offence. The point was made on Second Stage in the Dáil by nearly all contributors that while this Bill would be welcome, no one is suggesting it would sort out all the problems and that there are not wider problems related to housing, renting and power imbalances. It would be helpful all the same. The potential value of the Bill is that it would act as a deterrent. It would also assist renters and organisations that support renters in bringing forward complaints. At present, any complaints would have to be made to fit the criteria of other legislation. The Bill, if passed and strengthened, would be successful if it led to a reduction in the practice of putting pressure on renters.

We do not have full data on the extent of the problem. We lack research in Ireland. There is some evidence that migrants, in particular those with less access to support networks, have been targeted. This has been seen from certain advertisements placed on platforms mostly used by migrants. More extensive research has been done in the UK by the housing charity Shelter. It suggests that 59,000 women in the UK were propositioned for sex in lieu of rent in a period of a year and a half between March 2020 and September 2021. There is no equivalent quantitative research in Ireland at this point.

On Second Stage of the Bill in the Dáil, the Minister of State raised a number of issues constructively that the Government felt needed to be addressed to tighten the wording, make the wording more precise and ensure the terms in the Bill are properly defined. Concerns were also raised over the proportionality of the fines suggested in the Bill. I welcome that input and am very much committed to working with members of the committee to address these concerns and improve and strengthen the Bill. I very much look forward to hearing people's comments.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Cian O'Callaghan. I commend him on introducing the Bill and getting it to this stage. We are certainly glad to be in a position to consider it as a committee with all the witnesses we have present.

I will deal with the witnesses organisation by organisation. I will begin with Ms Counihan from Rape Crisis Network Ireland. She has three minutes in which to make her opening remarks and, of course, she will have time to elaborate later. For the opening statements, we just keep the time limited to three minutes.

Ms Caroline Counihan:

I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak about this important Bill, which Rape Crisis Network Ireland welcomes very much. I am the legal director of Rape Crisis Network Ireland. So-called sex for rent is a serious form of sexual exploitation and abuse of some of the most vulnerable people. The opportunities for this form of abuse are multiplying as the shortage of affordable housing for rent becomes ever more acute. This issue also needs to be addressed if the problem is to resolved effectively.

Rape Crisis Network Ireland is glad to see from the Second Stage debate that there is a consensus that this Bill needs to be enacted to deter future abusive sex-for-rent offers and also mark the gravity of this behaviour by criminalising it. This legislation, if enacted, will also send a strong message that it is unacceptable to exploit a person's acute need for a roof over their head by making offers to supply accommodation and-or a reduced rent in return for sexual services. If such an offer is not accepted, as the law stands now the offerer cannot be criminalised unless the other person is a prostitute. This gap needs to be closed.

Rape Crisis Network Ireland urges all Members of the Oireachtas to work together to ensure first that it is legally robust and workable and second that it is passed and commenced as soon as possible. It is needed urgently.

I have a few remarks on drafting, which I am going to truncate. The full picture is set out in our detailed submission. With regard to section 2, on the offence of requiring or accepting sex as a condition of accommodation, the words "require" and "accept" may not cover the situation where there is no explicit demand for sexual services but instead a suggestion that providing sexual services might unlock access to the accommodation or provide that accommodation at a reduced rent, or even no rent, or prevent eviction. It should also criminalise advertising, offering, seeking to provide or providing any accommodation-related benefit in return for sexual services. The term "sex" is too vague. It must be possible to identify which sexual acts are criminalised. The wording "as a condition of access to or retention of" does not necessarily cover where there is an offer to forgive all or part of the rent, including rent arrears, in return for sexual services.

The wording "as a condition of access to or retention of" does not necessarily cover the situation where there is an offer to forgive all or part of the rent, including rent arrears, in return for sexual services. Either the wording should list all of the situations in which the landlord might seek the sexual services of a tenant in return for a housing benefit or it should use a blanket term such as "housing advantage", "housing benefit" or "accommodation-related benefit" to the tenant. A wording broader than one involving a condition of acquiring some form of housing advantage is desirable. For example, "in return for" is easier to prove and is clearer. The term "accommodation or related services or transactions" should be defined so that it is clear what is and is not accommodation or related services or transactions.

In subsection (2), "provider of accommodation" is not defined. With respect, we suggest that it ought to be. It is not clear as to whether this offence can be committed by a company or other any other legal entity that is not a person. It must also be clear as to whether it includes landlords who enter tenancy agreements, licensors renting rooms, people offering accommodation free of charge in return for certain non-sexual services, for example, caretaking, and so on.

With regard to-----

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for cutting Ms Counihan short. We have the benefit of a written copy of her submission. There is a great deal of detail in it, which is helpful. I can see the BL in Ms Counihan coming out.

Ms Caroline Counihan:

Sorry.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The submission includes amendments, which might be helpful at later stages of the Bill's consideration. For the purposes of today, though, we will take the rest of the submission as read.

We will move on to the next witness. I welcome Ms Murphy, who has done a great deal of work in this area.

Ms Ann Murphy:

I thank the committee for inviting me to this discussion on the Ban on Sex for Rent Bill 2022, which was introduced arising out of an investigation into sex for rent by the Irish Examinersince December 2021. In September 2019, the then Solidarity Deputy, Ms Ruth Coppinger, highlighted a case in which a constituent had been offered a sex-for-rent arrangement when she could not afford a rent increase. In January 2020, this reporter discovered a sex-for-rent arrangement being advertised in the Lough, Cork city, on a website called Locanto, which carries a wide variety of classified advertisements from Ireland and across the world. One of the properties advertised in Limerick late last year on the same website was for a single lady "with a twist". The ad read: "Can do reduced rent for occasional fun". When contacted by this reporter posing as a prospective tenant, the landlord made it clear that sexual activity was required on a weekly basis in return for rent of €200 for the first month and €250 per month thereafter. To establish the veracity of the landlord and the existence of the property, this reporter went to the house in the guise of the prospective tenant and met the landlord at the door.

In particular, foreign women have been offered reduced or no rent in return for sex or bed-sharing with landlords in different parts of the country. In recent weeks, a number of advertisements have appeared online targeting Ukrainian women with offers of accommodation in Ireland in return for sex. One relating to a property in Cavan was titled, "Seeking a Ukraine woman", and was explicit in nature, offering a "free bed in exchange for sexual pleasure for me". The advertiser added: "I can pick you up in Cavan if you can't drive need this asap please???" Such advertisements are still to be found online even as we discuss this legislation today. Some are explicit in their content, as above, with recent ads offering "friends with benefits" arrangements or a room for rent for a sweet girl in Dublin, for example.

Testimony has been provided to the Irish Examinerby women offered sex-for-rent arrangements after they responded to rental accommodation advertisements on Facebook groups, classified advertisement websites and some more streamlined accommodation websites, including daft.ie. In these instances, the offer was not mentioned in the advertisement. Testimony from women previously targeted by such arrangements shows a reluctance to go to An Garda Síochána to make complaints for reasons including a fear that they will not be believed or taken seriously. On some occasions, those offering sex-for-rent arrangements are people who are subletting rooms unknown to their own landlords.

Information on the precise nature and extent of sex-for-rent arrangements in Ireland is sporadic and anecdotal, unlike in the UK where research has been conducted by the homeless organisation, Shelter. The findings of that study suggested that 30,000 women in Britain were propositioned with sex-for-rent arrangements between March 2020 and January 2021. No such research has yet been carried out in Ireland.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Murphy. Next is Threshold, with Mr. Elliott reading its opening statement.

Mr. Gavin Elliott:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present on the Ban on Sex for Rent Bill 2022. We welcome the introduction of this legislation, which seeks to prevent the exploitation of people who are seeking a secure and safe home to rent. I agree with and echo the comments that have already been made. We are taking this opportunity to make comment on the Bill and recommend several changes, which we suggest would make it more victim friendly and ensure that protection and support were available to victims.

As Deputy Cian O'Callaghan has stated, the full extent of the issue is unknown. A small number of private renters have spoken publicly, and none of us can be anything but horrified by what we have read in the press. Few of Threshold's clients have reported such propositions by their landlords or prospective landlords to us. This may not be particularly surprising, though, as it may not be the sort of issue that a renter would contact Threshold or, indeed, the Residential Tenancies Board, RTB, about. No reporting mechanism is in place and, as we have heard from Deputy O'Callaghan, it is not an offence at the moment to engage in such behaviour.

While reliable evidence on the prevalence of the issue in Ireland is not available, international comparators can provide us with some troubling indications that the recent press reports on this issue may only be the tip of the iceberg. Of particular concern is research from England, a jurisdiction that shares a similar rental culture to Ireland. It would be a mistake not to regard the evidence that has been gathered in England about this practice as significant and an indication that the practice might not only be occurring in Ireland, but might be worse. England is not experiencing an across-the-board housing crisis to the extent Ireland is. Evidence of the prevalence of the issue in England must be viewed in light of a similar rental culture and a much more constrained rental market in Ireland. We have heard about the research conducted by Shelter in England. If those proportions were replicated in Ireland, it would equate to almost 4,000 renter households. Obviously, there is a major caveat with this figure, but it is significant nonetheless.

The legislation in England has not been successful in tackling the issue despite attempts to do so, partly due to an attempt to prosecute offenders under more general legislation dealing with prostitution offences. Since the issuing of prosecution guidelines in the UK in 2019, there has been just one successful prosecution. The lesson from the UK is that shoehorning sex-for-rent offences into existing offences risks mislabelling the offences and obscuring the nature of both crimes. Threshold suggests that the reporting of such offences be incorporated into existing victim-friendly processes, such as those created by the report, Supporting a Victim's Journey. NGOs working with people who may be victims of these offences should be empowered to provide mechanisms through which people may make such disclosures.

We are particularly concerned for sitting tenants who report such practices. As it stands, many private renters do not report wrongdoing by their landlords for fear of eviction. In such precarious situations, a tenant may fear retaliation or penalisation by his or her landlord if he or she reports the landlord for requesting sex or sexual favours in exchange for accommodation. A tenant may have no other housing options available and may be forced to remain under these circumstances, the only other option being homelessness. We suggest that the Bill be made coherent with section 14 of the Residential Tenancies Act, which prohibits penalisation for making a report to certain bodies. Incorporating in this Bill the making of a report might be sensible.

As currently drafted, the Bill will offer relatively little support to people who may be, or previously have been, in situations where there has been a sex-for-rent exchange. Satellite supports for victims need to be considered and put in place to aid the effectiveness of the Bill. This could include an expansion of domestic and-or sexual violence services to provide support for victims of these offences. For example, people who are reporting such offences could, where necessary, be supported by an extension of the recent rent supplement protocol between the Department of Social Protection and Tusla, counselling and housing supports. It is Threshold's experience that people, even in extreme housing difficulty, are sometimes forced to make a choice between unacceptable housing conditions and homelessness.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Elliott. Now we will hear from Ms Woods on behalf of the Department of Justice.

Ms Rachel Woods:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present the Department of Justice's views on this Private Member's Bill. As the committee will be aware, during the debate on Second Stage, the Government did not oppose the Bill. In his remarks the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, noted the Government's support for the objectives of the Bill, which aims to create an offence of requiring or accepting sex as a condition of accommodation or of facilitating same. Both the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy O’Brien, are engaging on how best to address this unacceptable behaviour and are in agreement with the principle of Deputy O'Callaghan's Bill. The Attorney General has advised there are some concerns of a legal and drafting nature to be addressed to ensure it is legally sound and achieves its objectives. The Minister of State outlined those concerns on Second Stage and they are detailed in the Department's submission, so I will not go over them again. I will just reiterate that any agreement to pay for accommodation with sexual acts is invalid and not enforceable under contract law. Additionally, sexual offences legislation makes it abundantly clear that consent must be freely and voluntarily given. Submission when a person is forced or has no other choice is not the same as consent, and sex without consent is rape and punishable on conviction by up to life imprisonment.

The Department agrees with Deputy O'Callaghan and other stakeholders here, including Rape Crisis Network Ireland, that the behaviour this Bill aims to target is unacceptable and exploitative and should be subject to criminal sanction. The Minister recognises there is a gap in the law here that has to be addressed, so any concerns we express are just about the manner in which that gap should be addressed. The Department has some concern that the level of the penalty proposed risks blurring the lines between a sexual act which takes place in an exploitative situation and a non-consensual sexual act. The proposed seven-year penalty in the Bill approaches that for sexual assault. It may be that the offence we are considering is more closely aligned to the offence of purchasing sexual services, which is one of exploitation targeted at people, predominantly women, in vulnerable and sometimes desperate circumstances. The penalty for that offence, however, is considerably lower.

The Department has highlighted the need to ensure any new offence created in this area takes account of the existing legislative framework. The Department believes further consideration is required in that regard. In that respect, the committee may wish to note that a review is under way of Part 4 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, which deals with the purchase of sexual services. Recommendations on strengthening the safety and well-being of persons who engage in sexual activity for payment are awaited and will inform further legislative efforts in this area.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Woods. We now move to the committee members, having heard all the opening statements. Because we have a number of items on today's agenda, we will keep the slots relatively short.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a number of observations and just one question. I congratulate Deputy O'Callaghan on this piece of work. It is important the committee has been able to provide further scrutiny of it.

Sex without consent is clearly rape. Consent cannot be coerced. Consent cannot be purchased lawfully. Consent cannot be transacted. Consent is consent; it is freely given. The nature of this, however, is whether a person will be believed. I am very glad Ms Murphy referred to that. The nature of sexual exploitation is very rarely what we perceive as being directly violent and very rarely involves a stranger. The vast bulk of sexual exploitation or abuse, as we know, is committed by somebody known to the victim. It goes beyond agreed boundaries. It is nuanced. It is delicate. It is practically always a surprise, practically always in the moment and practically always something that - and this is very important - creates doubt in the mind of the victim and a sense of surprise along the lines of "Did that really just happen?", or more specifically "Did I really just get asked that question?", or "Did that physically just happen?", or "Am I actually in this situation?". There is always that moment of creating doubt. The question of whether they will be believed is one all victims of sexual abuse and exploitation ask themselves. That is particularly important when it comes to this issue. It is already incredibly difficult to get a successful prosecution for any sexual offence. It is already very difficult to reach the evidential standard relative to the number of offences we know are committed and the range of experiences of women in particular.

What is the Department's thinking on the evidential standard for this offence? How does that compare with the other forms of sexual exploitation and efforts to purchase sex, which we know we are having difficulties with? One thing I will draw to the attention of the committee is the group established by the National Women's Council called Beyond Exploitation. Beyond Exploitation is run principally by the National Women's Council and Ruhama but is also linked in carefully with Dr. Ruth Breslin, who works in the sexual exploitation research programme in the Geary Institute of UCD. These are serious programmes to highlight the nature of the difficulty of people forced by coercion or circumstance to sell sex. This is especially the case with trafficked and vulnerable women.

I appreciate I have very little time, but that is my question to the Department as to how it thinks this offence will be proved if we get it into legislation, which I firmly believe we will.

Ms Rachel Woods:

That is a very good question. All sexual offences are difficult to prove in certain circumstances. It is quite clear that, no matter how an offence is constructed, there will be an element of "he said, she said" or two stories and two sides. The position is difficult to prove. However, the evidential standards will be those that apply in every other sexual offence. In this case, where advertising is available, there can be actual physical evidence. Often there are email, text or phone contacts. Those would be the kinds of evidential supports available, but that will be a difficulty no matter how the offence is constructed. That is inherent in almost all sexual offences.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In many ways that sounds nearly easier than the sorts of the circumstances I am describing because there is some measure of communication in advance, potentially, at least in some situations.

Ms Rachel Woods:

Yes, I think so, but that would be specific to any individual circumstance, and I am not sure there is much that can be done in respect of construction of the offence in that regard.

Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the Department could set that out in describing the offence and the sorts of things that might lead to awards. It is for a later date, but it is worth trying to set out in some way, potentially.

Ms Rachel Woods:

We will certainly note that and have a look at it.

Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well done to Deputy O'Callaghan on this important legislation. As Deputy Carroll MacNeill stated, exploitation, including sexual exploitation, takes very many forms and is a spectrum. It was interesting that in Ms Murphy's testimony she said testimony from women previously targeted shows a reluctance of victims to go to An Garda Síochána for various reasons, including a fear they will not be believed. It is important we send a message out from this committee that women - not just women, but mostly women - will be believed. We should encourage them to go to An Garda Síochána. It is a pity no research on that has been carried out in Ireland. It has come up time and again in this committee that the lack of proper statistics compared with what they have in England causes the way we deal with things to fall down in a lot of ways. I reiterate a call for more effort and more funding to be put into that.

I agree with what Threshold said about victim-friendly processes and supporting the victim's journey. That should be done. Unfortunately, many private renters do not report landlords' wrongdoing.

As for RCNI's testimony, the point that stood out, because it tallies with the OPLA's opinion on this, is that we should all work together to ensure first that this legislation gets through, whether or not it has to be amended slightly. It probably does. RCNI's view is that it must be legally robust and workable and that it is important that it be passed as soon as possible.

Having said that, there are concerns in the OPLA advice about drafting, making sure that it is precise and maybe some amendments on the lack of definitions and clarity. There is no point in sending it forward if we know there are likely to be constitutional difficulties with it. Having spoken to Deputy Cian O'Callaghan, I think he is open to amendments on that point. There are also some concerns around the penalty clauses where more flexibility could be shown on that.

I thank Deputy Cian O'Callaghan for his efforts and Ms Murphy for all the work she has done on this. I have spoken to her in the past on it.

The only question I have is for Ms Woods. Given the OPLA report - I do not know if she has had a chance to look at it - has she any specific ideas where definitions could be tightened up or made more precise in order to ensure the Bill's successful passage through the Houses?

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Daly. We are a little behind time but I will allow Ms Woods to answer that question before moving to the next member.

Ms Rachel Woods:

There is lots of work that could be done to tighten up the definitions. In many cases, there are other definitions on the Statute Book that would serve as a precedent. The definitions might be fixed through amendment.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also congratulate Deputy Cian O'Callaghan on this initiative. It is an important hole that needs to be plugged. I endorse what my colleagues have said about consent and its non-transactional nature.

Given time, I will raise a couple of issues. I do not accept what Threshold has said about the extrapolation from the British report. However, given that we know anecdotally that this is happening, will the Department conduct research to establish what the extent of the problem is? Second, Threshold mentioned that in the UK there has been a failure to achieve convictions in relation to its legislation. Can we identify what the issues were? Is it the old chestnut around sexual offences that there are difficulties believing people? How do we address that? I also agree with sending out the message that people will be taken seriously when they bring these offences to Garda attention and potentially in a way that they never have been before. People need to understand there is a listening ear for this kind of thing.

I am conscious of what was said about the extent of the penalty that is available. The point made was reasonable but I understand from Deputy Cian O'Callaghan that there was a certain openness to amendments around that. However, the offence under section 2 does not cover asking where someone simply asks someone to enter into that arrangement. The offence as currently structured refers to a requirement. I think that it is important that we send out the message that any kind of discussion on this subject is not acceptable. If we solely rely on the requirement we are saying that it is okay if someone has the strength and presence and the circumstances to be able to push back and reject the requirement. However, the danger is that a vulnerable person, faced with this option would feel obliged to take it at any level. Is there room in the Bill for simply asking that equally would be an offence under section 2?

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Threshold want to respond about the figures? We can go to the Department about the research being done.

Mr. Gavin Elliott:

The Shelter figures were just for information purposes. We are not suggesting that they are particularly reliable but if they were extrapolated, they would give an idea of what the numbers might be in Ireland.

With the English experience, it was the attempt to use existing legislation that dealt with other issues, prostitution offences, to try to prosecute this particular offence that seemed to be the issue. There was an attempt in the House of Lords to pass an amendment recently which I understand failed more for political reasons than for any reasons to do with the amendment itself. The UK Government does seem to acknowledge that it has not been successful in achieving what it was supposed to and amendment is required to create a specific offence as this Bill seeks to do.

Ms Rachel Woods:

The Department does not have any research under way or planned but this area really would benefit from research to establish not only the extent of the problem but also where it is arising - there are others who are more expert on tenancy issues than me. The kinds of tenancy should also be identified; are they landlord-tenant relationship or rent-a-room schemes? Developing these proposals would benefit from research and a fairly careful understanding of the exact problem that we are trying to address.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Howlin has the next slot but first I want to bring a few other people in. Did Ms Murphy wish to comment? She has not had a chance to get in yet.

Ms Ann Murphy:

Ms Woods spoke of how it is not one common approach. In some cases, it is in private correspondence when someone applies to see a room. In other cases it is a subletting arrangement where a person who was renting a room from their own landlord makes an arrangement with somebody else to enter into a sex-for-rent arrangement. It is not always the landlord that is making the arrangement.

As I mentioned, there are often advertisements on websites but in many cases it is when private correspondence is entered into. There might be a situation where someone has seen a room advertised as normal on a classified website or Facebook group and it is after that. We have one case in Waterford where a woman made an arrangement to move and it was only after she got there, after moving in on the very first night that she was approached and offered a sex-for-rent arrangement. She left in panic with her boyfriend who was with her. When she went to work the next day the person who had required the sex-for-rent arrangement from her followed her to work. He knew where she worked and he turned up at her workplace at lunchtime the following day. There is a wide range of ways in which these arrangements are being offered to people.

Barry Ward (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Should we ask that it be included in the Bill then? Should a simple request also be an offence?

Ms Ann Murphy:

That is something that others with a legal perspective might have more knowledge of. One area that needs to be considered is that it is not always done in classified adverts or in any advert but also in private conversations.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not always documented. It is staggering that someone would put that in a classified advertisement. I read in Ms Murphy's opening submission that people do. You learn new things every day. It highlights the extent of the issue.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also compliment Deputy Cian O'Callaghan on bringing this legislation to us. It is always depressing that any crisis is an opportunity for someone to exploit others who are the most vulnerable. It is beyond shocking that this sort of thing exists.

I am obviously interested in the legislation being effective rather than simply enacted. My question to the Department of Justice is whether there is similar legislation in other jurisdictions that captures this issue and has proven effective that we can look at as a model? We have been grappling with general sexual offences legislation for a very long time. It is always difficult to get convictions for sexual offences.

Second, in the review of the 2017 Act which we have been told is imminent, will this issue be part of any amending legislation that would come forward or does the Department support this stand-alone piece of legislation because of the urgency of the situation if the very clear evidence presented to us is happening right now?

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.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Woods. Ms Counihan might wish to add something to that or share some observations. She is very on top of the detail of the various amendments that were being proposed.

Ms Caroline Counihan:

The Chairman is flattering me there. I am on the same page as Ms Woods from the Department of Justice; I am not sure what the best way to proceed is, either. I love the idea of research, which speaks to the researcher bit of my soul, but I am also conscious, having had many conversations with Ms Murphy on this and having heard about it on the ground as well, that there is an urgent need for this. If it is, after all, decided it is best to proceed with Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's Bill and to amend it, it will be important that it be drafted in such a way that it will capture the wide variety of cases Ms Murphy laid out for us. What we see all the time is that sexual exploitation and abuse is a horrible amoeba. It adapts to fit a shape that suits whatever the situation is. Somebody who is determined to abuse another person sexually will find some way to do it.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I compliment Deputy Cian O'Callaghan on bringing forward this legislation and pay tribute to the Department of Justice for having an open mind as to whether it would go with it or do something else. I might put a few points before the committee for consideration. What we are dealing with is, clearly, a first cousin of prostitution and pimping, whereby somebody is induced to provide sexual services by being offered some consideration in exchange. Other types of offences that could also be closely related to this, such as the seeking of sexual favours in exchange for offering employment or a Harvey Weinstein situation whereby sexual favours are sought in exchange for recruitment, the offering of a contract or other things like that. Whichever choice the Department makes, there is something to be said for widening the concept of prostitution to cover what I call the first cousin of prostitution and pimping, namely, what we are dealing with here.

I fully agree with Deputy Carroll MacNeill in that proving this is going to be very difficult. Unless there are, say, text messages or a printed advertisement, it will be practically impossible to prove it because the offer will have been during an oral conversation, by innuendo or something like that. Nevertheless, the fact it is difficult to prove does not mean it should be legal or that there should be no consequence to doing it. As an example, if a male were to suggest to a female that she move in with him into his gaff and share his rent, while it may be clear from the circumstance that there is to be a sexual dimension to her moving in and that she will have to pay a portion of the rent in shared accommodation or whatever, it may not be so easy to prove. It is essential, therefore, that the language of the legislation be very clear as to what it will or will not catch. For instance, in Deputy Cian O'Callaghan's brave effort to work out who such an offender could be, the Bill refers to providers of accommodation or employees, agents or contractors of a provider, but in a lot of cases involving house-sharing, it will be very difficult to work out who is or is not a sharer and what his or her status is. That is something we will have to bear in mind. In England, there was recently a successful prosecution for incitement to prostitution, based on the English definition. It was the case of a 53-year-old man who had made very explicit demands of a prospective tenant.

I am in two minds, like the Department of Justice, as to which is the correct way to go but I am equally convinced, as has been noted by others, that something should be done reasonably urgently about this, one way or the other. I appreciate the Department is looking at the measures that were taken recently to make prostitutes immune from prosecution but the customer liable to be prosecuted. I would love to see the Department take a simple step and carry out a survey on the extent of prostitution in Ireland. Unless I have a very prurient imagination, it seems a high number of odd-looking massage establishments are cropping up everywhere. Unless there is very high demand for massage, I think prostitution is much more widespread now and that it is going under the flag of massage much more often than it used to.

I return to my main point. Whatever language is put into the legislation has to be sufficient to capture me-too situations where people are asked to provide sex for a job or other things. It should be in the context of revising the concept of prostitution and bringing in this cognate, first cousin of prostitution, whereby the concept of consideration can cover situations like this. We cannot just long-finger it. We cannot just say that because it is complicated, we should do nothing. Clearly, the most vulnerable people are being exposed to this demand now. Moreover, the Bill should extend to lodgers, given many people are now sharing homes on the tax-free lodger system and that must be wide open to the issue.

I reiterate my congratulations to Deputy Cian O'Callaghan on taking the initiative in bringing the Bill before us.

It requires careful but nonetheless urgent work in order to make it effective.

James Lawless (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for those points. As no other members are indicating, that concludes our witness engagement for this session. We will have a legal briefing shortly, therefore, I ask members to hang on. As regard the engagement with witnesses, it has been very helpful. In addition to their oral testimony, we have their written submissions, which are extremely useful and will feed into our deliberation of the Bill as we consider it at the next stage. I ask the members to remain in situ. The witnesses can now leave the meeting as we have concluded our engagement. I thank everyone for their input.