Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

The Minister has broadened the debate on the argument that if we are to address this issue, we must address the purchase of sex per se and not just focus on an aspect of the problem, which is what the amendments do. The amendments seek to make it a crime to pay for sex knowing that the person offering sex has been trafficked.

I have listened to the Minister and believe a number of people outside the House will be interested in reading his remarks. He may well be correct. I am not in any position to state the outcome of the experience in Sweden but have met somebody who works in this area in that country who advised me that the Swedish provision has been a considerable success and has diminished both trafficking and prostitution itself. I am not sure where this matter is referred to in the report of Drs. Eilís Ward and Gillian Wylie, as mentioned by the Minister, but I have read their strong recommendation that measures to protect the victim be enshrined in the legislation. I suppose the devil quotes scripture to his own advantage.

I accept that it is not possible, in theory, to contradict the Minister when he states the user might help the victim in a particular circumstance. It is possible but generally does not happen. The purpose of my amendment is to avoid doubt. If it were accepted, how would it undermine section 3? The rest of the section would still be in vogue if it were accepted. Its acceptance would address the question of demand, which we are not doing at all in the legislation as it stands. We seem to accept the view that, human nature being what it is, there is very little point in our seeking to address the question of demand. It is believed that doing so would be too complex and raise many issues and would only result in driving the phenomenon of prostitution underground and make matters more difficult for the women in the sex industry. A great many people would question the correctness of that belief.

See this speech in context