Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. In the main, I would say that the Social Democrats broadly welcome this Bill which updates the law in respect of sexual offences. It has been quite a long time in gestation. It is hard to know why it has taken so long but now that it is here, many aspects of the legislation are to be welcomed. I would also have some reservations which I will detail.

The Bill, in respect of the updating of the law in relation to sexual offences, gives effect to considerable work that was done over a number of years by two Oireachtas committees, and it is good to see that work finally being taken on board. It also updates primary legislation in respect of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935. It reforms the law in respect of sexual offences relating to children. All of those sections are very much to be welcomed. However, in respect of Part 4, which criminalises the purchase of the sex, the Social Democrats have a number of concerns.

The Bill addresses crimes which are regrettably all too common in this country at this stage and which need urgent response. It addresses offences such as obtaining and providing children for the purposes of sexual exploitation - a problem which, by all accounts, seems to be relatively common and which must be addressed as a matter of urgency. It addresses sexual touching and sexual activity in the presence of a child, and makes offences of them. It also addresses causing a child to watch sexual activity, grooming a child, and travelling or making arrangements to meet a child with the purpose of engaging in sexual activity.

The Bill also addresses the gender imbalance in the penalties for incest. At present, a female convicted of an incest offence is liable to up to seven years imprisonment as opposed to life imprisonment for a male offender. I welcome the fact that there is an equalisation in that regard. Section 40 provides for a harassment order whereby a court can impose an order prohibiting a convicted sex offender from contacting or approaching his or her victim for a specified period after his or her imprisonment.

There are also changes to the legal system. There are improvements for the protection of child victims within the courts system by allowing for the removal of wigs and gowns, the opportunity for children to give evidence from behind a screen and prohibiting cross-examination of a child by the accused. All of these provisions are welcome indeed.

According to the SAVI Report, which was carried out in 2002, there is a significant problem in this country in respect of sexual abuse, particularly in relation to children. The details of that report were quite shocking. It showed that, in terms of sexual exploitation and abuse in childhood, some 23.5% of men surveyed reported having been sexual abused as children. The corresponding figure for women is even worse. Some 30.4% of women interviewed for SAVI reported having been sexually abused in childhood. Those figures date back to the 2002 report and we know little or nothing about what has happened since then.

Over the past couple of years, I have been raising with various Ministers the need for a SAVI II to be carried out. I understand such a report, which would be informative and would provide a good evidence base for work in this area, would cost €1 million to conduct and that would be money very well spent. I recognise that the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality has agreed on the need for such a second SAVI report to be done and had offered to participate in the funding of that but, unfortunately, the other Ministers who were involved at that time in the previous Government, the then Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the then Minister for Education and Skills, were less than enthusiastic about it, while the then Minister for Health refused point blank to provide the necessary funding. In view of the fact that it would only require a contribution of €0.25 million from each of those four Departments, it is regrettable that was the case. I would certainly hope now that funding restrictions are freed up a little the Minister would give early consideration to providing the relatively small amount of funding in order for a second SAVI to be conducted so that we can find out, on an evidence basis, whether steps that are being taken and the services that are in place are making a significant difference to the level of sexual abuse across the population but particularly in relation to children. It is important that we have access to that kind of information.

Regarding children who have been sexually abused, we have nothing to be proud of in terms of the level of services that are being provided. Recent figures showed that some 5,000 children, where serious concerns of neglect or abuse have been raised, have not yet been allocated a social worker. These are not minor cases, these are cases where there is serious concern. Five thousand children is an extraordinary number of children and they are waiting months, in many cases, up to a year, to be allocated a social worker. Changing and tightening up the legislation is an important matter, but ensuring that the resources are there to provide the required support services, such as counselling, is just as important for victims concerned. We rightly express serious concern about the level of sexual abuse, especially relating to children, but we must put our money where our mouth is in terms of providing the necessary funding to provide the counselling and support services.

Part 4 relates to the purchase of sexual services. This area, also an area of serious concern in this country, received a lot of attention when this legislation was being prepared initially in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 period. I very much commend the formation of the Turn Off The Red Light grouping at that stage. It was a network or umbrella group of several different prominent significant organisations which lent their name to this campaign and lobbied hard. They did that because of the kind of statistics that were coming out and the evidence which showed that we have a significant problem in this country in relation to women being the victims of sexual exploitation in respect of the sale of sexual services, particularly non-national women where there is evidence of significant levels of exploitation. Women and children are very much exploited in Ireland's sex industry.

That industry is valued at approximately €180 million a year and it is present in every county in the country. It is reckoned that, on average, approximately 1,000 women are available for sale on any one day in this country, and the vast majority of them are migrants of poor economic means and other vulnerabilities. Several of them are children.

There is no clear line between where the elements of trafficking end and consent to become involved in the sex industry begins. We know that many of the women involved in Ireland's sex industry, who do not meet the definition of a victim of trafficking, had no real choice. Poverty and life circumstances, combined with deception and gross exploitation, are evident in many of their stories that we hear. One exception to the legality of purchase of sex indoors is the Criminal Justice (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 whereby it is an offence to purchase sex from a trafficked person. Buyers of sex are only brought to account when they knowingly purchase sex from a trafficked person. There have been no prosecutions to date - and none are expected - due to the burden imposed on the State to prove that the buyer is aware of purchasing a person who is a victim of human trafficking.

As regards criminal records, including the risk of disclosure has been identified by the buyers as a reliable deterrent of their actions. Penalties are the most efficient proven approach to deter men who contemplate buying sex. It is believed that the reduction of demand for paid sex leads to decreased supply of prostituted people, among them those who have been forced, controlled, trafficked and those who are minors or who have other vulnerabilities. Once in prostitution, nine out of ten surveyed women would like to exit it but feel unable to do so. We know that from surveys and evidence that has been produced.

The Turn Off the Red Light network was strongly of the view that we should learn from what happened in Sweden where the authorities have criminalised the buying of sexual acts. Very quickly after the introduction of the relevant legislation in that jurisdiction, there was a significant reduction in trafficking and prostitution and the recruitment of new women was halted. Many positive indications came out of the experience in Sweden initially but that was four or five years ago. At that stage, I was very strongly in support of the Turn Off the Red Light campaign. However, I have been forced to reconsider that a little. I have not completed my thinking on the matter but significant concerns have been raised. A number of these are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. The basis of the Swedish model is the criminalisation of the purchase of sex rather than the criminalising of sex workers, with the aim of reducing overall demand. That is a very laudable objective. The logic of this in regard to sex trafficking is very clear. However, under the Bill's current design, sex work will not be decriminalised. There is still a significant and potentially punitive restriction on the women involved regardless of the reason they entered the sex trade in the first instance.

Part 4 increases the penalty for suspected brothel-keeping and penalises women who do not leave an area after being directed to do so by the Garda. Consequently, there is a clear danger that these measures may force those engaged in sex work to do so in isolated areas or to work alone in order to avoid arrest. This will significantly increase the risks many sex workers face and highlights how important it is that they are provided every protection under the law. When similar legislation was passed in Northern Ireland the PSNI warned that it did not have the resources to enforce it. Is that a concern here? It probably is. The Stormont justice committee said in February 2014 that prosecuting anyone under the law would require large-scale effort. Is our Garda force in a position to undertake such efforts and, more importantly, are its members equipped to do so effectively, particularly in the context of victims of trafficking?

In the P case, the High Court ruled that gardaí failed to identify a victim of human trafficking. The offence in that case was not related to the sex tax but to drug dealing. The failure of the gardaí to identify the fact that this woman was a victim of trafficking resulted in her being imprisoned for two and a half years. That sentence was overturned on appeal to the High Court. That example highlights this State's failure in respect of the identification of victims of trafficking. In addition, a case earlier this week raised a number of questions regarding how victims continue to be treated. According to reports on Monday, four young women from Romania appeared before Galway District Court where they pleaded guilty to operating a brothel. While the women stated that they were working for themselves, gardaí believed they lacked the wherewithal to organise themselves and were most likely to have been trafficked into the country by either a Dublin or Belfast-based pimp group. There were very young women, most of them were in their very early 20s. Despite the reservations of the Garda, all of those women were each fined €200.

If we are to approach prostitution in this manner, it is vital that gardaí are trained in recognising victims of trafficking and that suspected victims do not face prosecution - that is the fear. Similarly, when two or more prostitutes choose to work from the same location for safety, they should not be prosecuted for brothel keeping unless there is clear evidence that one is profiting from the work of others. As the law still stands, if two prostitutes work together, they can be accused of brothel-keeping. Are we going to force a situation where women working in the sex trade will be forced to work alone in order to get around this issue and to avoid prosecution under this legislation, obviously putting themselves at further risk? There are significant issues here.

I very much welcome the provisions in respect of the purchase of sexual services and, in the context of trafficking generally, Part 4. Most of the principles involved in that are right but I would caution that gardaí need training and resources. Also, we need to properly invest in and resource the support services that should be provided for women who find themselves in this situation. The Immigrant Council of Ireland is very much supportive of this aspect as well. I am of the view that it can be effective in tackling the growing issue of trafficking.

In respect of women involved in the sex trade who have not been trafficked, these are Irish women in the main, we know that the vast majority of those women got involved in prostitution for socioeconomic reasons. Again. we must ask why is that the case. Why do women find themselves in such vulnerable and desperate situations that they have to turn to prostitution in order to survive? I am not talking about women who would claim that they entered into this trade freely. The vast majority are under duress and are forced, as a result of their socioeconomic circumstances, to enter this trade in order to raise money, very often for their children. What impact will this legislation have on them? Where will it leave them? Will they be in an even more vulnerable situation? Will they be in even more danger? We need to rethink that. Certainly the vibes coming from Sweden, and later Norway, a number of years ago were that the indications were very positive but there is some rethinking of that now. It seems the new legislation has certainly acted a deterrent for the purchasers of sex but it has also acted as a deterrent for women or men contemplating going into the sex trade.

There are questions remaining about people already working in that trade to ensure their position is not made even more vulnerable and precarious as a result of this legislation. To some extent, the solutions are legislative ones, which I have indicated, in respect of the existing law not being amended and the fact we are not decriminalising people engaged in prostitution. There are also significant resource issues that must be addressed.

With regard to this legislation, leaving aside Part 4, the vast bulk of it is very much to be welcomed. I fully appreciate the intent of Part 4. Its intent is very admirable and to a large extent correct in its principle. The operation of this new kind of legislation needs to be reviewed. We should revisit some of the aspects of Part 4 in light of the experience in Sweden in particular. On that basis, the Social Democrats are not opposing the legislation but we will propose amendments to it on Committee State which I hope the Tánaiste will be open to considering. I agree with calls from a number of Members of the House that there should be some kind of a sunset clause to enable us to see how the operation of this legislation goes. We need to review it after 12 or 24 months because we cannot be sure that, in the case of some very vulnerable people, it will not make the situation worse. With those comments, I complete my contribution.

See this speech in context