Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Anti-Austerity Alliance) | Oireachtas source

This is a very complex Bill that deals with legal changes to a very wide range of sexual offences. There are some generally welcome attempts to fill gaps, particularly in existing laws on sexual offences against children relating to child sex abuse, child pornography, child sex tourism and statutory rape. However, the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, ISPCC, has raised the omission of risk assessment guidelines and post-release supervision of child sex offenders, which should be addressed on the next Stage.

Regarding sexual crimes against adults, there is another important omission. It has been referred to by other speakers. I refer to the call by the Rape Crisis Network of Ireland for the specific inclusion of a definition of consent in the Bill. The issue of presumed consent is now a critical issue in sexual offences, especially for young people, and is regularly argued by the defence in rape cases in court. The Ministers had months to address this, and it is extremely disappointing that it has not been included in the Bill. The Anti-Austerity Alliance will table an amendment to rectify this.

It is also inexplicable that a request from the Rape Crisis Centres for a range of measures that would more positively assist rape victims have not been included, such as helping people to take court cases to their conclusions, a ban on the cross-examination by defendants of alleged victims, in certain cases by video link, and a ban on the worrying practice lately of judges' allowing financial compensation to be used by the culprit without any reference to the victim. These matters should be considered.

Regarding Part 4, which relates to prostitution and sex work, mindful of the wishes of many of those involved in the sex industry and how they wish to define themselves, I will hereafter use the words "sex workers" rather than "prostitutes", which is a misogynistic, loaded term in any case. However, that is not to say that an equal comparison can be made between selling one's labour and being compelled to sell one's body. Violence and rape are prevalent within prostitution. Socialists are opposed to the sex industry as a massive, global, profit-making industry. Under capitalism, everything becomes a commodity, including women's bodies, as well as the bodies of trans people and vulnerable young males involved in prostitution. The industry is obviously gendered. It profits from sexism and oppression. It both reflects and then perpetuates the oppression of women and girls. Buying sex is an example of exerting one's power over another human being, and most of those who work in the sex industry do so due to a lack of choices: migrant women, poor women, women with addictions etc. Of course, a small minority does have the freedom to choose to be involved but it is overrepresented in many of the debates.

The Socialist Party does not pass any judgment on those who work in the sex industry, whatever their reasons. The industry does perpetuate a culture, however, that women's bodies are objects and commodities and that women's sexual desires are subservient to those of men. This has an impact in wider society of women suffering harassment, violence and sexual violence in a macho culture that is pushed. When Ministers give interviews about there being a need for prostitution in society, whose needs do they mean and who should serve those needs? Over 99% of the buyers of sex are men, and the majority of sellers are women, including many trans women. We support the idea that men who believe in equality should not buy sex, that trade unions should campaign on this matter and that we should have education on it. However, we should have secular schools where there is progressive, LGBTQ-positive sex education in the first place that discusses consent and educates young men that women's own desires and sexual needs are as important as theirs. People might have read the article in The Guardianentitled "Why men use prostitutes". I do not have time to go into it. However, regarding laws about the sex trade and provisions in this Bill, I do not have any illusions that laws will end the exploitation of women or trans people involved in the sex industry. As long as there is gross material inequality, which is growing daily, and the sexism we see under capitalism, the sex trade will continue.

I am utterly opposed to the discredited Netherlands and German model, whereby pimping has essentially been legalised. It has massively grown the sex industry with horrific consequences for many people. However, it is very important to say we support sex workers' rights and the elimination of any risks to sex workers. I am disgusted and disturbed by the fact that this Bill continues aspects of criminalising women, men and trans people for selling sex. The Anti-Austerity Alliance will table amendments to stop the criminalising of sex workers, for example, to delete paragraph (c) as inserted by section 25, which concerns loitering for street prostitution. We will also table an amendment to exclude the criminalisation of two women working together in a brothel, not pimping, one not benefiting from the proceeds of the earnings of the other. Sex workers should not be subject to harassment and prosecution and it is utterly backward that the Tánaiste has not taken these amendments on board.

Reference has already been made to the court case on Monday in which four Romanian women had money taken from them on arrest and were further fined €200 each by a judge. What benefit is that to anybody? Then, of course, they were deported. The Government has sent out a signal with that. We support stronger measures to criminalise pimping, trafficking and the organising of prostitution and to increase dramatically up to €1 million the fines on those who organise prostitution, as opposed to the current €1,000 to €5,000, which is not a deterrent at all. We will table amendments to that effect and we will not support or vote for legislation that continues to criminalise sex workers. We will also table amendments to ensure, as I said, that women who are independently working but together for more safety are not criminalised.

I want to comment on the criminalisation of the buying of sex and the impact it can have on the sex industry, especially if it is not accompanied by real supports. Women are likely to continue to be involved in prostitution and there could certainly be an increase in risk. The basis of the sex industry is twofold. First, there is a sexist culture in society, which is reflected in men buying women, and second, poverty and oppression mean vulnerable women still have a lack of choices. For the vast majority who sell sex, this is the case. Only those of a small unrepresentative section within the sex industry have many other choices but choose to sell sex. On the first point, the Government and the Irish State have an absolutely appalling record of doing anything that would benefit women. It is ludicrous that a country with the eighth amendment, for example, would now pose itself as being somehow progressive on women's rights, despite our history of the Catholic Church controlling people's lives, the Magdalen laundries, symphysiotomy etc. On the second point, the Government is doing nothing. This legislation is not accompanied by any serious measures that would give supports to vulnerable people who are involved in prostitution and sex work.

This certainly is not the Swedish model, although the Government may have thought it was. The Swedish model was originally introduced in the context of a movement against sexism in Sweden, but legal changes were accompanied by major investment in social services to aid sex workers to exit the industry. There is nothing included in the Bill on help for drug addiction. There is nothing that relates to the case of the Romanian women in the sex industry who, instead of being assisted, were instantly deported. How will that assist women to get out of prostitution? The two things are absolutely non-existent in this legislation. The Government is showing no concern in that it is not providing them. While I would be sympathetic to the idea of criminalising the purchase of sex in that it is wrong to purchase sex and criminalising it sends that message, I am very sceptical that it would have a positive impact unless it was accompanied by massively increased supports, health care, specially trained gardaí to report crimes, counselling for people, education and training, and language classes to assist women and vulnerable people to exit the sex trade.

I believe it is much more likely that those things will come about when there is a movement for women's rights in this country. We need only look at the Repeal the Eighth movement as a recent positive example of that. Such a movement would fundamentally challenge sexism and inequality, fight for the separation of church and State, challenge private ownership of wealth and the worshipping of the private sector, build the homes that people need and give people a decent life in order that they are not forced into the sex industry in the first place.

See this speech in context