Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

First, it is important to say that there are many very good aspects to the Bill. The issue of dealing with sexual offences is long overdue. However, the Bill is so big and deals with so many different and diverse areas that its weakness lies in trying to do too much. We run the serious risk of leaving ourselves open to doing damage where none is intended. Some of the areas can be addressed through amendment at a later stage, such as issues of consent, people with disabilities and so on. However, Part 4 on the proposal to criminalise the purchase of sex is, to my mind, not amendable and should be withdrawn if this Bill is to go further. The reason for that is quite simple. The Government's position in putting this forward is done from a point of view that we would all agree with, namely, a desire to end prostitution and to protect sex workers. We would love to do that. However, my starting point is that the legislation has the very real potential to do the opposite of what it intends to do and place sex workers in more danger rather than less. We have to take that on board. I do not say it lightly. I say it in light of the very serious research that has been done in this area.

The current proposal before us contrasts sharply with international trends that are moving in the direction of recommending decriminalisation of sex work as the best way of dealing with this complex and multifaceted issue. That decision or trend is based on research and data-based evidence. Anything we legislate for should be based not on emotion or generalisations but on research and data. It is interesting that a month or two ago, Deputy Catherine Martin asked the Minister for Justice and Equality a question about the research carried out before the drafting of this legislation. The Minister in her response correctly pointed out the difficulty in collecting data when she said, "This is owing, at least in part, to the covert nature of the activity and the understandable reluctance on the part of individuals to identify themselves as sellers or buyers of sex." If that was the case before this legislation, introducing a criminal penalty to sex work will make it even more covert and hidden and lessen further the chances of us getting those data. How can we measure whether something is successful if we have not done the homework beforehand or we do not know the starting point?

The experience of other countries is that anything that changes the dynamic between the buyer and the seller of sex can have the effect of disempowering the sex worker and putting sex workers under greater risk. Where buyers of sex face a risk of prosecution, they are inevitably going to take steps to avoid attention. It makes perfect sense. That essentially means making the activity less visible. Some people might like that, but the consequence of it is that the health and safety of sex workers are being threatened.

A huge amount of evidence has come to light since this legislation was first drafted in 2013. That evidence is not being taken into account. The debate on this issue has moved on. Since the time the legislation was first mooted, we have had the first and only comprehensive island-based research into this precise area through a study done by Queen's University Belfast. It is incredibly comprehensive and it is incredibly clear. The overwhelming majority of sex workers and their clients would not be deterred from the activity if this legislation were introduced. They would feel more unsafe and, in fact, their experience since then has been that the activity is more unsafe. It is a key flaw that the legislation does not take account of the evidence from other jurisdictions where this type of model has been put forward or of the changes that have taken place. Critically, the lack of consultation with those involved in the activity is quite glaring.

I find it utterly condescending that people would make comments about other people's lives without asking them first. Sex workers, like everybody else, are not a generic group. People end up in the activity through many different routes. Anybody who tries to say they are all the same, all victims, all drug addicts or all trafficked is not seeing the entire picture. To have a consultation process on draft legislation which saw only two people currently engaged in sex work make an appearance before the justice committee, despite months of deliberations, and saw those who organise sex workers in Ireland have only a one-hour meeting with the Minister is not good enough. It is silencing a legitimate voice in our society. It is very much doing the opposite of what we are saying we are doing. I find that regrettable.

It is utterly in contrast with the incredibly interesting approach taken by the Union of Students in Ireland, USI. The USI's consultation was about 20 times bigger than the consultation of the Minister's office, and the USI is not even bringing in legislation. It spoke to men and women, trans men and women, current students, ex-students, Irish and non-Irish and, as a result of that engagement with students who engage in sex work, it changed its policy. It moved from a position of supporting the idea the Government is putting forward as the best way of dealing with the activity to a different position. I believe that is incredibly important. It carried out a two-year research programme and provided an environment for students to talk safely without being shamed. It is worth pointing out that its evidence showed that, in response to the growing cost of education, there has been a comparative rise in students engaging in sex work. How could there not be? It is the economic imperative that is again putting that so-called choice or limited choice, or whatever one wants to call it, in front of those people. As a result of that engagement, the USI now fully supports decriminalisation.

It is not the only one. Many organisations are beginning to look again at this issue, yet the legislation has not caught up.

The Migrant Rights Centre Ireland reviewed its position and concluded that Part 4 of the Bill is a knee-jerk reaction and that the legislation needs to be clear or else it will cause more damage. The centre's view is that sex workers themselves are best placed to assist the Garda and victims of trafficking. It took the view that the regularisation of the undocumented is far more important than criminal legislation. Amnesty International, HIV Ireland, the UN special rapporteur on health, the Global Commission on Health, the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization and countless other bodies all support the model of decriminalisation of sex work. Why would these reputable human rights organisations support that view if sex work was trafficking and presented in that manner? Trafficking is an abhorrent crime which is already criminalised. That should be even more the case, and those who conduct it should be severely punished. We have laws to deal with the issue.

Other Deputies spoke about children being involved. It is criminal to have sex with children and that should remain the case. It is criminal to engage in violence against women. Whether a woman is involved in sex work or not, it is a criminal action and we have laws dealing with that. We should enforce the legislation in this regard. Of course trafficking and violence go with what is badly called the "sex industry". They are very much part and parcel of it, but there are laws in place dealing with those aspects of it. Conflating that with a consensual arrangement between two adults takes away the limited resources of the State in its ability to be able to deal with that.

Let us look at it in the following way. I am not in any way being flippant about it, but violence and bad attitudes to women exist regardless of whether sex work is involved. The statistics show that the most violent place for a woman to be is not working in the sex trade but in a relationship or married. Domestic violence is the biggest cause of harm and violence perpetrated against women but nobody is seriously putting forward the idea that we should ban relationships and outlaw marriage as a way of protecting women. That would be totally unrealistic. We need to educate society and invest the resources in order that women in that situation have the ability to leave violent relationships and we must educate men and women on how adult human beings should deal with each other in terms of human interaction.

It is unacceptable to say that the people involved in sex work do not know what they are talking about or that their views are not relevant. That might not be something people would like to hear. It is not an activity I would like to engage in myself or to have my daughter engage in, but many people who make the choice do so because their other options are limited. It is not necessarily their first choice but regardless of whether we like it, it is a rational choice and the only way to deal with it is to remove the barriers that put people in the situation whereby they have had to make such a choice, be it to get money for college fees, for their children or because they cannot get a decently paid job to allow them to be able to look after their children and organise childminding or whatever else. Unless we deal with those issues, then the compulsion or choice will remain. The day of Frank Duff’s moral crusade to save women is long gone. We must hear the voices of those engaged in sex work.

I will return to the comprehensive academic research conducted on this island with people in this situation and read its findings. One could not read the findings and support the model that is proposed by the Government in Part 4 of the Bill. Kate McGrew, one of the organisers of Sex Workers Alliance Ireland, SWAI, made the point that a crusade to shut down prostitution and to turn off the red light really just leaves them in the dark. That is not going to be a step forward. The idea of shaming sex workers or portraying the narrative in the context of men’s violence against women, assuming that all clients are male and all sex workers are female, is an imbalance. It is not the full story. Obviously, the issue is rooted in women’s inequality and how society is organised, but that is not the full picture. To say that the women involved have not made a rational choice that is best for them or that they do not know what they can do with their own bodies is not an appropriate way to go forward.

I do not have a great deal of time but some incredible testimony was given by students involved in sex work. One such was Keelin, aged 26, a sex worker from Cork. She is a student who had been active as a sex worker for five years. She made the point that there are no frills involved. It is not the way it is portrayed on the screen with "Belle de Jour" glamour or "Pretty Woman" where the clients fall madly in love with the sex worker. She said she did not feel a connection with her clients but she does have some clients of whom she is fond. She said she mostly works with men and that some of them had been disrespectful but none of them had been threatening and caused her harm. She said she knows that is not everybody’s experience but it was hers. She had met women who were forced into doing sex work, which is utterly awful, who want to leave but cannot. That should be examined. Bringing in this measure and criminalising what they do will not help them. She said those women would still be desperate and in need of money but they would be driven underground to get it. Her view was that supports are needed for those who want to leave the industry and safe working environments. She said the Bill would not do either. That statement is important.

The work by the barrister, Michael Lynn, and commissioned by Sex Workers Alliance Ireland, SWAI, is an incredibly well-grounded, academic and research-based piece of work in this area. He evolved into a position of coming to the conclusion that the Bill would violate the human rights of sex workers. His key points on that were, first, the lack of assessment of the real impact of the Swedish model, the fact that the penalties against brothel keeping and so on are likely to contravene the human rights of sex workers, and he was very critical of the fact that there is no review in the legislation.

There has been much talk about the Nordic or Swedish model but the reality is that this is really the American model, namely, to outlaw prostitution, criminalise the purchase of sex and it will all go away and we will not need to trouble ourselves about it. Sadly, there is no model, shortcut or magic formula to do that. The idea that by criminalising the purchase of sex one will minimise demand, that people will not want to engage the services of sex workers and that will in turn reduce the market for trafficking is utter nonsense and does not stand up to any serious examination of the research.

The points relating to Sweden are at best ambiguous. A report by the British Society of Criminology into the effects of Swedish laws on sex work published in 2014 found there were no reliable data to the effect that there was any overall decline in people selling sex and that the law had increased the dangers. The report said it made it harder for people to access harm reduction services, that people were not able to carry condoms in case they were caught and that buyers had more power, thus forcing sex workers to negotiate and go to an area in which they did not feel safe. The initial decline that was evident in street prostitution in Sweden is not unique to that country and it has been shown to be a correlating trend in other countries where new technology has been introduced and people do not go on the streets as much because they use the Internet among other changes. Bringing in this measure does not end prostitution or sex work. It just hides it better and that makes it more dangerous for the sex worker.

The most comprehensive report, which I will not have time to deal with in detail, carried out by Amnesty International on Norway, clearly stresses the lack of evidence to support any claim that the laws there have decreased prostitution at all. In Sweden it is said that at best they have not increased prostitution. The Nordic model in Norway has certainly not reduced prostitution. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, will be aware that Amnesty International has called on the Government to refrain from the criminalisation of any aspect of the transaction and instead to look at the 1993 Act and distinguish between the exploitation and coercion of a third party rather than third parties who do not cause harm. That has been a recurring theme of some of the other speakers. Everybody knows that pimps and people who profit off women, using violence and emotional abuse, are reprehensible and should be dealt with, but often working with another person is one's best protection, be that two sex workers working together or a friend a person might employ as security to watch his or her back. However, if a person wants to take those measures, under existing legislation that third party could lead the person to come under the umbrella of the Act.

In that sense, I think all the evidence suggests that the criminalisation of any aspect of consensual adult sex makes sex workers more vulnerable rather than less vulnerable. Sadly, that is the unfortunate reality of it.

Deputies have referred to the case in Galway yesterday. I thought it was interesting that the sergeant in court referred to women between the ages of 20 and 30 as "little girls" who would not have "the wherewithal" to organise things for themselves. The State claimed that these women were trafficked, but they denied this. What does it say about our laws if the State is bringing to court and prosecuting women it considers to be victims of trafficking? If we fine them and thereby take from them what limited money they have, how do we expect them to pay? The only experience these sex workers have to draw on as they seek to pay these fines is to engage in more sex work. Even though this type of approach was adopted for the best reasons when measures were pursued by previous Governments in other jurisdictions - they thought they were doing the right thing for their societies by distinguishing between the third parties who were violating people and the women who were involved in that activity - sadly, those laws have already been used to undermine the position of the women everyone wants to protect. I do not think anybody wants sex workers to be injured as a result of this legislation. We have to step back and look at what has happened in other jurisdictions. We need to be aware that if we go down this road, it is likely that our actions will have unintended consequences.

It is very important that we consider amendments on Committee and Report Stages. I know there has been a move to provide for the legislation to be reviewed after 12 months. I suggest the benefits of doing that would be negated by the continuing inclusion of the clause I have mentioned in the interim. If we include this clause, as night follows day sex work in Ireland will be driven even further underground than it is now. As the Minister has said previously, this would make it even more difficult to get the evidence - not the emotion - to achieve what I think all of us want to achieve, which is a society in which women are respected and the human rights of sex workers are respected rather than undermined. All the research shows that we are going in the wrong direction. I urge the Minister to consider that this debate is now very different from how it was when it started three or four years ago. Many organisations with a long history of protecting women's rights and human rights have changed their positions in light of experience. We are lucky in the sense that the delay in introducing legislation in this country has allowed us to catch up with the changed debate and to introduce the best practice model rather than a model that has proven not to have the impact that other countries and jurisdictions thought it would have.

See this speech in context