Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 19, to delete lines 3 to 38, and in page 20, to delete lines 1 and 2.

It is unfortunate that a number of complex issues are conflated in this Bill. By this I mean that there is a conflation in the construct of the Bill in the context of the issues of trafficking, coercion, sex work and, to a degree, pornography. However, they are all very different issues. The justification for this Bill lies largely in what is known as the Nordic model. I am of the view that the Bill fails to understand and recognise that the most recent research into that model raises very profound questions around the criminalisation of the purchasers of sex. When the Unite trade union women's committee had a debate on this issue a number of years ago, I was a lone voice in opposing the Nordic model on the basis of the arguments I propose to make this evening. These arguments were rejected by very progressive women in the trade union who are now having a rethink on the attitude of the union to their response to the Turn Off the Red Light campaign at that time. That is a fair and intelligent thing to do in the light of recent evidence and research, and arguments made by groups such as Amnesty, that criminalising the purchase of sex will drive sex workers into more dangerous and precarious lives and increase their vulnerability and has done so in the areas where this model has been introduced.

Targeting the purchase of sex is driving sex work underground. Where clients are in a position to demand more structures regarding how the act they are about to purchase takes place and the sorts of safe places in which they wish to buy the sex or have the work performed, sex workers are even more vulnerable.

Let me refer to Amnesty International which examined the Nordic model and talked to Nordic sex workers. It concluded that it would be much better to decriminalise all aspects of sex work. The Amnesty report refers to a larger problem that befalls sex workers owing to the criminalisation of the buyer. It examines what happened in Norway and patterns of police surveillance of sex workers and of evictions and deportations, particularly of migrant women, who in some cases rely almost totally on sex work. The report finds that because sex workers are now sometimes used as evidence in court to convict a buyer, practices such as carrying condoms can be used as evidence in a court case. Therefore, sex workers tend not to carry condoms as much as they would have done before the purchaser of sex became the criminal. It does not have to be stated that not protecting oneself while carrying out a sexual act, particularly with a stranger, is extraordinarily dangerous to one's health. In many cases, it has led to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, etc.

The reporting of violence, aggression and attacks has decreased among sex workers because they find complaints they make to the police often result in their being more harassed. There is no evidence that the criminalisation of the purchaser reduces the discrimination, stigma and violence experienced by sex workers. In reality, the Nordic model has increased the danger for sex workers. There is an urgent need to examine the evidence produced in many surveys. The survey by Amnesty International is particularly useful and broad. It refers to the utterly disgraceful circumstances of women seeking asylum and states their participation in sex work is often used against them to evict them and sometimes to deport them.

If we were to introduce this Bill, it would create all the dangers I have outlined for sex workers here. I refer in particular to sex workers living in direct provision and those who are refugees or migrants. The Bill would increase the risk and drive the whole business underground even further. It would do nothing to deal with the reality of the sex workers' lives. It would increase the sex workers' chances of being at the wrong end of the law and in the courts.

The Norwegian Government's own research found that criminalising the purchaser has the effect of strengthening and increasing the dependence of migrant sex workers on traffickers and exploitative third parties. When we examine the section that seeks to outlaw brothels and sex workers working together in groups of more than two, we will note that there is much evidence that the driving underground of sex work as an act or function also makes sex workers much more vulnerable. This Bill would worsen the lives of sex workers and increase the danger associated with their work and the danger to their health.

The purpose of our seeking to delete the section is to ensure all aspects of sex work and prostitution will be decriminalised. I refer to both the purchaser and sex worker. If we were to reach a point where we accepted this as the sensible norm, we could then regard our responsibility as legislating to provide supports, both educational and functional, to people who believe they are driven into sex work rather than those who have chosen it as a lifestyle. We are going about this in completely the wrong way. This is why we are arguing for the deletion of the entire section.

See this speech in context