Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

We are deleting the whole section, yes. That is what happens when we do that.

I refer Deputies who have spoken to the most recent research that has been done regarding this issue. It is well worth reading. It has been done by the European Commission and the University of Lancaster. It was published in 2016. We have had a good deal of research quoted here. I can quote a good deal of very fine research that totally supports the approach I have taken. It concluded that the evidence for the harmful effects of the sex purchase law in Sweden was extremely weak. I point out to Deputies that this European Commission report recommended just last year that member states consider criminalising the purchase of sex. What is clear is that, legal or not, prostitution is an underground activity. It carries risks for all involved.

This new offence is about targeting the demand which feeds both the trafficking and the exploitation of persons for the purposes of prostitution. It is expected that, in time, this will reduce the numbers of young women and young men in prostitution which will result in an overall reduction in levels of harm. I put it to the House that that is a valid aim, and it is the very clear aim of this legislation.

It is interesting to look again at the very detailed study from just last year where it references the impact in Sweden of the legislation and the changes that have come about as a result in Sweden. It is called Study on the Gender Dimensions of Trafficking in Human Beings. The first point it makes is that 95% of these women are the victims of trafficking, mostly for the purposes of sexual exploitation. A small number are for labour exploitation. It highlights the impact of trafficking on women that is leading on to sexual exploitation. It refers to the seriousness of the very specific ways the bodies of trafficked women are abused. There is severe, brutal and long-term gender specific physical, gynaecological and mental health harm, risks to life, and trauma from trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation. It refers to the need to take account of all of this information on trafficking and prostitution and how much of prostitution is now dependent on trafficking. We see that in Ireland as well.

The study refers to demand reduction being a strategy that is absolutely appropriate. Somebody here said that demand reduction does not have anything to do with the issue. Of course, it does. It is a strategy to prevent trafficking by reducing the economic attraction of the institutions into which people may be coerced by traffickers.

Another point it makes about the introduction of this legislation in Sweden is the normative effect it has had on male behaviour. That is well worth thinking about. We have had a good deal of discussion here about sex workers and the rights of sex workers and I recognise the issues around danger. I have spoken about increased supports to Ruhama, for example, and other services. I take the broader economic point that we do not want to see women being forced into prostitution. It refers to the normative effect of the legislation on male behaviour or the threat of sanctions, how the market has decreased in Sweden, which has a smaller sex market than many other European countries and so on.

I can also quote the joint committee that looked at this and made this recommendation unanimously, and the European Parliament. I have never suggested there are not women who voluntarily engage in offering sexual services for payment, but I am convinced that the level of exploitation associated with prostitution must be tacked. To ignore that and to focus solely on the small numbers who engage voluntarily is to blindly ignore the exploitation and harm associated with prostitution.

I am very surprised at the lack of discussion by some contributors in the House about the harm of prostitution and its broader social context.

I would like to address some very particular points, if I have the time. To take Deputy Jan O'Sullivan's amendment, about which a number of Deputies have spoken, it would disapply the proceeds of crime legislation to the conduct set out. I have very serious concerns, and Deputy Jim O’Callaghan has also addressed this issue, about a specific exemption from the Proceeds of Crime Act because it could create opportunities for those who would seek to exploit such an exemption. For instance, the exemption of purchasing sexual services from criminal conduct with regard to the proceeds of crime could lead sex workers to being pressurised into holding moneys as legitimate-seeming fronts for pimps, traffickers and other organised criminal gangs. It could also make it more difficult for the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, to pursue proceeds of crime held by such people. For example, the CAB would be required to show a derogation from trafficking-related prostitution as distinct from non-trafficking-related prostitution. There are difficulties with going down the route of the amendment and I ask Deputy Jan O'Sullivan not to push it on this basis.

It is also the case that while the amendment would disapply the proceeds of crime legislation to money obtained by a person who offers sexual services, that money would still be the proceeds of criminal conduct for the purpose of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. To attempt to exempt the purchasing of sexual services in this respect could have potential effects on international obligations. It could have effects on the regulatory system for money laundering prevention and detection and the potential for sex workers to be used as legitimate-seeming fronts for holding money in the way I have described. The risks posed by it are too great and I cannot accept the amendment on this basis.

We have had a very extensive discussion on this legislation. When we discuss later amendments, I have built in various reviews because I absolutely take the point we need to review the legislation. We are joining many other countries which have moved in this direction and they have all thought about it, looked at it carefully and examined at the research. They include Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada, Northern Ireland and, in April last year, France. I accept there are different views on this, which are legitimately held, and there are different approaches but this is the approach I recommend at this point in time based on good evidence and certainly on built-in reviews, as have been requested by Deputies. I have looked at the research and the experience of states that have addressed prostitution in a different way. The goal of these provisions is primarily to target the trafficking and sexual exploitation of persons through prostitution. The Council of Europe and the European Parliament have recognised the effectiveness of the criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services as a tool in the fight against human trafficking.

See this speech in context