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

This is the first debate in which I have engaged since the new rules were introduced by the Oireachtas Sub-Committee on Dáil Reform. Essentially, we are meant to cover between five and six very complex amendments in seven minutes. This needs to be reviewed in light of the practical application of it because I think everybody agrees that this is an extremely complex Bill. It is unfortunate that many different things ranging from sexual offences to prostitution and sex work have been put into one Bill. They are huge and complex areas with many differences between them. To try to speak on particular amendments and the entire Bill in effect in seven minutes is extremely difficult.

There have been some important progressive changes in this Bill, some of which we argued for. Examples would be a legal definition of consent, for which rape crisis centres argued; the deletion of the criminalisation of sex workers with regard to loitering, for which many people, including myself, argued; and increasing penalties for criminal gangs which organise trafficking or prostitution. Those are positive elements in the Bill.

However, many other amendments for which we have argued have not been taken on board. For example, there has been no change in the definition of brothel keeping so that one or two sex workers not living off each other's earnings could still be harassed. Another example is the refusal to rule out going after the finances of sex workers. The amendments we are approaching will have a bearing on how people vote on the Bill. In respect of amendment No. 17, there is a difference between what we are proposing and what the Minister is proposing. The Minister proposes to review the ban on the purchase of sex but not to take up anything broader than that. Our amendment to amendment No. 17 proposes reporting within two years on arrests and convictions for all existing prostitution-related offences, the new offences created under Part 4 of the Bill dealing with prostitution with information aggregated by gender and offence, the nature and extent of prostitution that may be linked to human trafficking and the impact of all laws on prostitution-related offences and the safety and well-being of persons who engage in sexual activity for payment.

We are proposing a much broader review to see what the impact will be, particularly of the criminalising of the purchase of sex. The Minister has not agreed to that.

Amendment No. 21 is extremely important and I will be pressing it. This amendment calls for a review and an outline of exit services for sex workers who want to get out of prostitution and sex work. People have suggested this is the Nordic model, of which I have criticisms, but it is not even the Nordic model because that model was accompanied by a number of supports that are not even envisaged by the Bill.

I believe that buying sex is an expression of power over another person. Some 99% of buyers of sex are male; it reflects the gender inequality in society. Therefore, I would be sympathetic to women, trade unionists and others who are calling for the criminalisation of the purchase of sex. However, the Bill provides zero exit strategies to accompany that move. No special measures are being introduced and no social services are in place to ensure that criminalisation does not make conditions more dangerous for sex workers. On that basis, I cannot support the Bill and will abstain on it.

Obviously, we need a transformation in our society's cultural attitudes. We have a male patriarchal society which objectifies women. We also have massive economic inequality which leads to many women and vulnerable transgender and LGBT people engaging in prostitution, which will persist until we eradicate those attitudes. It is very unfortunate that the Minister is not willing to countenance very important amendments and for that reason it is very difficult to support it. While the Bill contains progressive elements, the Minister should have taken on board the amendments we proposed.

See this speech in context