Rónán Mullen (Independent)

The Minister of State is correct. It was in the Dáil that she was referred to merely as a social anthropologist. When I asked him to identify her, he kindly did. I do not seek to equate the devil with the Government in reminding Members of Shakespeare's observation that the devil can cite scripture for his purpose. It is easy to create a cloud of misunderstanding or ambiguity by saying there are people on both sides of this argument. I remind the Minister of State that Ruhama, which has the best record of caring for persons in prostitution, is clear about what it wants. It wants this legislation to criminalise the users of persons in prostitution. It argues that such a law is needed in the interests of the people in question and for the sake of civil society. Ruhama does not believe we should continue to have such an unhelpful and negative attitude towards women.

I am interested to note that countries near Sweden have been rethinking their positions, although no unanimous position has been reached. While not everybody in Norway is satisfied to follow the Swedish model, which has been in force since 1999, some Norwegian political parties are giving consideration to developing their law in accordance with that model.

I wonder whether the Government has a serious interest in fresh thinking on this issue. The Minister has said that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is keeping the laws on prostitution in other countries under continuing review. How has the Department carried out that review? Whom has the Department consulted? Has it consulted Ruhama and the women who use Ruhama's services? What conclusions have been reached on foot of the Department's legislative review?

We need to bear in mind how enormously the prostitution and sex industry scene has changed since this country's most recent legislation in that regard was introduced in 1993. The advent of mobile telephones and Internet technology, etc., has made it easier for users to access people in private, away from the streets. Therefore, it is now all the more desirable to introduce clear laws which deter users from engaging in activity of this nature.

Last Friday's news reports told us about the conviction of a pimp who would not have been caught if it were not for sheer luck and the commitment of a designated vice squad. The man in question was caught when he walked into an apartment that was being used as a brothel while the vice squad was carrying out surveillance on the apartment. What has the Government done to equip gardaí with legislation as they try to police the sex industry? The 2008 scene is very different from that of 2003. What type of resources have been made available to Operation Quest? Is the vice squad operating throughout the country, rather than just in Dublin? Has there been a huge increase in the resources available to it?

As the sex industry expands in all parts of this country, it is interesting that Garda resources for the Dublin vice squad have been cut considerably, if I am not mistaken. What conclusions have been reached by the Government on issues like the advertising of prostitution on the Internet and the use of mobile telephones? What is its view on the running of lap dancing clubs and massage parlours and the provision of call-out sexual services, some of which directly exploit persons in prostitution and others of which provide a mask or a semi-legal environment in which prostitution can take place?

If we seriously want to address prostitution and protect vulnerable children, women and men, as the Swedish authorities have been courageous enough to do, we need legislation which criminalises users. Substantial resources need to be made available to those, such as the Garda sources I have quoted, who want to tackle the sex industry, particularly those who recognise that it involves tackling the users as well as the providers. As in the case of the alcohol industry, one does not just tackle the supply — one also tries to tackle the demand. While we are not seeking to criminalise those who use alcohol, we are trying to educate them in order that they choose to change their habits. Perhaps it would cost too much for the State to keep people out of prostitution. If there is an unwillingness to engage in the serious transformative social change that is needed if we are to deal with this issue properly, it is a major tragedy.

It does not take much to determine the human cost of prostitution. Roger Matthews, who is professor of criminology at South Bank University in London, was interviewed in The Guardian recently about his new book, Prostitution, Politics and Policy. He is entirely against liberal solutions to prostitution. I admit that the Government is not proposing liberalisation in this legislation. He completely disagrees with the notion of legalisation, as he believes punters should be deterred. According to Professor Matthews, "murders such as those in Ipswich are actually the tip of a very large iceberg". He believes that many women are in extreme danger. As he puts it, "I have never met a happy hooker". The remarks of Professor Matthews should concentrate the minds of those — not necessarily in this House — who claim that engagement in prostitution is somehow an expression of free choice. The article in The Guardian states, "the most important lesson learned in Sweden, says Matthews, was the need to treat the women in prostitution completely differently from the men who buy them". Are we doing that in this legislation?

I remind all concerned that we are not talking about something that is hugely removed from the issue of trafficking. If one tackles the users of persons in prostitution, one will reduce the market and thereby remove the lifeblood of those who are involved in the trafficking industry. This amendment, for the purposes of which I have adopted the Government's preferred language, proposes to criminalise anyone who "solicits or importunes another person, in any place". I emphasise, in order that there is no possible misunderstanding, that this amendment would not criminalise just the person who solicits a person in prostitution in the street. It seeks to target the person in the brothel who accepts the proposal that is made to him or her to avail of the services of a person in prostitution.