Joe O'Toole (Independent)

Okay. I understand that this is a tricky and difficult issue for the Minister of State to deal with. I recognise that a great deal of side discussion, etc., is taking place in this regard. We need to examine a number of matters. While amendment No. 14, in my name, proposes to amend the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993, its intent is very much in line with that of amendment No. 8. The only difference is that my amendment is more concise. It is important that I establish from the outset that its relevance is rooted in the fact that a significant proportion of young women who are trafficked are trafficked for the purposes of prostitution. That is how the issues of trafficking and prostitution become connected. The Minister of State has linked them in his comments on various sections of the legislation.

Prostitution is a triangle in the sense that three groups of people — pimps, prostitutes and punters — are generally involved in it. While prostitution is a criminal offence, just two of the three sets of people involved are criminalised. The amazing thing about last week's case, to which Senator Mullen referred, is that while it is an offence to run, keep or organise a brothel or live off the immoral earnings of a brothel, it is not an offence to use a brothel. Even though the money paid by those who use brothels keeps them in business — prostitution is entirely focused on punters — we do not take any action against such people. The issue that arises in this context is whether the State should be involved in moral issues. I am raising this as more of an ethical, civil rights and human rights issue than a moral issue. That is where I come from on it. There is an offence in the prostitution area called "living off immoral earnings". The question of whether we are straying into a moral area does not arise because we have been doing so since 1860, including in 1993. The moral question is not a new one. Many of us might ask whether we should get into that, but that does not affect this argument in any way.

The people who use the brothel, who keep the whole process going, on whom it is focused and whose money supports it are the only ones who can walk away scot-free. There is something wrong with that. If prostitution is a criminal offence, why is the person who gets the benefit of it in terms of personal pleasure let off the hook?

I have taken a different approach from that of Senator Mullen for the following reason. The Minister of State will recall that I examined closely the 1993 Act. When I table an amendment, I always try to make it as incremental as possible. I prefer an incremental change rather than a revolutionary one because change must be managed and a gradual approach is required. The Minister of State should consider the impact of what I propose.

Last week the Minister of State said that prostitution was a crime under the 1993 Act. At one stage, I disagreed with him but part of my argument was wrong. The person engaging in prostitution — the client — can be found guilty of a criminal offence under the 1993 Act. There is, however, a conundrum, although we are agreed up to this point. If a guy avails of the services of a prostitute in a street or public place, they are both guilty if charged, as is the pimp who organised it. If we move them off the street, it is no longer a crime for one of those three people. That bamboozles me. The only way one can interpret that is to say we do not want people doing that type of thing in the street but it is okay if they do it somewhere else. The fact it is happening in a street or public place makes it a public order issue.

How can the State, which considers it a crime for a person to live off the immoral earnings of prostitution, at certain times consider prostitution as a public order issue? If that is the case, it is appalling. I do not know what moral or ethical standard we would apply if we came to that conclusion. I do not want to put words in the Minister of State's mouth because I do not know if that is the case. I am working my way through this.

I have read all the Acts dating back to 1860, including the 1930 Act which, I believe, referred to street order or street loitering. It is a process, there is a continuum and it is a clearly understood position. It would appear there was a view that no action would be taken against the person using the prostitute. Surely that cannot be right. If the Minister of State says he understands what I have said but the Government is not prepared to take a position on it, I would understand that. It would be logical, although I would not agree with it. I cannot find any logic in the arguments against what I propose.

The point was made from the Government benches last week that we should consider what happened in Ipswich and what people have learned about the prostitutes there. This is no "Pretty Woman" or happy hooker scene. These people are coping with addiction, desperation, phobias, mental illness and poverty. As was said last week, those are the issues and I completely agree with that.

I do not put this forward from a prudish or necessarily moral point of view. Although I believe it is a moral issue, I am not coming from that point of view at this stage. Human rights, civil rights, ethical issues and a sense of equity are driving me at this point. In this triangle of prostitution, the prostitute, the pimp and the punter are, at the very least, all equally guilty or they are all aiding and abetting if they are not acting. It is impossible to separate one from the other two.

I refer to the phrase "sex worker". It is almost as if one would sign up to being a sex worker when filling in the CAO form. I am not suggesting for one second that the Minister of State has said anything like that. However, there is an attempt outside the House to suggest that people decide whether to become a teacher, politician, factory worker or sex worker. The words "sex worker" are as unacceptable as is the word "nigger" in another situation. The words are unacceptable and should not be used by people. I do not say that to in any way admonish the Minister of State. The words come into the discussion as we find things at present and that is no reflection on him. The forces behind this huge industry use those words.

The other issue with which I wish to deal is the question of driving prostitution underground. I have tried to look logically, fairly and disinterestedly at this. Two out of three people will be criminalised but people have said that if the third person is criminalised, it will drive it underground. Are the other two people not interested in being underground and protected? We have criminalised two of three which does not seem to have driven it underground, although perhaps it has. Whether it has or has not, will somebody outline why including the third person would drive it underground? If we say it will drive it underground, what are we saying by not taking action? How does that reflect on us? What is our perspective and read on this? There are huge questions here.

I accept this is a very big issue. Society and democracy have feared addressing this issue which has been on our Statute Book since the 1860s, and perhaps it is a bit unfair to dump it on the lap of Minister of State. However, three quarters of an hour ago, a Minister took a decision here to decriminalise libel in all sorts of ways. It was the first time it was done in Europe. It is a huge issue about which we have talked for generations. This is an issue on which we could take a similar step which would be a model and a standard-bearer to be copied. It would give confidence in other ways.

Will the Minister of State consider my amendment on the basis that it looks in a fair and equitable way at apportioning blame and criminality to the protagonists in prostitution?

Those protagonists are the three "P"s, the pimp, the prostitute and the punter. Blame and criminality should be shared equally. Neither I nor anybody else here brought the word "moral" into the debate. Previous generations of legislators deemed it a crime to live off "immoral earnings". It is not for us to decide that this is a new step towards introducing morality into people's lives or interfering in morality in other ways. That has been done already.

The impact of my proposal is slight. I am not proposing a new crime. The 1993 legislation made it a crime to use the services of a prostitute, but restricted the crime to a street or a public place. If it is a crime, it is irrelevant where it takes place. It should be seen to be a crime and those who are guilty on a street should be equally guilty of taking advantage of, or exploiting, vulnerable people, prostitutes, wherever they choose to do so.

The argument in favour of taking appropriate action is overwhelming. I urge the Minister of State to respond in that way. This is not a party political issue. Members on the other side share my views and I am sure the views of the Minister of State would not differ greatly from mine. If the Minister of State cannot act on this tonight, will he indicate where, when and how he might act on it?