Alex White (Labour)

The most important thing to remember in this debate is that this legislation deals with human trafficking. We have arrived at a high degree of agreement in these Houses, and in the country, on what the crime consists of, and what measures are required to combat it. The Minister of State has responded to concerns raised on this side of the House about the users of the services of trafficked persons and has proposed an amendment to deal with the issue.

While I do not criticise my colleagues for raising issues related to trafficking in the debate, I strongly counsel against our doing anything that would detract from the principal objective of this legislation, namely, to criminalise and enforce criminal sanctions against traffickers and trafficking to prevent this scourge. I counsel against taking the debate, at this relatively late hour, so far beyond the question of trafficking as to require a longer, fuller debate. Senator O'Toole said this is a huge issue, which it is. If it is to be debated here, as it has been in other countries, it ought not to be grafted onto another Bill. I do not deny that the issues are connected but it would be controversial to introduce the kind of measures Senators Mullen and O'Toole propose. There ought to be a wide public debate on this question rather than introduce it at this stage in this legislation. That could have the unintended effect of detracting from the principal objective of this legislation to deal with the scourge and scandal of trafficking.

It is a complex question. The evidence of the Swedish experience, to which other Senators and the Minister of State have referred, does not point to a settled conclusion. There are different views about its effect and about what the Swedish Government thinks of its effect. It is not as settled as the question of the need to combat trafficking. We have asked the Minister of State to change the legislation, which he has done in some cases. It all, however, falls under the rubric of introducing measures to deal with trafficking.

I do not wish to do precisely what I have suggested we ought not do but I wish to point out some of the issues that would require to be addressed were there to be a wider debate. Senator Mullen says it is all very well to talk of arguments about the oldest profession and so on and Senator O'Toole rails against the term "sex worker". While I understand his view, we would also need to respect the views of others, including people who are content to describe themselves as sex workers. Their voices must be heard. We would not be required to agree with them but they are part of the debate and we ought not be so dismissive as to say that people who so describe themselves are deluded in some way because the term offends people, which I can understand. We need to hear all the voices and as much of the evidence as we can gather if we are to have such a wide debate.

I agree with Senator Mullen's criticism of people being selective in their arguments, but perhaps we are all tempted to be selective in respect of the arguments that we like. It is fine for Senator Mullen to say that should not be done but he is in danger of doing it himself when he is so dismissive of some of the arguments made about prostitution. I do not object to our having that debate, but let us have it in its own right and not tag it onto this vitally important Bill on which the Minister of State, his officials and the Members of these Houses have done significant work. Let us get this tightly focused Bill into action and have a wider debate on prostitution. As legislators we must think not twice but ten times about introducing criminal offences which carry sanctions such as fines or periods of imprisonment. These are big calls for legislators. Senator Mullen is correct to say the law has an educational dimension.

To introduce sanctions on people being imprisoned is momentous and involves serious decisions. The law in the area of criminal legislation cannot just be seen as an educator. I am not suggesting Senator Mullen said this, but we cannot simply see the law as some form of declaratory entity, which shows how seriously we take matters and so forth. That is only part of the importance of law, but we must also have regard to the fact that it has real effects. Let us have such a debate, but not in the context of this item of legislation. That is my view.