Rónán Mullen (Independent)

It is important not to misconstrue, as I believe might be happening. It was Senator O'Toole who deplored the use of the term "sex worker". He is correct. It does not mean to say that there are not people who describe themselves as sex workers who may be perfectly sincere. It does not mean to say that we deny or would seek to deny the right of people, such as the person who appeared on the radio yesterday speaking for some women in prostitution, to express a viewpoint. However, it does mean to say that we are entitled to believe that they may be badly misled in their view.

I should not have to remind people that this is an issue, as Senator O'Toole stated, of civil rights, human rights and human dignity. It is important to speak with passion and to challenge the status quo way of thinking when one is speaking of protecting or seeking to protect other people. There have been cases through history where people blithely threw up arguments that there were two sides to a matter. In the end people's rights get ignored, not necessarily trampled on in every situation. Sometimes the people are quite well-meaning but, nonetheless, people's rights get ignored.

I look forward to a day when we see more clearly that one way, among many other necessary measures, we can have due regard for the equal dignity of men and women in our society is to criminalise those who would exploit other persons' bodies. It is simply unacceptable that there are certain people in our society, especially men, who in terms of their attitudes towards women see these kinds of services as ones that women can be legitimately expected to provide, provided of course that there is consent. That is why there is a problem with using terms such as "sex worker". I do not say that the Minister of State used it, although one of his colleagues in Government used it in a different context a few years ago when he referred to a commercial worker. That normalises the exploitation, primarily of woman. Let us be in no doubt about that.

I also note that Senator Alex White made many references to the fact that there is not agreement. Of course there is not agreement. There are few issues on which there is unanimity. Senator White referred to certain doubts in the Swedish establishment about their law. I would be interested to hear about those. The only doubts I heard from the Government came from those who are advocates for the commercial sex worker point of view, which is a point of view which people have a right to hold. I have described it as a pro-choice point of view which seeks to defend the business. However, I have shown it is difficult to speak of choice in a situation where there are no happy hookers, as I cited from The Guardian, and where people often find themselves, as Senator McDonald so eloquently suggested, in this business through circumstances of life which militate against any kind of free choice being exercised.

There is rarely unanimity on issues. There is an active lobby, which has found a listening ear in the Government, which seeks to oppose legislation according to the Swedish model. They have thrown up enough doubts, either to convince this Government intellectually or to enable this Government to choose the path it was going to choose anyway.

I am disappointed that I do not appear to have managed to convince people. I was surprised at the Minister of State, referring to me, state that the matter was not hugely unconnected. Let me be clear that what I am trying to get across is the point that it is difficult to separate the issue of the need to criminalise the users of persons in prostitution from the issue of trafficking.

The United States Trafficking in Persons, TIP, report is published annually and the Department will be familiar with it. This year at a meeting in the US embassy in Dublin attended by NGOs and representatives of the new anti-trafficking unit in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, it was interesting that our colleagues in the United States wanted to know what efforts countries were making to decrease the demand for trafficked persons. I hope I have made it clear that by creating a disincentive for the user, we would make the country a colder house for traffickers, because fewer persons would be willing to avail of the services traffickers are only too willing to provide.

This is an issue that will not go away. It is, in a way, a tragedy that we have to think twice about these amendments. The message should be as obvious as issues to do with the radical essential dignity between men and women and different races. I hope that day will come.

Senator O'Toole was particularly eloquent in exposing some of the bogus argument on this issue. Senator White referred to the law as an educator. He appeared to agree and disagree with me by turn. Take, for example, an issue such as infanticide. Clearly, the law does not seek to punish the person who commits infanticide, but nonetheless, it is a very much a part of trying to normalise a certain attitude towards a very tragic human situation that a criminal law exists. The comparison may not be great, but it should illustrate the fact that sometimes the law seeks to send out a message, but very much soft-pedals the issue of punishment.

In this situation the law seeks to send out a message towards the potential users. It does not so much seek to soft-pedal the issue of punishment, but seems to recognise that it might, in some cases, be difficult to get a prosecution. The hope would be that the mere fact that trafficking is criminal, would prevent certain people from seeking to avail of the services. I remind the Minister of State and Senator White that the Swedish experience has been that they have fewer trafficked persons into their country. We heard the argument on Committee Stage that one of the down sides of criminalising trafficking was that we would have dispersal. This as much as admits that the traffickers will go elsewhere because they will not find solace to the same extent.

I accept this amendment will not be accepted. However, I put the Minister of State and others on notice that the issue will not go away. The Minister of State is not the only person who has researched the issue. I believe the Government has not done enough research on it and has been selective in the choice of issues on which to lay stress. I remind it again that it does a disservice if it even implies that organisations such as Ruhama — I do not say the Minister of State did imply, but he came close to it——