David Norris (Independent)

I approve of the vast majority of this motion. I have followed this issue for a number of years and, together with other Members on both sides of the House, I have promoted a number of the motion's recommendations for some years. I also have followed the work done by organisations such as Ruhama and from what I recall of its work, this motion appears to follow closely its requests to have certain aspects of the law amended to protect victims who in most cases are women and who are not given the proper, full protection of the law. I strongly support all these elements in this motion.

However, I do not support the final clause, which calls on the Government "to follow the lead of Sweden, Norway and Iceland by criminalising the purchase of sex so as to target the demand for the sex exploitation industry". This is a recipe for disaster and is hypocritical. It is particularly hypocritical to use Sweden as an example because the very people who promoted this idea are the same people who, over the past ten, 20 or 30 years, used to point to Sweden and regard it as a godless Protestant country that had the highest rate of suicide in Europe. While this was rubbish, they got away with it. They now conveniently trail Sweden in front of Members' noses as a bait because they think Members will jump simply because Sweden did it. However, those Members who have a slightly more sophisticated view of history will remember that among other things, Sweden supplied Hitler with ball bearings during the Second World War and has a serious problem with right-wing hooliganism. Simply because something happens in Sweden does not mean one should automatically gollop it down uncritically. The same is true if Norway and Iceland do the same thing.

In this matter, I am supported by no less than a great doctor of the church, namely, Thomas Aquinas. I am reliably informed of this by an acquaintance who is a leading member of the Iona Institute, who only today stated that he also would have difficulty with this on a practical basis. He pointed out that Thomas Aquinas had stated one must recognise that man was essentially vicious and that the legalisation of prostitution was the lesser of two evils. I hope no one will suggest that, in promoting this idea or at least suggesting it should be discussed, I am anti-Catholic as no one who supports Thomas Aquinas could be so regarded.

I make this point because I have sympathy with the unfortunate people who find themselves in prostitution. I remember well the day in this House - I believe it was in 1993 - when Máire Geoghegan-Quinn introduced legislation decriminalising homosexuality. As usual however, tacked onto it was something about prostitution. I always found that to be irritating because I did not find it flattering, as a respectable old fairy, to be everlastingly shackled to the tarts. On the other hand however, I stated then and continue to believe that I did not want to get my freedom at the expense of other marginalised elements in society.

I believe such people will be damaged further because prostitution will not stop. Does any Member actually think that prostitution will cease because legislation has been passed? As it has never happened anywhere in the last 4,000 or 5,000 years, why should it happen in holy Catholic Ireland? It beats me. Moreover, if these women are driven out of comparative security, they will be beaten to a pulp, will be infected and will infect other people. The right way is to consider this matter in an adult fashion and to provide some method of recognition and protection and to look after the health and safety interests of the women who work in this area. This may not be pleasant and I doubt whether any Member would welcome having a woman or man who worked in this area as a family member because one would feel pained and frightened on that person's behalf. However, Members should not be hypocritical and should not pretend that by driving it underground or into places such as the Phoenix Park or down the docks and in back alleyways, that they will be doing anything for such women, because they most definitely will not. I do not give a damn what individual or organisation states this would help them because I disagree.

For that reason, and my view is completely consistent, it is not appropriate to criminalise those who pay for such services. I make this point from personal experience. For a number of years, there was a brothel in the basement next to me in North Great Georges Street. On one occasion when the woman was being beaten up, I was obliged to intervene and I protected her. I did not avail of her services but it was quite a moving experience because I encountered her as a human being and realised what was going on in that place. On a Saturday evening I often swept my step and I saw many people coming from there, some of whom were quite familiar names in Irish public life. While they got a hell of a shock on seeing me, I never have disclosed a single name and never would. These were professional people, some of whom were in religious professions. What about their families? What would be the point of dragging them through the courts and exposing their families to further hurt, embarrassment and shame?

Holland has not been mentioned so far in this debate because it has not taken the step proposed in this motion. The Dutch approach may appear radical and perhaps it is. Holland provides sexual relief for handicapped people as part of its national health system. That is startling at first, but I think it is wonderful. If one is deformed or disabled, if one feels one is unattractive or if one has some awful medical condition, it must be wonderful to be touched in an intimate way and given pleasure by another sympathetic human being. I cannot condemn it. I will not vote to approve the criminalisation of people in this way. It would be too easy. It would be too much of a luxury for those of us who are lucky to have or have had a happy and full, physical and intimate, sexual relationship, which is one of the greatest joys of being alive. I do not think it would be appropriate to deal with this sector by criminalising those involved in it. If we were to do so, we may regret it. We may think this activity is tawdry, shoddy and regrettable, we may think it is a pity that everybody cannot enjoy a fuller, more balanced and more harmonious relationship, but that does not mean we should drag those involved into court. Come on; let us grow up, for God's sake.