Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I thank all those who spoke, including the Minister of State and Senators O'Toole, O'Donovan, Regan, Ormonde, Walsh, Norris and de Búrca. I regret, however, there were not more speakers given the importance of the issue. The Labour Party's women's group, in particular, has concerns very similar to mine. I am disappointed there was no representation from the Labour Party on this issue although it may have been due to circumstances beyond its control.

I thank Senator Regan for his insights. I explicitly agree with him on the importance of decriminalising the seller, namely, the prostitute. This is what has happened in Sweden and it would make sense here, not least because it would increase the likelihood of victims co-operating with the Garda, for example. Furthermore, doing so would recognise and put in its proper context the actual position of the person in prostitution who, to use patronising but traditional language, is much more to be pitied than condemned. The reality is that those who traffic such people and those who provise them as pimps are the real evildoers on that side of the equation. Those who avail of the so-called services of persons in prostitution both abuse and exploit those persons and perpetuate this ugly reality in our society.

In a general sense, I acknowledge much of what the Minister of State announced regarding the action plan. A lot of good is being done that I would not want to dispute but I felt that even as he was correcting us as though we were unaware of what was being done, it was coming across that there was and is a failure to consult. It may well make sense in one way that immigration gardaí would deal with the matter but, in another way, it is entirely inappropriate given the terror of law enforcement officers that may be experienced by those who have been trafficked into this country and who already have been abused and exploited. They are on the wrong side of the law to begin with in many cases because of their immigration status.

Let us, therefore, ignore party political considerations and try for a moment to empathise with those concerned and understand their circumstances. Doing so will explain why there is a need for the Government and those in authority to consult and involve the agencies that have walked the lonely journey with people in prostitution and those who have been trafficked. They should be involved in assessing why there is only a short waiting period of a number of days in Britain to avail of the relevant recovery and reflection mechanism. Only a handful of people in Ireland have been able to avail of it thus far. Why is there no quick recourse to it? One reason is that there is no consultation. Those who befriend those who have been trafficked are not incorporated into the process.

Many interesting and provocative points were made by Senators. I was particularly impressed by Senator O'Toole's excellent points on the way in which language gets sanitised. We use terms such as "sex worker" and people refer to prostitution as "the oldest profession". Let us get one thing very clear, there is no such thing as choosing to be in prostitution, as one will realise when one considers both the circumstances in which women in prostitution find themselves and their background. When one considers factors such as dire economic necessity and low self-esteem, which possibly arise because the prostitutes may have been abused sexually and physically throughout their lives, it makes no sense to talk glibly about some of them choosing to be in the business to make money. Even if there are some at the so-called high end of the profession who make money, we should not forget that they probably spend that money on a drug habit or on other problems in their very disordered and tragic lives.

Let me refer to what Senator Norris said. He was rising like Pavlov's dog to try to see in this motion some kind of traditional Catholic-inspired piece of prudery. What we are talking about is protecting the vulnerable in society. It does not matter whether one is a card-carrying atheist, a Jehovah's Witness or a Buddhist, one should be able to recognise that. It is a perversion of logic and humanity to pretend that concern for those in prostitution is what actuates the viewpoint that we should not criminalise the user. In what other walk of life where we see an evil do we refuse to target those who participate in and avail of it? In respect of drink driving and smoking, which seem trivial by comparison, we actively seek to educate. The law itself is a teacher and even if it is never enforced, it has a deterrent effect. This is why there was a reduction in prostitution when the criminalisation of the user was introduced in Sweden in 1999. In addition, there was only a marginal increase in trafficking at a time when the number trafficked into places such as Finland amounted to thousands. The number trafficked into Sweden amounted only to hundreds.

I am sorry that Senator Norris chose the emotive case of the person in disability to try to justify the continuing legality of purchasing a person for sex. He seems not to understand the denial of the dignity of the person in prostitution. He seems not to understand that by continuing with that legalisation, one creates extraordinarily negative attitudes among men towards women. One sends out a powerful message to the next generation that women may be purchased for one's gratification. That is the reverse of what a civilised society should aspire to and it is on that basis that I will be voting against the amendment.