David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I oppose these amendments. I attempted to table amendments and signally failed to find a single person in this House who would second my amendments, even for the sake of having a discussion. I find that quite astonishing. It shows a totally closed mind. I recall about 20 years ago when Maggie Thatcher was introducing a provision known as section 28 in light of a book that was produced in Denmark. It was called Maggie Lives With Joe and Fred or something like that. It was the story of two gay men, one of whom had left his wife, with whom he had a daughter, and set up a relationship with another man. They established this relationship and the daughter came to stay with them on weekends. When they went out shopping, a neighbour shouted at them "abuse". The parent of the child said that was only Mrs. So-and-so, who is upset and bewildered because in most cases a man forms a relationship with a woman but in the minority of cases, people of the same sex form relationships. It was eminently sensible, a perfectly reasonable, decent and understandable thing, but it was used by Maggie Thatcher to introduce this legislation which prohibited what they called the "propagandisation" of homosexuality, as if it needed any propaganda, being a part of human nature.

On that occasion, I also signally failed to find a single voice in Seanad Éireann that would support an amendment or sign a motion on the topic. I found that astonishing and I find it astonishing today that the serious concerns I have about this legislation have been met with a resounding silence, despite the clear balance of scientific evidence I have put on the record of the House opposing these changes to the law. If one looks at the results in Sweden, the progress report published in Gothenburg showed an increase in trafficking of 106% between 2008 and 2010. The reported cases of sexual services sold increased by 569%. This is with this sort of legislation. That is the effect it has had - absolutely none.

Then we have to take into account the medical situation. I will say a little more about this. It relates to the matter of AIDS. UN committees are coming out to say it is disastrous, while there are articles in The Lancetstating that full decriminalisation would result in a 40% decrease in HIV cases. That is the most senior medical authority there is. Obviously, I am concerned.

I am even more concerned that there is no review or evaluation process of the impact. If we are told it is going to have this impact, what is the Government afraid of in terms of assessing and evaluating its effect? There is nothing in this Bill, despite the pleas I made on Second Stage and Committee Stage that there should be this evaluation process to find out whether it is working. There has been complete silence from the Government on this. On the other hand, the Government accepted an amendment to strengthen the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 to target and further criminalise sex workers on the street, some of whom are the most marginalised people in our society. If the Government continues to support section 20, it must decriminalise people who sell sexual services on the street as well as people who work indoors for safety and include a two-year review of the law to assess its impact on the lives of sex workers.

Why should we have a review of section 20? First, it would protect human rights. One of the most senior bodies concerned with human rights in this country, which is universally respected, is Amnesty International. It has included a plea for the inclusion of a review in its comprehensive submission to the Minister for Justice and Equality. I do not know whether she read it. Perhaps she did, or perhaps this task was devolved to a menial in the Department. This was a submission to the Minister regarding the human rights concerns that criminalising the purchase of sexual services would hurt the most marginalised sex workers. It was based on Amnesty International's research in Norway, where this was introduced in 2003, and evidence from various other health and academic institutions.I am sure the Minister is familiar with the submission of Amnesty International.

Second, it is a question of ensuring robust, comprehensive and responsible legislating. In Sweden, where this kind of material was introduced in 1998, the effect and impact is evaluated regularly. We do not do so here although we are slavishly following the defective Swedish model. Some 20 scope interviews have been conducted by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, in its report of 2013 on hearings and submissions on the review of legislation on prostitution, also recommended regular evaluation. It states the State should commission appropriate, independent studies to increase its understanding of prostitution and trafficking. Further such studies should be undertaken at regular intervals to evaluate independently the effectiveness of legal and policy measures concerning prostitution and trafficking and to recommend changes, where required. This is the statement of the Oireachtas’s own committee. Will the Minister tell the House the problem with the evaluation of the impact of this legislation? Is she afraid that the truth will emerge when it is too late, when this legislation has been passed?

Third, there is a lack of evidence. In the past ten years, there has been no comprehensive, independent research undertaken by the Government or independent university academic institutions in this State into the situation of sex workers in the Republic of Ireland. In effect, we are attempting to change laws without knowing if and why the current laws are not working or protecting marginalised people in vulnerable situations. In addition, the Swedish Government, despite regular reviews and evaluation of this kind of legislation by different departments, has not been able to prove that the number of people paying for sexual services has fallen or that the number of people engaged in selling sexual services has decreased. Therefore, there is a complete failure of evidence, even from the Swedish model, to which we are giving such devotion.

In 2014, in Sweden, the report stated there has been a gradual increase in the number of foreign women engaged in street prostitution over the past 20 years. This is with the effective operation of this kind of legislation in Sweden. It was stated in 2014 that it was possible to note an increase over the preceding two years in the number of women coming from Romania. It is difficult to draw any conclusions other than the fact that no great changes have taken place in Sweden and that the number of individuals buying sexual services appears to be fairly stable. Let that sink in. It has had no impact. There has been an increase, yet we are making the lives of these women more difficult and exposing the population to a greater risk of infection from HIV.

My fourth point is on assessing the impact of this kind of legislation on health and HIV. There is a wealth of evidence and research from national and international health experts that shows the detrimental impact this kind of legislation has had on the health of sex workers and wider public policy. HIV rates in Ireland are increasing, with an upward trend of new cases since 2013. HIV Ireland cites evidence that criminalisation creates circumstances that result in the spread of HIV. Again, I am not referring to middle-class spurious experts with their paternalistic view of sex workers but to people who are centrally and directly involved with HIV. They strongly support decriminalisation as the best model to prevent further increases in transmission. I ask the Minister to take that on board. We are talking not about a kind of hypocritical moral stance but about the welfare and medical well-being of citizens of this State. According to the World Health Organization, decriminalisation of sex work could "avert the largest percentage of HIV infections in sex workers and clients". There is talk of a decrease in the order of 33% to 46% during the next decade. These are facts that need to be taken into account.

On the question of the sex workers themselves, how patronising it is to listen to people determining that all these women and men are victims, no matter what they say themselves. They may say they are not victims. Some of them say they get pleasure from their job and others say they do it to keep their families going. Despite this, they are not allowed to categorise themselves, and they must be victims because these feminists and ex-nuns have decided that they are victims. How paternalistic is that? How patronising is that? The odd ould cattle from the backbenches on the other side of the House will not deter me from what I am saying and will not take away from the factual nature of the evidence. Not one fact that I have put on the record so far has been challenged in this House.