David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The findings continued by noting the views of service providers in Northern Ireland on the effects of a sex purchase ban vary. Some stated they supported the proposed law because it is based on their understanding of all forms of prostitution as exploitation, while others expressed concern about the negative effects such a law would have on the well-being and safety of sex workers and the effectiveness of the law in regard to reducing demand and reducing sex trafficking. Interviewees from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, PSNI, highlighted a number of issues regarding the sex purchase ban including the lack of sufficient resources to police effectively this proposed new law. In respect of these new amendments, will the Minister supply adequate resources to police them? Will the money be available to enforce them? The PSNI interviewees were taking into account competing demands, as well as significant problems with producing evidence and prosecuting clients. For example, they noted some covert tactics used in Sweden and other European countries are not available in Northern Ireland. In summary, PSNI officers stated that in their opinion, a sex purchase ban would be difficult to enforce and police and would be largely ineffective. In other words, the Police Service of Northern Ireland is of the opinion such a ban would be difficult to enforce and would be largely ineffective. This makes one wonder and worry about the implementation of this measure.

The Norwegian Government inquiry reported the following:

The Swedish street prostitutes experience a tougher time. They are more frequently exposed to dangerous clients, while the serious clients are afraid of being arrested. Prohibition will never be able to stop the purchase and sale of sex. It could only make conditions worse for the prostitutes. They have less time to assess the client as the deal takes place very hurriedly due to fear on the part of the client. They (the prostitutes) are exposed to violence and sexually transmitted diseases. If the client demands unprotected sex, many of the prostitutes cannot afford to say no. Harassment by the police has increased and the clients no longer provide tip-offs about pimps, for fear of being arrested themselves. The social workers working on the streets have problems reaching them. They (the prostitutes) use pimps for protection.

This legislation actually increases the number of pimps involved and this is the position as reported by the Norwegian Minister for Justice. The same Norwegian Minister for Justice talks about a general problem with statistics from Sweden, since they are highly uncertain. It has been noted that the problem with claims about effectiveness from Sweden is they do not appear to be supported by the available facts or research. One study states:

As soon as the official evaluation was published, it was... criticized from several directions. In the consultation process following the publication of the evaluation, the critique was especially harsh from those referral bodies who conduct prostitution research, and those working with health and discrimination issues (when law amendments are proposed in an official inquiry the report is circulated for consultation before it undergoes further preparation). [This is the response had from those organisations involved in academic inquiry into prostitution.] The criticism has primarily been focused on the evaluation’s lack of scientific rigor: it did not have an objective starting point, since the terms of reference given were that the purchase of sex must continue to be illegal [in other words, one enshrines one's aims before having the discussion]; there was not a satisfying definition of prostitution; it did not take into account ideology, method, sources and possible confounding factors; there were inconsistencies, contradictions, haphazard referencing, irrelevant or flawed comparisons and conclusions were made without factual backup and were at times of a speculative character.

Continuing the idea of the hardships visited on these people, mainly women, in these circumstances, because of the legislation in Norway, police have actively targeted the landlords of prostitutes and have rendered them homeless. In what sense could this be construed as protecting the rights of those women sex workers? The criminalisation of the purchase of sex has also had an impact in the Scandinavian countries on HIV protection and harm reduction. Condom distribution to sex workers and clients has been publicly criticised for encouraging sex work and for running contrary to the law and has been scaled back in at least one area of Sweden since the passage of the law. Consequently, it is even affecting the distribution of condoms.

I am coming towards the end and ask for the indulgence of the House because, as I stated, this is the only opportunity I have. One key finding of a survey into the situation in the United Kingdom was that the large majority of interviewed migrant client workers in the UK sex industry are not forced or trafficked. There has been a conflation between prostitution and trafficking but the findings of independent research have shown the majority of migrant workers are not trafficked. It also was found that immigration status is by far the most important factor restricting the migrant workers' ability to exercise their rights in their professional and private lives and that working in the sex industry often is a way for migrants to avoid the unrewarding and sometimes exploitative conditions they meet in non-sexual jobs. The survey found that by working in the sex industry, many interviewees are able to maintain dignified living standards in the UK, while dramatically improving the living conditions of their families in the country of origin.

As I stated, a report by Amnesty International has stated the criminalisation of sex work increasingly is being recognised as a human rights concern. The United Nations special rapporteur on the right to health, not some fly-by-night radical, has explicitly called for decriminalisation of sex work. The final report of the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, an independent body convened by the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, on behalf of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV-AIDS, UNAIDS, has made the same call. The commission deliberated over a two-year period and undertook extensive analysis and research, including seven regional dialogues on the links between legal framework, human rights and HIV. I reiterate this is the United Nations. Are Members not prepared to listen? Is the one voice that is raising this issue in this House to be stifled? The UNAIDS advisory group on HIV and sex workers recommended that states should move away from criminalising sex work or activities associated with it. It also recommended that decriminalisation of sex work should include removing criminal penalties for the purchase and sale of sex. I reiterate that this is a recommendation by the UNAIDS advisory group on HIV. Is nobody listening? As for the management of sex workers in brothels and other activities related to sex work, the group recommended that to the degree that states retain non-criminal administrative law or regulations governing sex work, these should be applied in ways that do not violate sex workers' right to dignity and that ensure their enjoyment of due process of law.

The World Health Organization calls for all countries to work towards decriminalisation of sex work and the elimination of the unjust application of non-criminal laws and regulations against sex workers. The International Labour Organization, ILO, has called on governments to recognise sex work as an economic sector and a legal occupation with protection under labour law and social security and health regulations. Human Rights Watch, the Open Society Foundations and Anti-Slavery International, among other non-governmental groups, also have called for the decriminalisation of sex work. These are a variety of extremely important organisations engaged in health and human rights around the world and they all have taken a position that is directly in contravention of what the Government proposes in these amendments.There is not the slightest scrap of international research that the so-called Swedish model has reduced trafficking in the community. In fact, the Government in Sweden has admitted that. The Republic of Ireland and the UK scored better in a recent survey, the Global Slavery Index, than Sweden and yet we do not have these provisions but Sweden has. The Swedish Forum for Human Rights confirmed the trafficking of more than 166 children between 2008 and 2011 and the loss of more than 438 immigrant children in 2011 alone.

I will leave it at that. With the indulgence of the House, and despite interruptions, I have been permitted to make a strong case to ask the Government to think again on this matter because there are serious health concerns. It is irresponsible to force through such legislation without an adequate or a balanced debate on the subject. It is surely unbalanced when one person, and one person alone, in a House with 60 Members is prepared to stand up and oppose these legislative proposals. I know full well why they are being enacted. A survey in the North of Ireland which looked at this situation and the response to it concluded that, while 98% of the women involved were against it, 80% of voters were in favour of it. This is like the material we had yesterday about destroying hedges, which flies in the face of all-----