David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Bacik for raising what could almost be seen as an anomaly in some ways and for flagging it as she has so helpfully done. However, the amendment, as the Senator knows, would disapply proceeds of crime legislation to conduct which, as it stands, is not criminal.

Under current law neither the payment for sexual services nor the receipt of payment for providing such services is a criminal offence. I understand, of course, that the intention is to provide in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 for an offence of payment for sexual activity with a prostitute and that this was a subject of considerable debate in this House, the justice committee and elsewhere. While that Bill was passed by this House earlier this year, it has not yet been enacted, and it is a matter for both Houses to pass that legislation.

While I know that the processes in the sexual offences Bill are generally well supported in Dáil Éireann, it is a matter for the Dáil to conclude its work in this regard. I have some difficulty, therefore, with introducing provisions in this legislation relating to the proceeds of crime arising from conduct that is not currently criminal. In my view, it is not appropriate to introduce a provision which pre-empts the work of the other House, a point to which the Senator herself has alluded in her comments.

That said, this amendment requires further consideration for a number of reasons. The objectives of criminalising the purchaser of sexual services outlined during debate on the sexual offences Bill in this House and in the report of the joint Oireachtas committee, which recommended criminalising the purchase of sexual services, include reducing both push and pull factors. I am concerned that this amendment could have negative implications for persons who offer sexual services and could offer an opportunity for those who would exploit the law and exploit those who are vulnerable.

For instance, the exemption of the purchase of sexual services from criminal conduct for the purpose of proceeds of crime could lead to sex workers being pressurised into holding moneys as seemingly legitimate fronts for pimps, traffickers and other organised criminals. It might also make it more difficult for CAB to pursue proceeds of crime held by pimps or traffickers. For instance, CAB could have to show derivation from trafficking-related prostitution as distinct from non-trafficking-related prostitution. These matters all need be considered further.

It is also the case that while the amendment would disapply the proceeds of crime legislation to money obtained by a person who offers sexual services, that money would still be the proceeds of criminal conduct for the purposes of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. To attempt to exempt the purchase of sexual services in that respect could have potential effects on international obligations and on the regulatory system for money laundering prevention and detection and, again, the potential for sex workers to be used as seemingly legitimate fronts for holding money for pimps and traffickers.

We could consequently have a situation whereby, if this amendment is accepted and the offence of purchasing sexual services introduced, money obtained from providing such services would be the proceeds of criminal conduct under money laundering legislation but not under the proceeds of crime legislation. In addition, aside from the fact that I would have difficulty introducing a provision into law which anticipates the outcome of further legislative deliberations, it is my view that effectively exempting moneys derived from the purchase of sexual services from the proceeds of crime would, for the reason outlined, be fraught with difficulty, contrary to policy objectives and unadvisable. I therefore ask that the Senators not press the amendment but I have listened to what Senator Bacik has said very carefully, and the matter will have to be considered in further discussions on the other legislation to which she refers.