Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I move:

To delete all words after "human rights abuse;" and substitute the following:

— deplores the sexual exploitation of any person, whether by financial means or otherwise, as an infringement of that person's human dignity;

— abhors especially the trafficking of children for the purposes of prostitution;

— while recognising the difficulties inherent in reliably estimating the extent of sexual exploitation and trafficking, notes the various estimates that have been made in that regard;

— notes the extensive package of legislative, administrative and other measures undertaken over the past three years to prevent trafficking in human beings, protect the victims and prosecute the offenders;

— notes that the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 makes it an offence for a person to solicit or importune in a street or public place another person or persons for the purposes of prostitution and that under that provision those who seek sexual services for payment from another person commit a criminal offence;

— recognises the provision in the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Act 2008 that makes it an offence to solicit or importune a trafficked person, in any place, for the purposes of prostitution;

— notes that Ireland's legislation on human trafficking for sexual exploitation complies with EU, Council of Europe and other international instruments and that the penalties in this jurisdiction for human trafficking, including trafficking of men, women and children for the purposes of sexual exploitation, are severe;

— notes the legislative provisions regarding prostitution introduced in Sweden and Norway and considers that the operation of these provisions, and other measures taken in other jurisdictions, should inform policy in this area;

— in supporting all reasonable and effective measures to curb prostitution, recognises that criminalising the purchase of sex of itself within our legal framework raises complex issues which would have to be addressed, including the possible prosecution of individuals in circumstances in which a gift is given to a person with whom they had a sexual encounter;

— recognises that legislation alone is not effective in preventing prostitution;

— agrees that prior to Government making a definitive decision on whether legislation should be enacted reflecting legislation in Sweden and Norway there should be a considered public debate; and

— proposes that the Government, in co-operation with the non-governmental organisations which carry out such valuable work in this area, continues to develop effective responses to deal with prostitution and trafficking for sexual exploitation".

I listened with interest to the previous two speakers who outlined in graphic and great detail the reason prostitution and the sex industry must be tackled in a firm fashion by the new Government. I listened to two very powerful presentations, but the problem of prostitution is hundreds of years old and the Government is only six months in office. It would need a little time to reflect before taking the decisions which we hope it will eventually take.

My friends on the Independent benches are concerned that the amendment is, in some way, a cop-out. We have seen many political cop-outs during the years, but the wording of the amendment and I hope the words we will hear from the Minister of State will allow all of us to recognise progress can be made and that a timeframe can be put in place to deal with the problem once and for all. Graphic figures were provided by the previous two speakers for an industry - if it can termed as such - worth over €250 million to the people making a perverse financial gain. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young women who are the victims of the appalling trafficking process and this problem must be addressed in a firm and final fashion. In that regard, I welcome the motion.

Before proceeding to the next step, it is important to have very strong public consultation and debate, although I appreciate such a debate has commenced. I also appreciate that we, as Senators, have received many representations and informed comment on the matter. There is a strong view as to how we should proceed. No matter what the politics are or how simple it would seem to be to draw a line in the sand, either politically or morally, we must take on board all arguments.

I read with interest the case being made regarding the progress made following the imposition of a ban in Sweden and it seems very convincing. We have all received representations from people who argue that what has happened in Sweden is not as perfect or successful as was hoped for or that lessons can still be learned. Before the Minister reaches a conclusion and devises a roadmap to legislation that I hope will lead to action being taken along the lines proposed by those behind the motion, we should have a higher level of debate and consultation.

A political message must be sent from this House that we are appalled at the number of victims of prostitution and the sex industry in this country. We are horrified by the trafficking of victims, generally young girls, and simply cannot allow it to continue. Decisive political and legislative action must be taken, but when we change laws in this country, we must do so only after giving worthy and serious consideration to the effect. We must also put in place the resources required to allow us to enact such laws fully. The Government is very much in its infancy and this is only one of many serious political, social and economic problems to be dealt with. I hope it will get it right rather than have it rushed.

I appreciate the sentiments expressed in the motion and sympathise with the idea presented. I hope the Government in the reasonably near future will be able to act along the lines suggested. I would like to hear from the Minister of State and hope she will outline a timeframe which the Minister and his colleagues see as appropriate. There is a grave social problem to which we cannot turn a blind eye, as we cannot ignore it and must do everything possible to solve it. Those behind the motion have outlined how it can be tackled and solved and I am sympathetic to what is being proposed. In moving the Government amendment, I suggest arguing a little time is needed for further reflection and consideration is not an excuse, rather it is a reasonable intermediate response. This will give us space to find the solution we all desire. I, therefore, ask colleagues to reflect on the amendment and not to see it as an attempt to kick to touch but instead as the first step by the Government in opening a genuine debate which will result in the finding of a solution, not in three to five years time but in the near future. I ask colleagues to reflect on the amendment and not to see it as kicking to touch but as the first step by this Government to opening a genuine debate which will result in a solution not in three to five years' time but in the near future. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.