I thank the Leader and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Zappone, for agreeing to a change in the schedule for our consideration of the Adoption (Information and Tracing) Bill. Yesterday many of us expressed concern that the Bill was proceeding to Committee Stage, even though we were very dissatisfied with the framework of the Minister's proposed amendments. We were told about the numerous flaws in the Bill, some of which we had identified ourselves. I am glad that the Minister consulted many of the stakeholders last night, including Dr. Maeve O'Rourke and the Adoption Rights Alliance. I am also pleased that she is consulting the Attorney General on the amendment I put forward which would change the framework within which the Bill is drafted and meet many of our concerns about the balancing of rights in respect of information and privacy. I welcome the decision to defer Committee Stage and the opportunity to discuss these broad issues during statements later.

I must respond to my dear friend and fellow group member Senator Norris.

Senator Norris should not have spoken on a second topic. However, since I allowed it, I will also allow Senator Bacik to respond.

This is my main topic.

Senators are only allowed to raise one topic.

I thank the Acting Chairman for his indulgence.

The Acting Chairman should harass Senator Bacik as much as he likes.

Of course, I take umbrage at Senator Norris's suggestion the impetus behind Part 4 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 was a smug, middle-class sense of purpose.

That is precisely what it was and I thank the Senator for repeating the assertion. May we hear it again?

The Senator may not. The impetus behind the criminalisation of sex purchase derived clearly and explicitly from a view of prostitution as the exploitation of women. It derived from a feminist sensibility and ideology.

The Senator did not talk to the women involved.

We certainly did. I was proud to be a member of the justice committee which recommended the approach we adopted in the 2017 Act. I pay tribute to the then Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, who drove the legislation, rightly, from an explicitly feminist perspective, with the focus on protecting women who were being exploited.

What about the 92% increase in the level of violence?

Ruhama and the other organisations involved in the Turn Off the Red Light coalition have strongly criticised-----

No. The Senator is wrong.

Senator Norris should have some manners and listen to what Senator Bacik is saying.

Senator Bacik to continue, without interruption.

Those organisations have strongly and rightly criticised what appears to be a continued focus in policing on prosecuting women involved in selling sex. That is not what the legislation was intended to do. We want to see more prosecutions of clients, which was the purpose behind the law. Its objective is to tackle the demand for prostitution.

What about the 92% increase in the level of violence?

This is like a meeting of a Trinity College Dublin debating society.

That is the only way we will address the exploitation, violence and organised crime networks which are an implicit part of prostitution.

There has been a 92% increase in the level of violence since the Act was introduced.

The Act is not responsible for any increase in the level of violence. What we do see is that where prostitution is addressed in the Swedish manner, that is, by criminalising the purchase of sex, there are better police reporting structures for those engaged in prostitution and reduced criminalisation, which is the purpose behind the legislation we introduced. That is what happened in Sweden and what we want to see happening here. The Garda needs to step up its policing of the criminalisation of the purchase of sex by focusing on the clients. That is the idea behind this feminist legislation.