| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Campbell:
The basis upon which we intend to introduce the legislation will give local people and local communities a greater say. I cannot stress enough the importance of localism in this context. The situation
that my hon. Friend described pertains to the Licensing Act as well. A different set of circumstances pertain in the Bigg Market of Newcastle from those that pertain in the Esplanade of Whitley bay, yet local authorities are able to manage the situation as they believe best suits their local communities.
Mr. Gummer: It is likely that the Suffolk Coastal district council would not have need for any of these applications, but I commend the Government for their way of looking at these things. I wish they would extend that to many other topics, but in this case I hope the Minister will rebuff those who want to be more universal. His position would be accepted and welcomed.
Mr. Campbell: I cannot give an undertaking that this will be the norm for Government policy, but we believe that it is right on this occasion. Local authorities should have the flexibility to decide whether the provisions are necessary, based on local circumstances.
Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge) (Lab): I welcome much of what my hon. Friend has said, but my difficulty is that Dudley has been particularly timid in using the current licensing law. For instance, when a club asks for a later licence, it is granted, then another and another, because the council is frightened to death of being taken to court. We have had so much trouble with lap dancing, particularly in Stourbridge, and my worry is that Dudley will choose not to take up the powers and my constituents will be in the same position as they are now, with no voice.
Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend and I have discussed this at great length. We do not share the same views, but we have the same concerns. When we went out to consultation, no shortage of local authorities clearly indicated that, were the powers available, they would take them up. Ultimately, my hon. Friend’s constituents decide the fate of the local authority. A local authority or lap dancing club that thought it could set itself against a local community would be short-sighted. It is important that local people hold local authorities to account. If lap-dancing clubs are a big issue in their area, the excuses that my hon. Friend attributes to her local authority would not hold water with residents.
I shall move on to other important issues and try to deal with them properly and quickly, as I am taking up a great deal of time. On the decriminalisation of under-18 prostitution, new clause 4 seeks to amend the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution so that those under the age of 18 cannot commit the offence. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon tabled similar amendments in Committee. I want to be clear that the Government have a great deal of sympathy with the issue. There is a fine line between the positions held.
We recognise that children who have become involved in prostitution are the victims of a sexual offence and should be offered appropriate support. That is in our advice, “Safeguarding children involved in prostitution”, which was issued in 2000 and which we will update along similar lines this summer. Since the publication of that guidance, the numbers of those under 18 cautioned or prosecuted for this offence have been very low. It is
clear, therefore, that in practice, the offence is used extremely rarely in relation to under-18s, and that in most cases children are treated as victims.
The approach of treating children abused through prostitution as victims will rightly continue to be that approach that agencies take, but on balance—and it is a fine balance—we believe there are still reasons for retaining the current position on statute. First, decriminalising under-18s would risk sending out a message that we do not think it is acceptable for adults to be involved in street prostitution, but that somehow it is acceptable for a child or young person to loiter or solicit for the purposes of prostitution. If one child is deterred from getting involved in prostitution because they would be at risk of breaking the law, that would justify our position.
Secondly, abolishing the offence could encourage pimps to target children, as they would know that the police could not arrest child prostitutes if they were found loitering or soliciting. Thirdly, we are concerned at the risk that such a move would encourage the trafficking of women into street prostitution, having been briefed to lie about their age. This may be a particular risk as it may be difficult to establish the age of women trafficked form abroad. There may be exceptional cases where support from agencies has been made available but the child refuses to accept that support. At that point, criminal justice agencies may be important to push the child towards that support. Our approach is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service. On that basis we cannot accept the amendments.
With reference to persistent prostitution and orders requiring attendance at meetings, amendment 7 seeks to remove clause 16 from the Bill and prevent the Government from introducing orders requiring attendance at meetings for someone convicted of loitering and soliciting contrary to section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959. Following the publication in 2004 of a consultation paper, “Paying the Price”, the Government published in 2006 a co-ordinated prostitution strategy that recognised the concern in communities not only about the nuisance that street prostitution can cause, but that there must be a way for prostitutes to exit prostitution should they wish to do so. Respondents strongly indicated that women who are involved in street prostitution have multiple and complex needs, and that our approach must recognise that complexity.
It is important that the offence of loitering and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution is maintained and used where appropriate, and we have also identified the need for some important reforms to ensure that the offence is used consistently. However, we want to help people to begin exiting prostitution—something that is difficult to achieve with a fine, which is the current maximum penalty. We intend to remove “common” from the offence of loitering and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution.
Lynne Jones: Is not the largest barrier to sex workers leaving the industry the stigma that is associated with prostitution? In what way will the legislation going through the House today help to remove that stigma?
Mr. Campbell:
I am not sure that there will never be a stigma associated with prostitution in some people’s eyes, because it raises very strong feelings. However, we
are looking for a series of practical measures to bear down on the demand for prostitutes when they have been controlled for gain and, in particular, when they may have been trafficked. We are offering a way out for prostitutes who wish to exit the sex industry, and, as part of that process, we believe that orders are very important.
Amendment 6 would narrow the definition of “persistence”, so that the offence of loitering and soliciting could be used to protect those found loitering and soliciting only on two occasions in one week. We believe that that would be unenforceable in terms of police resources, so we cannot accept the amendment. If someone is found loitering and soliciting within a three-month period, which is a relatively short space of time, the police should have the power to take action against them. They may receive a caution or continue to receive a fine, but they may also be able to access the help that they need. That is why the new clause would introduce a rehabilitative penalty as an alternative to a fine, allowing someone convicted of loitering and soliciting to address why they were involved in prostitution, and helping them to exit street prostitution.
The orders should be tailored to individual requirements, and a series of meetings will take place as a gateway to their accessing the help that they need. If they breach the order, which will be a part of the process that the court puts in place, they should be held accountable for it. There is a misconception that the order would criminalise further those involved in street prostitution and that, as a result of making such persons subject to an order, they would face tougher sanctions, including imprisonment, for having breached it. That is not the case. If someone breaches an order, they will be brought back before the court, but its option at that stage will be the same as its option on conviction. The court will be able to impose a fine or a new order. In deciding what sentence to impose, the court will take into account the extent to which the offender complied with the previous order. A breach will not mean further criminalisation or the imposition of tougher sanctions.
One other issue that was raised in Committee is that the provisions allow an order to be imposed without the consent of offenders. Ideally, we want people to choose to engage with support services in order to leave prostitution, but persistent involvement makes some element of compulsion necessary. The strategy encourages a diversion from the criminal justice system towards support services and, ultimately, away from prostitution. If people relapse, they should get help, but they should be pushed towards accessing that help.
The orders are an important part of the development of the Government’s prostitution strategy. I have outlined the reasoning behind its introduction and some of the major concerns that were raised Committee. I hope that hon. Members will reflect on my remarks and on what the Government intend to do, and remember that we are still in listening mode.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab):
In the Government’s response to the legislative scrutiny Committee, there is a statement about the process that my hon. Friend the Minister has set out. It says that a person will end up in police detention only as a last resort, and that the period of detention will be as short
as possible. Is there any estimate of the numbers that will be detained? What is the shortest estimated time scale for detention itself?
7.15 pm
Mr. Campbell: I cannot give my hon. Friend any estimates off the top of my head, but I shall find out that information for him. He will know that when similar provisions were introduced in other legislation, a time scale of 72 hours was mentioned, but it was felt to be too long. We sought to introduce the phrase “as soon as practicable” to make the time scale shorter than 72 hours. In some people’s eyes, it opens up the measure to an indefinite extension, but that is not what we propose. Given that a prostitute may be picked up on a Friday, with little prospect of going before a court until the following Monday, we believe that the measure is an appropriate response.
Mr. Campbell: I had finished, but I shall give my hon. Friend one last chance.
John McDonnell: It would be really helpful if we could get as much information as possible on those estimates, and if we could get on the record what the Government mean by “as soon as practicable”, because, on some interpretations, it might elongate to 72 hours. Before the Minister finishes, I should also welcome any comments on new clause 37 and the definition of a brothel.
Mr. Campbell: I undertake to find out that information, and I am sure that, if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will return to the other issue that he mentioned.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Minister’s speech shows two things: first, that we had good debates in Committee, because three Ministers were willing to take interventions and have a debate, and Government amendment 47 now demonstrates that willingness at least to listen and to consider the important issues; and, secondly, the fact that the Minister spoke for almost an hour shows that before us we have an enormous group of amendments, covering a huge number of issues. I therefore hope that we will have the opportunity to decide as many of those issues as possible at the end of the debate.
I shall restrict my remarks to two new clauses that have been tabled in my name and those of Back Benchers from all parts of the House. New clause 4 relates to the decriminalisation of prostitutes under the age of 18 and the decriminalisation of the victim. Given the Government’s acceptance of the need to narrow the definition of “controlled for gain” in the strict liability offence, new clause 25 deals mainly with the question of whether we should have strict liability, and with the consequent low penalties for people—men—who have sex with prostitutes whom they know to have been, or are reckless as to whether they have been, trafficked or coerced into sex.
On new clause 4, the Minister just said that he thought that there was a fine line between our two positions, but that is difficult to accept, because, regardless of whether the line is fine, our distinction is fundamental. If one believes, as I and those organisations that represent
children, their welfare and their best interests do, that criminalisation of under 18-year-old prostitutes on the street puts them at greater risk of exploitation and further from help, we have a fundamental difference. There is clear evidence for the position that I and other hon. Members who tabled the new clause hold—that criminalisation is detrimental to the welfare of children and fundamentally against their rights. Although the Minister tried to make the best fist of his case for continued criminalisation, he provided no evidence to support his contention.
We need to be very clear that children’s charities and human rights organisations, including the United Nations committee on the welfare of children, have for a long time sought the decriminalisation of under-18s in prostitution. Back Benchers are divided on strict liability; the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), for example, differs from me and the other Members supporting the amendment on the strict liability provision. However, there is a consensus, including the hon. Lady, that decriminalisation of prostitutes under 18 is critical.
The Standing Committee for Youth Justice represents a number of organisations, including Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, the Howard League for Penal Reform, JUSTICE, Nacro, the National Children’s Bureau, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others, and they generally support decriminalisation. Why is it harmful to maintain the power to prosecute in such cases? According to the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, although the levels of prosecution for child prostitution are very low, young people on the street are not aware of that. That is damaging. What they know, or what they will be told— [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The level of conversation among Members who have just come into the Chamber is unfair on those who have been here throughout this debate.
Dr. Harris: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that they have not come to hear this debate or me, but I hope to make progress on these important matters in nine minutes.
What young people on the street know, or will be told, is that prostitution continues to be illegal and that they are therefore at risk of prosecution. That alone will make them sceptical about seeking help from the authorities.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab): During a Joint Committee on Human Rights visit, the hon. Gentleman and I spent an evening that I will always remember on the Via Cristoforo Colombo in Rome; we were looking at the trafficked women there. If women have been trafficked into a country, does he agree that they are even less likely to understand the laws of the land and will be even more fearful of entering into any contact with authority?
Dr. Harris:
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We are talking about extremely vulnerable people, regardless of whether they have been trafficked; the idea that they could be arrested rather than assisted by a police officer will be the driving force. The Standing Committee for Youth Justice also points out that research suggests that
continuing to criminalise these young people in this way actively assists the controlling influence of those who exploit them.
Obviously, pimps can exercise control over the children whom they pimp by saying, “If you cross me, I will report you to the police because what you do is criminal.” The young people are not in a position to know the Minister’s figures, which show that only one or two people have been prosecuted for such an offence in any given year; they are in a position to hear from the pimp that they are at risk of prosecution and had better toe the line.
The literature recognises that point in respect of domestic child abuse. Such threats, even when not founded on statute, hold huge sway with vulnerable young people and children, yet the Government continue to ignore the research base. They make their own pronouncements without a shred of published evidence, or even the pretence of evidence, to back them.
The Standing Committee for Youth Justice also tells us that fear of the police can result in young people taking health risks. Young people involved in commercial sexual exploitation are less likely to carry and use condoms. They fear that if they are found with them, that will give away the fact that they are on the game. That is a problem if we want to reduce harm. That is why there is so much pressure from human rights organisations and charities for the law to be changed. We thought that we had won the argument when, during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing acknowledged that children involved in sexual exploitation are victims and that he wished to give
“a clear message that child sexual exploitation is a grave crime that will not be tolerated, and that the child is always a victim.” ——[ Official Report, Criminal Justice and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2007; c. 538.]
The child is not always the victim if on occasion they can be the criminal. It does not work for the Government to say that messages are sent out. This Minister has claimed that the decriminalisation of child prostitutes would send out a message that it was okay for children, but not adults, to be prostitutes. Again, that cannot be right without the evidence.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I ask all hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber and who have not been part of this debate to keep their conversations at a low level.
Dr. Harris: For the Government to rely on the assertion that reversing the criminalisation of children who are victims of exploitation sends out such a message, evidence must be provided, because the evidence base is on the other side. Similarly, a Minister has argued that pimps will seek out child prostitutes because they will not be arrested and therefore be a shelter from the law, but that also has no evidence behind it. However, the issue underpins the importance of concentrating police and criminal justice efforts at the pimps, traffickers and exploiters rather than further criminalising the vulnerable people. Furthermore, I do not believe that children or older women would be forced into street prostitution and encouraged to lie about their ages. Pimps already encourage their prostitutes to lie—that is the nature of pimping. If the new clause is agreed to, we can protect children, and that is critical.
Many hon. Members are here, and I make a plea to them. When new clause 4 is moved at the end of the debate at 9 pm, as I hope it will be, I ask them to listen to the likes of JUSTICE, the NSPCC, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England and to say, “Enough is enough. It is time to do what the Government undertook to do during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.” The Minister for Children, Young People and Families said as she gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that child prostitutes are always victims and never criminals. It is time to support new clause 4 on that basis.
The case has been made overwhelmingly, even before we consider the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
John McDonnell: Evidence has been collected from children who have been prosecuted and had to live their lives with that hanging over them; that relates to the issue of stigma, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones).
Dr. Harris: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, whose contribution to this debate has been important. I am grateful to him and Back Benchers from all parties for their support on new clause 4.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights said:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |