Dr.
Harris: That is my point exactly. If you have to make a
judgment— Mr.
Coaker: We
have.
Q
194Dr.
Harris: Yes, you have to make a judgment. Would the
judgment not be based on evidence? You said that you looked at the
evidence in your review, but, actually, the review of the evidence has
not, as I understand it, even been published
yet. Mr.
Coaker: No, it has not been published
yet.
Q
195Dr.
Harris: So, here we are considering making laws, and you
are asserting that you are making what I assume is an evidence-based
decision. We cannot see that evidence. On the contrary, we have had
suggestions, from the Royal College of Nursing and, in particular, NHS
workers, that the evidence suggests that what you are doing, though
well intentioned, would be counter-productive in terms of reporting and
harm reduction. Does that not give you pause, at
least? Mr.
Coaker: We are looking at publishing the evidence. As
I say, and I will let Alan come in now as this is his policy area, you
pick the evidence which, in the end, backs your argument. If you listen
to what the Poppy Project said, it was the complete opposite. That is
what I am saying about judgments. You consider what you think is the
best way to tackle the problem, and that is what we have
done. Mr.
Campbell: There is wide discussion about the effect
that this offence would have on men who might come across women whom
they believe have been, or have evidence that they have been,
trafficked. It might deter them from coming forward.
I asked
officials to look into that and they could not find any concrete
example of where that is the case. However, in answer to the very first
point that you made, I am genuinely interested in how this could be
facilitated, perhaps through an anonymous hotline. It would be
difficult to say that someone, who came forward after having been to a
prostitute that had been trafficked, would be treated and dealt with
differently within the law because they then furnished the evidence or
the suggestion that the woman—predominantly, it is a
woman—had been trafficked. So, I am open to the suggestion of
some anonymous
line. What
struck me out of all the evidence that we have taken or listened to
over the last few days, Sir Nicholas, was the point from the Poppy
Project. They said that they had evidence of men who brought forward,
or, at least, pushed in their direction, women whom they believed had
been trafficked. There were 22 such cases, but in each of the cases the
men, either believing or knowing that the women had been trafficked,
still had sex with them.
That will
probably be the thing which I will take away from these sessions more
than anything else. It goes back to what my colleague has said. There
is an unfairness in the situation where raids have taken place around
trafficking, which is not just an international
issue but a domestic issue, too—it happens within countries as
well as between countries. We know where the law stands on traffickers
and what will happen to women in those circumstances. But there is a
gap in the law. What happens to the man who has been there? We have
decided—after, I can assure you, a very long and thorough
consideration—that we are in the right place on strict
liability. Difficult though it is, we are in the right
place. Q
196Dr.
Harris: Did you do any research asking men, through, for
example, punters’ websites or indeed outreach work? It is
possible to reach men; the NHS does it all of the time because they are
reaching prostitutes. Did you do any research, published or otherwise,
that suggested whether men were more likely either to desist or to
report under each of the regimes: the status quo, the proposed regime,
or a different regime whereby you would fund a hotline, outreach work
and exit strategies for women whom the men knew they could then
help? Mr.
Campbell: As I say, we keep our options open on a
hotline and funding. We would certainly look at examples from elsewhere
to see how it would help. Of course, we test each of the propositions
against as much evidence as we can collect. The evidence from some
countries is that where, for example, there is a similar measure to the
one we are proposing, it has a deterrent effect. It has a deterrent
effect in the first place. Of course, we have to consider whether, in
the case of men who are closely involved with prostitutes and have been
to prostitutes, that will colour their decision about bringing forward
evidence. What we are after is something that is also important, which
is to deter them in the first place by putting it into their minds that
unless they are absolutely sure, then they should not do
it.
Q
197Dr.
Harris: I do not want to labour this point and this
is my last question on this issue. Is it not appropriate and good
practice to publish the evidence upon which you base a policy which you
then claim has evidence behind it? Otherwise, it is mere assertion and
your assertion is as good as my assertion. Yours is probably better
than mine on
this. Mr.
Campbell: We have had the demand review, which was a
long and lengthy process. There was a collection of evidence, which has
now been collated. It was not a formal consultation. We never said that
the evidence we collected would be published. We are collating it now.
If we decide to publish it then we will do so in due course, but we
should not read too much into the fact that the evidence has not been
published. It does not mean that it contradicts the propositions that
the Government are bringing
forward.
Q
198Dr.
Harris: May I probe a little further what Mr.
Coaker said in respect of what was raised this morning by Julie
Kirkbride and myself? Would a definition of “controlled for
gain” be better if it was different according to the nature of
the crime that is involved? So child pornography controlling for gain
could be wider than pimping might be, and wider than the strict
liability offence of having sex with someone who is controlled
for gain. At the moment, as I understand it, that
definition is only that provided by the case law, most recently the
Court of Appeal in
Massey. Mr.
Coaker: There will be a debate as we go through
Committee about the definition of “controlled for gain”.
If we can get that right, which I think will be possible,
then some of the concerns that some people have—not everyone has
them—will disappear to a certain extent. As I pointed out to Ms
Chakrabarti this morning, this is not a back-door way of trying to ban
prostitution; it is trying to get at exploitation. We all agree with
that. I do not suggest that anyone here is in favour of exploitation.
This is about trying to have public policy that addresses that. In
answer to Julie Kirkbride’s question, Peter Lodder from the Bar
Council said that he would look at making a helpful suggestion here. We
can consider that. The problem with “controlled for gain”
is that, as I am told by other lawyers, the control aspect is the
ordinary, common-sense, dictionary understanding of the word. In the
case of R v. Steven Massey in 2007, just to be lawyer-like Sir
Nicholas—
Mr.
Coaker: Yes, 4 December. I am told that control
within the meaning of the Sexual Offences Act should be given its
ordinary dictionary meaning of directing a relevant activity that
included, but was not limited to, individuals who forced another to
carry out a relevant activity. That case law meets people’s
concerns that control would mean something other than the ordinary
definition which we all understand. I am not a lawyer so, at the end of
the day, we will no doubt get Mr. Lodder’s
suggestions and there will be other lawyers who say something
different. But the objective we all share is certainly along the lines
that we have been discussing and which Julie Kirkbride raised this
morning.
Q
199Dr.
Harris: Were you concerned at all by what the support
workers association said? Many support workers are Government or
NHS-funded to publish their academic work on prostitutes. The
association, the Royal College of Nursing and the International Union
of Sex Workers talked about the possibility, arising from the series of
proposals in the Bill, that we will drive women further away from the
police and therefore integrate a risk. That is their view. I wondered
if that gave you any cause for
concern? Mr.
Campbell: There is no darker place to drive them if
they have been brought into—trafficked—this country for
sexual exploitation, so let us not in any way suggest that this is an
easy decision that does not require
action.
Q
200Dr.
Harris: I am sorry, I did not mean that group—I
meant the group beyond that group. I absolutely share your view that
that position cannot be any
worse. Mr.
Campbell: Yes, but we need to remain focused as far
as we can on the intent of what we are doing, which is to have
something in place to tackle the kind of exploitation—whether
trafficked women, internally trafficked women or not—that we all
agree is wrong. Our view is that our definition, “controlled for
gain”, does not apply outside the group we are trying to address
in the legislation. Therefore, many of the concerns raised by the
International Union of Sex Workers and others will prove to be
unfounded. It is not about whether someone can employ a maid, or employ
someone to give them greater protection and safety in what they
do. Our strong advice is that our proposal will not
affect that situation, unless there is clear and demonstrable evidence
of
control.
Q
201Dr.
Harris: What about a madam?
Mr.
Campbell: We could get into every single different
example here. I know that we try to put them into different classes,
and it would rather depend on what she was. If she was keeping the
diary and providing cups of tea, it would be hard to suggest that she
was somehow controlling the prostitute. That is not what the case law
says that it ought to be about—it ought to be about the
prostitutes being forced into it. It is the absence of free
will.
Q
202Dr.
Harris: That is helpful, because that goes beyond the case
law, but we can come back to
it. Finally,
as we heard in some of the oral and from the written evidence, the
law-enforcement approach is an incomplete one without funding and
mechanisms to provide outreach for exit work. It is one-handed, and it
might not work, according to that view, whereas many feel people
strongly—although we recognise that some of them would benefit
from such funding—that there would be enormous merit in
providing more of a funding stream for exit out of drugs and exit into
employment or different accommodation, such as shelters, refuges and so
forth. Mr.
Campbell: It is of course the Government’s
policy to have a comprehensive approach, which is not just about the
enforcement of the law but about supporting women who want to get out
of prostitution. We have heard many different assessments of a
woman’s motivation—the reason why she might be involved
in prostitution—from those who claim clearly that it is entirely
a matter of free will and has nothing to do with us, to those who say
that there are women out there who have no free will or choice in this
because they have been trafficked, while somewhere in the middle there
are women who feel that they have no alternative because of their
socio-economic, personal or family circumstances, and they choose to go
into prostitution on that basis. Our approach would not be defensible
unless we were prepared to say that there has to be that other
pillar. One
of the reasons for this, if we are reducing demand, is the expectation
that there would be fewer women involved in prostitution. So, what will
be in place for them? Briefly, three things, the first being that we
already fund a lot of work, not least through the POPPY
project—some £5.8 million—but that is just part of
it. Also—and this is perhaps where we might want to get to with
rehabilitation orders—we have to access the other resources out
there. We heard—I cannot remember from which witness—a
list of housing, family income, education, all of those things. I
thought that we had things in place for every citizen on housing,
support for families, education and health care, so how can they better
access those services? However, I am not discounting the fact that
there may well be additional things that we would need to do for women
who had been involved in prostitution because they have a particular
set of circumstances and often very chaotic
lives.
The
Chairman: We are already over time on this area of our
discussion, but there are three lady members of the Committee who wish
to put questions. Can I ask them to do so and
perhaps specify who they would like to reply? Would they also put the
questions together so that, if there is any overlap, they can all be
dealt with in one response by the relevant Minister? I am calling Lynda
Waltho first, then Julie Kirkbride and then Nadine
Dorries.
Q
203Lynda
Waltho: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. Strictly speaking, I
think it should be Alan Campbell who responds, although I think that
Vernon Coaker has been around the world to view different systems, so
it is up to them to decide. The lady who gave evidence for the English
Collective of Prostitutes suggested that we ought to look at complete
decriminalisation, which is the experience in New
Zealand.
I have
information from Debbie Baker, the manager of Streetreach, a support
service for street workers, in New Zealand. She says that
“although there
has been decriminalisation it hasn’t really made a difference to
the average girl out on the street, except there is more competition
and the prices have gone down...We...have seen an increase in
underage children working in prostitution; there are girls under the
age of 18.”
It is obvious to me
that it has not worked in New Zealand, but what stopped you from going
for complete
decriminalisation?
Q
204Miss
Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove) (Con): I would like to ask
two quick questions, if I may. The POPPY project wants the abolition of
prostitution. It thinks that prostitution should not be allowed,
period, and that you should not be allowed to sell your body for sex,
end of story. Why not just go for that? One of the other things that
the collective was saying was that, under the previous legislation, the
phrase “controlling...for gain” encouraged the
police to raid a variety of premises on the basis that there was a
madam there, because it fell within the definition of
“controlling...for gain” even if it did not fall
within the intent of the legislation. Given that that is its
experience, and that your catch-all provision would potentially
criminalise many people who are doing something which most of us think
is their right to do, if that is what they want, are you not worried
that previous experience of the legislation is that it is a big
catch-all under which the police have been carrying out raids which
were not necessarily the intention of the original
legislation?
|
