The
Chairman: I call Dr. Evan Harris, but I can assure the
hon. Member for City of Durham that I have noted that she wishes to
contribute to this stand part
debate.
3.45
pm
Dr.
Harris: I fear and regret that consensus must stutter to a
halt at this point. If my colleagues and I believed that, unamended,
the offence would be effective in reducing harm, improving the safety
of women, reducing demand in general and demand for the unacceptable,
forced prostitution about which we are all concerned, and effective in
helping to bring to book traffickers and those who, through violence
and intimidation, oppress women in the sex industry, we would support
it. Furthermore, if I thought that it would not do any harm and was
worth a try, I would also be minded to support it. But I do not support
it, because, in its current form, it is bound to do more harm than
good, and I hold that view in all sincerity. I do not suggest that
colleagues, including Conservative Members, support it despite knowing
that; they clearly take a different view based on their view of the
evidence. I hate to use the word evidence, however, because it elevates
the information that we have been given to a state that it does not
deserve.
I shall
explain why the measure will not work and why it will be
counter-productive, in the hope that others in the House hear the views
of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, because we
appear to be outnumbered in this Committee. If the Government had
accepted that strict liability was the wrong approach, and if it was
clear that the offence would be targeted at the abuse of prostitution,
I might recommend to my colleagues that we support it, even though we
are dubious about tackling demand, because it cuts off reporting and,
therefore, involves paying a much higher price. Sadly, the Government
are not minded to restrict the measure to intention or recklessness,
and their definition of control for gain is still too widely
drawn.
The safety of
the women concerned is the top priority, and the test is whether this
clause or the others in this part include good evidence that has been
published, peer reviewed and commented on, and whether everyone agrees,
or a strong case has been made, that such measures will make women
safer. I do not think that that case has been made.
I am
determined to help the Committee to deal with the matter by the end of
play today. That may not be possible, but I am not going to string this
out. In order to make progress now, I shall deal with increased
criminalisation during stand part debates on other clauses, but I do
not want it thought that everything I say now is my entire
argument—on even this measure. So, safety is the top priority,
but I have not seen any evidence, let alone any good evidence, and
there has been no consultation. The people who are affected by the
measure should have been consulted, in particular. That includes the
punters, whatever our view of them, and the women—they are
mainly women—whose services they buy.
Do we provide
an alternative? Is the measure part of a coherent package that
provides, for example, funded exit strategies? Is there any evidence of
support from sex workers, themselves? Even if they are not being
exploited, they know about the situation better than others, and they
feel strongly about it. The English Collective of Prostitutes and the
International Union of Sex Workers really want the oppressive,
exploitative and abusive prostitution rackets to end; they do not have
any interest in such pursuits. There is also the absence of a proper
public education campaign to go with the provisions in the
clause. In the
absence of all that, it is very hard to see how a rational
legislator—especially one who wanted to submit the propositions
of the Executive to due scrutiny—could enthusiastically support
the measure, even if they are sympathetic to it, as the hon. Member for
Bury St. Edmunds says he is.
None of those
provisions have been met to my satisfaction or, indeed, have even been
attempted to be met. Secondly, is there evidence that tackling the
demand will work to reduce the demand? Doing so is incidental if the
prostitution continues and if women are still abused and oppressed, but
they have more idle time between seeing clients. Is there any evidence
that the provisions will have any impact whatsoever? I have not seen
any evidence that the measures will work to reduce demand. It would
take huge amounts of enforcement to do that, and unless the Government
want to give the false impression that one is at serious risk of being
prosecuted, is it worth the enforcement
time? We
have precious few enforcement resources, and they must be directed
towards the abusers of prostitutes, not towards enforcing the strict
liability offence of dealing with someone who makes payment for someone
who is controlled for gain. There is a big difference between those
two. If the police in my area are picking up clients instead of pimps
and traffickers, and there are tiny numbers of prosecutions despite the
efforts of the police, that is an indication that there is plenty more
enforcement to be done. If that is any indication to go by, giving the
police other options to prosecute without clear evidence that it will
improve the situation—not just hope that it will—is a
real problem that prevents one from supporting the
clause. In
addition, my main concern is that the measure will be
counter-productive to the interests of women. That applies to all the
clauses, but in the interests of time I will not go into all my
arguments on that because there are better clauses in relation to which
I can do so. Anything that drives women and prostitution further from
the law creates real problems. In the remaining time, I will deal with
the issue of the evidence because the Home Office report
“Tackling the Demand for Prostitution” claimed that there
was a literature review on the subject commissioned by the Home Office.
In what I suspect is a standard letter that was sent to another Member
from the Minister—I was sent it by the person who wrote to the
hon. Member—he
said: “The
review involved key stakeholders and practitioners, including the
Police and the Crown Prosecution Service as well as organisations
supporting individuals involved in
prostitution.” We
have had a number of representations both through the scrutiny unit and
directly to ourselves from organisations involved in working with
people from prostitution, including the national sex worker project
people, who co-ordinate a whole load of people who do not agree with
that. I fear that they might have been left out or ignored in that
review.
Work
undertaken as part of the review included an assessment of relevant
academic research. Where is that assessment? Well, it is referred to on
page 11 of the
review: “A
rapid evidence assessment (REA) of research available on sex buyers,
conducted by the University of Huddersfield to be published
shortly.” That
was in November. I have already expressed my utter dismay about that
matter to Ministers and, in fairness, the hon. Member for Gedling
regretted that it had not been published and said that he could not
understand why. However, I have also expressed my regret to the
Government’s chief scientific adviser and all Ministers who say
that they have an evidence-based policy, because they gave an
undertaking in response to the Science and Technology
Committee’s report on evidence-based policy making that evidence
would mean evidence—not assertion, unpublished and
unpeer-reviewed work, but proper evidence. Otherwise, it is even worse
than having non-evidence based policy because it pollutes the
language. We
cannot even see the terms of reference of that evidence
assessment—let alone what it says. We do not know whether it has
been peer-reviewed or what all the other academics—other than
the people at the university of Huddersfield—think of it. Other
academics might say, “This is an excellent systematic review;
actually it looks as if the evidence is pointing in this
direction.” However, if we cannot see that, asserting that there
was any attempt to get relevant academic research or assess it is
meaningless. I am shocked and appalling that the Government are relying
on something that is not published and even if it had been published,
it was not peer-reviewed—especially if that does not represent
the consensus of academics, who do not have a vested
interest. The
UK national sex workers project group has sent us a memo setting out
its concern about inadequate and selective evidence. I am conscious of
the time and look to you for guidance, Sir Nicholas. It was not my
intention to take the debate beyond 4 o’clock, and the Minister
and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds might still have to
respond.
The
Chairman: I am a servant of the Committee and am in its
members’ hands. It is not for me to advise members whether the
matter should be concluded this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman is aware
that one member of the Committee wishes to speak, albeit briefly I
understand, and clearly the Minister might want to say a few words in
response. I hope that that advice is
helpful.
Dr.
Harris: During your helpful comments, Sir Nicholas, I had
an indication from the Government of what might happen. It is clear,
sadly, that we will not finish the clause stand part debate today, and
I regret my part in that, but I will attempt to finish my remarks today
and I understand that the Government Whip might catch your eye to move
the adjournment at 4
o’clock. The
UK national sex workers project group mentioned the inadequate and
selective evidence and questioned the numbers that have been provided
by the Home Office in its 2003 estimate—we will discuss that
further in future debates. The Minister, the hon. Member for Gedling,
will know that when the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am
a member, conducted
our inquiry into trafficking, which I had suggested, we questioned the
figure for the number of women being exploited. Even if there were 100
women, or only one woman, who was trafficked, forced to become a sex
slave or was being forced and intimidated, that would be too
many. If the
efficacy of the offence is predicated on the number of prostitutes in
that position, and therefore the number of people who might reasonably
be at risk from a strict liability offence, the Government could have
provided us with more information on the numbers. I do not know how
many men in Britain use prostitutes, on average, each night, but I
suspect that it is in the tens of thousands. I suspect that it is not
as many as in Italy and I do not know why that should be the
case—perhaps the religion of the country produces a behaviour in
men, but I do not understand that. Estimates have been made of the
extent of prostitution across Europe, and there are particularly
problems in particular countries. Nevertheless, the figure is
high. I
do not know whether the Minister envisages that 10,000 men a night
could be at risk of committing that offence and that the police will
pick them up. If it is 10,000, and if the number of prosecutions is as
low as it is for the offences that have been on the statute book for
three years, men will understand that they have a one in 10,000 chance
of being prosecuted. I am not sure that that achieves the purpose of
the measure, and it is difficult to know without having the data on
which the Government based their
numbers. It
is the view of the International Union of Sexworkers—I have met
many people who work in the industry at such meetings—that the
draft legislation and all its clauses will increase the vulnerability
of people in the industry. No matter how well intentioned it is, it
will tend to drive the industry back underground,
which makes the vulnerable people involved in the industry more
vulnerable. While we might like to think that it will help, there is no
evidence that it would. People in the sex industry assert—I
accept that they are only assertions—that it will make matters
worse, and I do not see why they should have a vested interest in that
if they are not being controlled, as many of them are not. I believe
that it will aid traffickers and those who control prostitutes by
deterring some of the people who know where the offences take place
from reporting them. I would like
to live in a society in which men or users, if they encountered
prostitutes being controlled against their will, would report it and be
encouraged to do so. The proposal sends the opposite message before
that technique has even been tried. I accept that the numbers are
currently low, based on what we have, but the approach has never been
tried.
Finally,
there is the question of blackmail, which was not addressed but is a
point I raised when discussing the amendments on strict liability. It
was not a point that the Minister responded to, but there are men who
have sex with male prostitutes who could take the money, have sex,
claim that they are controlled for gain—the people who run those
rackets are not stupid—and then threaten to expose the
individual concerned and report them to the police, not only for having
sex with prostitutes, but with rent boys and homosexuals as well. When
considering legislation such as this, we must recognise that that might
create more offences and damage without the evidence that it is solving
the problem it seeks to
solve. Ordered,
That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mr.
Ian
Austin.) 4
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 10 February at half-past Ten
o’clock.
|
