Dr.
Harris: Can I take the Minister back to the point at which
I sought to intervene? On the Dutch position, would it not be a
sensible option to have licensed brothels that are essentially legal?
That way, all the health protection work that he wants could be done,
and it could be ensured that no one was exploited or controlled for
gain under his definition. Then a strict liability offence could be
created for anyone who actively chose not to use the legalised service.
That would be another option. Has he considered it, and if so, why did
he reject it? Also—I think that this is the third time that I
have asked—has he consulted, formally or informally, on the new
offence?
Mr.
Campbell: We considered all the options. As part of that
consideration, we included the legalisation of prostitution and,
indeed, of brothels. However, the hon. Gentleman must accept that in
coming to a decision, we knew that people would look at our approach to
prostitution for the message that it sends out. We would be sending
mixed messages if we went down the route of legalising prostitution or
brothels.
The hon.
Gentleman seems to be holding up the Dutch example as a model for us to
follow. Let me tell him that the Dutch are reviewing their legislation
in that regard. They are not content that it is doing what they want it
to do. Therefore, I would caution him against that. They are also, I
understand, looking at closing down some brothels, probably for the
reasons that I cited earlier. I intend to come back to his earlier
point. Let
me make a point about men who visit brothels, and believe or have
evidence that the prostitute is trafficked or controlled for gain, and
go on to inform the authorities. Much has been made of that, almost as
an alternative to the measure that we are bringing forward. We asked
officials in the Home Office to find some evidence, other than
anecdotal. I have talked to prostitutes who have told me that that
happens—they work for an agency and the agency is told by a
client that a prostitute that they have visited did not look well, or
looked stressed out, and is asked whether there is something going on.
I do not dispute that there may be some examples of that, but it cannot
be the sole method of tackling the problem. We are talking about
relatively few in number, while we may well be talking about a
significantly higher number of people who are controlled for gain or
who might have been trafficked into this country. Those who visit
brothels can already give such information anonymously through
Crimestoppers, but actual evidence of men who have done that is
difficult to find, so it can hardly be an alternative that could tackle
the scale of the problem that we believe needs to be tackled. Although
we welcome steps to facilitate such action, it is not a real
alternative to the strict liability
clause. The
offence recognises that exploitation connected to prostitution goes
wider than just trafficking. “Controlled”, as used in
proposed new subsection (3) in clause 13, is based on the existing
offence of controlling prostitution for gain under section 53 of the
Sexual Offences Act 2003. The term will cover those who have been
forced, compelled or directed to provide sexual services for
another’s gain, whether such control was exerted by people
traffickers or by others such as violent or coercive pimps. Proposed
new subsection (4) provides that the maximum penalty for this offence
is a level 3 fine, which is currently
£1,000. Briefly,
I shall say something about enforcement, because I understand the
concerns raised. We recognise the need for the police to prioritise,
and we want them to continue disrupting the activities of those
involved in trafficking or coercing people into prostitution. In
passing, on two occasions the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon
suggested that I had claimed that that would and should be a low
priority for the police. It is not my job as a Minister to tell chief
constables what their priority should be in an area. How they deploy
their resources is a matter for them. Apart from it not being up to me
to tell them, I have no recollection of giving that impression at
all.
Mr.
David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): The Minister is on
to an important point about the discretion that chief constables should
have. For clarity, are there are any Home Office targets, statutory or
non-statutory, that are set for detection of sexual offences, including
the new offence in the
Bill?
Mr.
Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are moving away
from a targeted approach, apart from with the confidence that people
have in their local police. If he is asking how that refers to the
targets that we would have now, and what would be intended, may I come
back to him? He raised an important point, but the general point
concerns the ability of chief police officers to decide on the
priorities in their areas. Nevertheless, if that is the law, it is the
law. We
believe that it is right that the offence is used to punish those who
paid for sex with someone controlled for gain and that it will send a
deterrent message to others that may potentially do so. We shall work
with the Association of Chief Police Officers to ensure that the
offence is enforced and implemented as effectively as possible, and
that it is used in a way that most effectively targets those who take
advantage of the most vulnerable persons involved in
prostitution. Briefly,
I want to mention another point of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and
Abingdon from our deliberations on Thursday, about making matters worse
and the potential for blackmail. He raised a serious point, but people
who use prostitutes currently risk blackmail in some instances. Using
prostitutes is not something that a significant section of the
population would regard as acceptable or appropriate. I take into
account his point about a new offence, but I do not think that it would
dramatically increase the opportunity for blackmailers to become
involved. However, there is always potential for that when punters use
prostitutes.
11.30
am The
point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire about education is
an important one: whether the offence would be drawn to the attention
of punters, and the need for education and awareness campaigns. The
campaign to raise awareness among potential sex buyers of the extent
and nature of trafficking is a specific recommendation in the tackling
the demand for prostitution review, which will support the coming into
force of the new offence in the Bill, so I can assure her that we will
be doing everything that we can—although there may be some who
would plough on regardless, and would not be deterred even if we
furnish them with the
evidence. The
hon. Lady, together with a number of other people, also raised the
question of whether the clause will make matters worse by driving
prostitution further underground. Our priority is to protect the most
vulnerable people involved in prostitution, who are already the victims
of offences such as being controlled for gain or trafficked. Those
responsible for controlling the people will already be taking steps to
ensure that they will be beyond the reach of the law. That makes it
difficult to prosecute, but as I have said, being difficult does not
mean that we should not do it. We are talking about some of the most
vulnerable people, exploited in some of the most horrible ways in some
of the darkest places. I cannot see how the strict liability clause
will make that
situation worse; in fact, I can see ways in which the clause will
improve it. So driving prostitution further underground is not an
intention, and we do not believe that that will be an effect. In our
earlier deliberations, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon
raised concerns about women’s safety. Improving the safety of
those involved in prostitution—voluntarily or
otherwise—is fundamental to what we are trying to do. By
reducing the demand for prostitutes who are controlled for gain, we are
aiming to improve the safety of all prostitutes. But in the present
context, it is important to reiterate that the development of the
measures tackling demand is part of a broader strategy, which sets a
comprehensive approach to dealing with the problems associated
with prostitution, including measures to improve the safety of
those involved in
that. Prosecutions
are already brought against those controlling prostitutes for gain, and
in such cases, the police would be able to bring charges against those
who have been found to have paid for sex with prostitutes who, at the
time, were being controlled. It is right that the law should be
extended to ensure that those who play their part in sexual
exploitation—by contributing to the demand—face criminal
sanctions. As
one would expect, I have discussed at length the Bill and the whole
process that has been undertaken to get us to this point with the
Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, and we
are of one mind on the matter. I pay tribute to him for the way that,
having started the process, he has pursued the matter and brought it to
the present stage; nobody has done more than him in that
regard. The
measure is important, and people will look back on it as a major
stepping stone in social reform. From my previous experience as a Whip,
I know that sometimes it is difficult to get Members to serve on
Committees because they have to spend time on other things.
[Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the hon.
Member for West Chelmsford, the Opposition Whip, say that he had no
trouble in doing that. I am not talking about this particular Bill, but
about others, and Bills in general, that are less interesting and
important than the one that we are dealing
with. I
have served on a number of Public Bill Committees, and sometimes it is
a case of getting through a Bill and seeing what effect it will have
out there, but in one’s own mind, some Bills may seem more
important than others. I cannot remember working on a Bill that is more
important than this one. People who are serving on this Committee will
look back on the measure in the future, when strict liability is
working, when we would have reduced the demand for prostitution, helped
women out of prostitution and helped to tackle some of the worst
examples of exploitation and trafficking, and be proud of the work that
they have done on the
Bill. We
will not always agree—we do not agree on clause 13, in some
cases—but I think that time will show that the measure is
extraordinarily important. The exploitation linked to prostitution,
which it is designed to end, destroys lives and should not be
tolerated. The clause is meant to protect the victims of prostitution,
but it will do something else. It is meant to send out a clear message
to those who would pay for sex with someone controlled for gain that
they will be held accountable for their actions. That is what it is
about: holding people
accountable for their actions who play a part in the vile exploitation
of some of the most vulnerable women. That is why I hope that hon.
Members will support clause 13. I commend it to the
Committee. The
Chairman: The Committee has debated the clause at great
length, and I am of the opinion that we have now considered it fully
enough to move to a vote.
Dr.
Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Bayley. Am I
able to respond? I do not remember the rules, but I thought that I
would be in a position to respond and, having raised the matter in the
debate initially and heard the Government’s response, explain
why we wish to press the clause to a vote. Is that not how it works on
clause stand part?
The
Chairman: You did not move that the clause stand part of
the Bill. You have had an opportunity to put your views clearly on the
record. All Committee members have heard them and will take them into
account when deciding whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.
I intend now to move to the vote.
Question
put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89), That the clause
stand part of the Bill.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
2.
Division
No.
3] Blackman-Woods,
Dr.
Roberta Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause
13 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
14 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
15Amendment
to offence of loitering etc for purposes of
prostitution
Dr.
Harris: I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 15,
page 14, line 28, after
‘person’, insert ‘aged 18 or
over’. I
apologise for not recognising the appropriate way forward during the
last debate, Mr. Bayley. I resisted the temptation to make
the points that I wanted to make during a clause 14 stand part debate,
as I was not sure whether you would have allowed that either. I shall
make a few short remarks about this amendment, because I rather
hope—[Interruption.] I shall wait until the
Minister is ready to hear my remarks. They are very short, and he might
miss them if he blinks.
Why have the
Government not introduced the provision in my amendment? I want it, if
possible, to be debated by the whole House, because the Government have
shown an interest in it before. I could go into the
reasons why there is a strong argument for decriminalising child
prostitution. They involve our human rights responsibilities and our
ability to encourage the victims of an offence—in this case
children—to come forward, which is less likely if they are
criminalised
themselves. The
Government have given some thought to this matter in the past and
indicated a willingness to look at it. I hope that shall I preserve the
opportunity for the House as a whole to debate this important issue if
I limit my remarks and provide the Government with an opportunity to
explain why they feel that this is not the right time to discuss it in
Committee.
Mr.
Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
short introduction. I understand his motives, and I hope that my
remarks will satisfy him on why we are pursuing this
route. Amendment
1 would amend the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes
of prostitution to exclude those under the age of 18. I find more
consensus with the hon. Gentleman on this matter than I did when we
discussed the previous clause, and I assure him that we share his
concerns about the issue, although I suspect not his route through
it. We
recognise that children who become involved in prostitution are victims
of a sexual offence and should be offered appropriate support. We do
not want children in those circumstances being subject to punitive
criminal sanctions. That view is reflected in the “Safeguarding
Children in Prostitution” guidance issued in 2000. Since the
publication of that guidance, the number of people under 18 who have
been arrested and prosecuted for that offence has been very low. In
practice, the offence is rarely used in relation to those under 18,
which we believe is right. For the Committee’s information, that
guidance will be updated specifically on this issue and published in
spring.
This issue
has been debated previously by Parliament, most recently during the
passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. During those
considerations, we outlined our concerns about the potential impact of
a change to remove under-18s from the scope of the offence. Those
concerns remain. By decriminalising under-18s, we risk sending out a
message that although we do not think it acceptable for adults to be
involved in street prostitution, we somehow accept that children can
be. We recognise that in the overwhelming majority of cases children
involved in prostitution should be treated solely as victims. Guidance
from agencies makes that clear, and that is consistent with the policy
of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which supports the
retention of this power.
However—this
is the nub of our argument—there might be exceptional cases
where criminal justice intervention is necessary to prevent a harmful
situation and allow a child to access support. That is why we want to
retain the ability for criminal justice agencies to intervene as a very
last resort. Where other agencies fail to engage with young people who,
for whatever reason, spurn offers of support and protection, the
criminal justice system enables us to remove those young people from
the street and any immediate danger. That intervention might make a
difference. I acknowledge the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and
others, but I assure all hon.
Members that our overwhelming priority is supporting rather than
prosecuting children who are involved in
prostitution. I
cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates
the reasons for that and will withdraw it.
| 
