|
Memorandum submitted by Toynbee Hall (PC 15)
1. About Toynbee Hall and Safe Exit Toynbee Hall is a social action charity in East London with 125 years experience of working to tackle poverty and mitigate its' effects. Toynbee Hall develops practical, innovative programmes to address the needs faced by local people.
The Safe Exit partnership is an initiative of Toynbee Hall developed from research conducted by Toynbee Hall in 2003 which highlighted the need for multi-agency coordination around work on street-based prostitution.
Safe Exit aim's to reduce the scale of prostitution, improve services for the women involved, and reduce the impact on communities.
Safe Exit takes an innovative approach bringing together voluntary and statutory sector partners to develop better services for women involved in prostitution in a coordinated manner on a service-provision level, whilst also working on an individual level with women through for example the Diversion Scheme.
2. Aims of this Response · To support the Policing and Crime Bill in the legislation · To set out amendments sought to this legislation. · To provide evidence to support this from our practice
3. Summary of Toynbee Hall Recommendations
Section 13: We support this clause subject to the recommendations below:
· 'Controlled for gain' should be clearly defined to mean exploitation · The Crown Prosecution Service should issue and explicit policy statement that they will not prosecute purchasers who give evidence about the exploiter.
Section 15: We support this clause.
Safe Exit supports decriminalisation of people involved in prostitution and supports this section as a positive step.
Section 16: We support this clause subject to the recommendations below:
We support this clause subject to the recommendations below:
Recommendations for changes in the legislation:
· In S16 (2A) (a) insert 'multiple' before 'causes' · In S16 (1A) (6) insert new subsection between (a) and (b) reading 'make meetings and referrals holistic and person-centred, and actions based on priority needs identified by Supervisor and person to whom the order applies'. · In S16 (1A) (3) Add 'The supervisor should be trained in good practice in the operation of these orders'
The following points should be addressed: · Requirement for funding for supervisor and exiting services. · Voluntary schemes should be funded in addition by the same supervisor. · Clarify process for identifying supervisors. · Training for supervisors · Scope for work with the partner of the person selling sex where appropriate · Clarify what happens if women are re-arrested during an order · Clarify level of information the supervisor needs to provide the court.
Guidance should accompany this legislation covering the following points: · Expectation that women are likely to be re-arrested on multiple occasions due to the long term nature of the exiting process. This shouldn't be deemed a failure of the rehabilitation order · Explicit recognition that not all women will be suitable for the orders on every occasion and guidance should be sought from the supervisor · Guidance for front line police to make clear that regular, repeat arrests will not speed up women's exiting of prostitution where they are engaging with the orders.
Section 18: We support this clause subject to the recommendations below:
· Guidance provided to Magistrates recommending the removal of any requirement for tape-recorded evidence
· Requirements for the police to prioritise the safety of those selling sex when conducting enforcement under this section, with recommendations to consult organisations supporting those selling sex when planning operations.
· Recommendations for police on enforcement practices which will not put women's safety at risk.
4. Our Evidence
Evidence from Safe Exit Safe Exit knows that street-based prostitution is
dangerous, with women in prostitution in
Safe Exit has recently set up the Assisted Reporting Scheme to support women to report offences against them to the police in Tower Hamlets via trusted, appropriately trained services, and for the police in turn to share information with the women. This is currently being piloted.
The vast majority of our clients are drug users, and all have complex needs. They are women who have not made positive choices to be selling sex, and exiting prostitution is difficult. Services that respond to women's holistic needs and provide support to exit are not well funded, if at all.
It is essential that the safety of those who sell sex is prioritised and services that provide support to them are funded.
Criminalisation of women who sell sex further traps women in prostitution because they sell sex to pay fines; and criminal records make it more difficult for those women who manage to exit to find work.
We believe that women selling sex should be decriminalised. However, in the absence of de-criminalisation, the Rehabilitative Order, with amendments, in conjunction with voluntary pre-court Diversion Schemes can provide better support to women involved in prostitution than to fine women.
Prostitution is a market crime; therefore unless buying sex is no longer condoned, then people will continue to sell sex. Many of those who sell sex are vulnerable and are not making a choice to do so. Accepting this vulnerability we must challenge the demand for prostitution.
We support S13 and S18 Policing and Crime Bill with the amendments below. Both sections provide scope to focus on the harm caused by demand for prostitution, and the impact of prostitution on local communities, without police enforcement against vulnerable people who are selling sex.
Safe Exit have set up a partnership with The Change Course in Tower Hamlets to run this participative, educational course as an alternative to the criminal justice system for men who are arrested for kerb crawling. This could be rolled out to men arrested under Section 13. On completion participants receive a caution rather than a conviction.
Evidence from the Safe Exit Diversion Scheme Safe Exit set up and has run the Diversion Scheme in Tower Hamlets since June 2006. This scheme was helps to stop the revolving door of women being arrested, fined, and going back out to sell sex again in order to pay the fine.
The scheme provides a supportive route into services to meet their needs which underlie their involvement in prostitution. The scheme involves two meetings; one with a diversion scheme worker who assesses the woman's most pressing need (e.g. drug rehabilitation, health, and housing) and the second with a specialist referral agency to start addressing that need. If the scheme is successfully completed the criminal case will be discontinued.
"I hate the diversion scheme, it makes me do things I did not want to do, but I am glad I done it as it has made me look at my way of life and I do want to change."
Diversion Scheme Service User.
During 2008 there were 105 opportunities for women to complete the Diversion Scheme, and 68% of women successfully completed. · Diversion Schemes can achieve real progress in addressing underlying issues where schemes are voluntary and women are empowered and involved in deciding priorities with the worker. In the majority of cases women are access services and their lives stabilise gradually.
Case Study 1: It is hard for the women to come off drugs and stop sex working when they have a controlling partner, but some have come through the scheme and have almost done it. Susan has been working for a long time; she is controlled by her partner who supplies her drug habit. But Susan has been getting stronger and on one occasion through the scheme she was referred to a drug agency. She was put on a script and has stayed on it. Her partner does not like it but she has stood up to him, even though she has suffered for it. She is getting stronger by the day and although she still sex works she has cut down the amount of days she works and has spoken about leaving her partner.
Of the 22% of women who did not complete the scheme: · The Diversion Scheme is not able to reach some of the most vulnerable clients because a pimp/partner/exploiter will not let them engage voluntarily. A rehabilitative order may put enough pressure on their pimp/partner/exploiter to enable them to engage. · A few women know about and understand the Diversion Scheme and choose not to engage. We do not believe a rehabilitative order will be effective for them until they are ready to engage. · Some women engage some of the time, and are simply too chaotic to manage engagement successfully.
Case
Study 2: Joanne is in her thirties and has been
involved in prostitution for many years.
She was sexually
5. Policing and Crime Bill: Responses and suggested amendments
a. Section 13: Paying for the sexual services of a controlled prostitute
i. Position/ Concerns We are in favour of criminalisation of demand across the board. However, in the absence of the commitment towards such a clear and enforceable position we strongly support Section 13. It is essential however that 'controlled for gain' is clearly defined to focus on 'exploitation'.
A significant number of women involved in prostitution, on and off street, are controlled by a pimp/ partner or exploiter. The degrees of control vary from a co-dependent partner where she pays for his drug use, to very exploitative and/or violent relationships. In of street settings this can vary from trafficking and situations of women coerced, threatened or forced to sell sex, through to women who are working in a flat and paying a maid.
Prostitution is clearly a market, with demand and supply inextricably linked. It does impact on local residents and on those involved in selling sex, and those selling sex are often vulnerable and have not made a positive choice to sell sex.
Toynbee Hall concurs with the views expressed in Tackling Demand for Prostitution Briefing on Clause 13, Part 2 of the Policing & Crime Bill, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade on the need to address demand.
Given the situation of many of those selling sex, it is essential that it we challenge those who buy sex rather than the vulnerable people selling sex. Providing this is policed carefully in coordination with those providing services to people selling sex, this need not increase the danger faced by these people.
Buying sex on street is already illegal and made more easily enforceable and consistent through Section 18.
An argument against this clause is that it will be a disincentive for male clients to provide intelligence to police.
Only a small minority of referrals to support services for victims of trafficking come from male clients. This would indicate that male clients are not a significant source of referrals of victims of trafficking.
The Crown Prosecution Service could issue an explicit policy that they will not prosecute purchasers who give evidence which leads to prosecution of an exploiter. This would remove the disincentive of men coming forward after buying sex to support investigations and provide information about trafficking.
ii. Recommendation Section 13: We support this clause subject to the recommendations below:
· 'Controlled for gain' should be clearly defined to mean exploitation · The Crown Prosecution Service should issue and explicit policy statement that they will not prosecute purchasers who give evidence about the exploiter.
b. Section 15: Amendment to offence of loitering etc for purposes of prostitution
Safe Exit believes that those selling sex should be decriminalised.
In the absence of decriminalisation we support the removal of the stigmatising expression 'common prostitute'.
c. Section 16: Orders requiting attendance at meetings
i. Position/ Concerns Safe Exit believes those selling sex should be decriminalised, but we support S16 as a better option for the provision of support than to fine women. We have concerns about this section in practice and suggest amendments below.
From our work, we believe that: · Pre-court Diversion Schemes should be run in addition to the provision of Rehabilitative orders because: o Voluntary engagement is more likely to result in the individual's commitment to change o Women will avoid a criminal record which reduces barriers to exiting o The same result will have lower costs to courts.
· Rehabilitative orders (and Diversion Schemes) must be person-centred, and flexible in how the underlying issues are addressed. There cannot be a sole focus, or targets, on drugs/alcohol treatment even where this is a problem, because this will be ineffective if the individual isn't ready to address drug use. Schemes must build individual's motivation to change, and this may mean women successfully address debt, health or benefits before having the confidence and trust to address mental health or substance misuse.
· There must be funding for the work of supervisors
· There should be greater clarity around how supervisors will be identified.
· Supervisors should be trained and new learning collected and shared to ensure good practice is embedded.
· For section 16's purpose of supporting people to exit prostitution is to be achieved a range of services supporting these women must be funded and available. · It must be understood that not all women will benefit from a rehabilitative order. There should be magistrate discretion to hear the Supervisor's recommendations.
· Not all partners are exploiters and some women will change best if their partners change to. Services should be available for them too.
· Exiting prostitution is a long and complex process and one order will not result in exiting. This must be expected and multiple completions must not be used as evidence for Acceptable Behaviour Contracts or Anti-Social Behaviour Orders.
· Clarity is needed around women who are re-arrested during an order. If she has not finished the order when she is subsequently arrested will she receive another order? Will the first order be deemed to have been completed or will she be fined for this?
· Clarity is needed about the information the supervisor needs to provide the court - women's confidentiality and trust need to be protected.
ii. Recommendations and proposed amendments to section 16
We support this clause subject to the recommendations below:
Recommendations for changes in the legislation:
· In S16 (2A) (a) insert 'multiple' before 'causes' · In S16 (1A) (6) insert new subsection between (a) and (b) reading 'make meetings and referrals holistic and person-centred, and actions based on priority needs identified by Supervisor and person to whom the order applies'. · In S16 (1A) (3) Add 'The supervisor should be trained in good practice in the operation of these orders'
The following points should be addressed: · Requirement for funding for supervisor and exiting services. · Voluntary schemes should be funded in addition to the orders by the same supervisor. · Clarify process for identifying supervisors. · Training for supervisors · Scope for work with the partner of the person selling sex where appropriate · Clarify what happens if women are re-arrested during an order · Clarify level of information the supervisor needs to provide the court.
Guidance should accompany this legislation covering the following points: · Expectation that women are likely to be re-arrested on multiple occasions due to the long term nature of the exiting process. This shouldn't be deemed a failure of the rehabilitation order · Explicit recognition that not all women will be suitable for the orders on every occasion and guidance should be sought from the supervisor · Guidance for front line police to make clear that regular repeat arrests will not speed up women's exiting of prostitution where they are engaging with the orders.
Section 18: Soliciting:
i. Position/ Concerns We are in favour of criminalisation of demand across the board. We support section 18 as a step in this direction through simplifying kerb crawling legislation. Our amendments focus on ensuring this legislation does not increase risks for those selling sex.
It should be noted that in some areas, Magistrates Courts require tape recorded evidence of the purchaser soliciting to convict. This significantly increases the cost to the police of enforcing this legislation. In Tower Hamlets in 2008, whilst over 100 women have been arrested for soliciting/ loitering, only 29 men have been arrested due to the cost of kerb crawling operations. A second operation in 2009 was planned but has been cut due to funding considerations.
There are concerns about the impact of demand enforcement on the safety of those selling sex. These risks can be reduced through planning enforcement in partnership with services supporting people selling sex. Carefully spaced out operations (temporal and geographically) need not force women from the areas they usually, and hence more safely, sell sex. Continual or heavy policing will displace women to areas they are unfamiliar with and dislocate them from services.
ii. We propose the following amendment to section 18
We support this subject to the recommendations below:
· Guidance provided to Magistrates recommending the removal of any requirement for tape-recorded evidence
· Requirements for the police to prioritise safety of those selling sex when conducting enforcement under this section, with recommendations to consult support services when planning operations.
February 2009
[1] Home
Office (2004a). Solutions and Strategies:
Drug Problems and Street Sex Markets.
|