| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick: My Lords, in the Statement-I apologise for missing the opening sentences-the Minister referred to partnerships with civil society organisations and business. Will he say a little more about the partnership with business? I signed up my business, KPMG-one of the big four
6 July 2009 : Column 475
Lord Brett: My Lords, primarily, we are looking to partnerships with business, entrepreneurs and civil society in countries that we are seeking to assist. The noble Lord, in a perhaps roundabout and oblique way, declared an interest. I would rather take his question on board, because I do not have a direct answer to it. I have heard criticism abroad in the past about the British Government not being prepared to do anything but talk Government to Government. We think that that has been resolved to a great extent in respect of civil society, trade unions and, I hope, business. However, I happily take the point on board and, if the noble Lord will drop me a note or have a word with me afterwards, I will investigate the matter.
Lord Goodlad: My Lords, I add my voice to those who have welcomed everything that the Minister has said. As my noble friend Lord Hurd and others have said-indeed, as the Minister has said-the biggest cause of poverty and degradation in the world in the past few years has been conflict and war. The Minister has said everything that one would wish to hear about co-ordination between the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. I hope he understands that he will have the support of those on all sides of the House if that aspiration is translated into action.
Lord Brett: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. It is the Government's view that all the policies-not aspirations-that are set out in the White Paper are serious and are intended to be put into effect. The Government must persuade all those who need to be persuaded, and must be determined to persuade those who appear not to be prepared to carry this through.
It remains the fact that we have a national interest as well as an international responsibility. That is why we say that this is a moral cause but also a common one. Let us take climate change. The Maldives are worried about disappearing for ever. Even in 2007, the summer floods cost the not-so-badly-affected United Kingdom £3 billion, so we have a vested interest, whether that is in climate change or in fragile states. Eight out of 10 refugees who seek to come to this country in whatever form come from failing or fragile states. Again, we have a declared self-interest, but that interest is also moral.
We are therefore pressing for progress on education, health, basic services and the alleviation of hunger and, lately, for an understanding of the food crisis of 2008 in the developing world. There is a need to double food production in the next 20 years, which means using centres of excellence in this country to
6 July 2009 : Column 476
It is a gigantic task. I hope that the warm welcome in principle and, in most cases, in general, for the White Paper means that the views of this House about what we should do as a nation are supported by our colleagues not only in the United Kingdom, but in the United Nations.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, apologise for not being present to hear the Statement, but I have had a good chance to flick through the book. What is the standing of this document in terms of the entirety of DfID? It seems that there is a lot in here and much of this is mainline work of DfID, and I applaud that. I do not see any reference to the dependent overseas territories: St Helena, Montserrat, or Pitcairn Island. It is the first call of DfID to consider the requirements of those very small places. I do not see any reference to this in this book; so is that to be somewhere else?
I like the heading to chapter 5, "Keeping our Promises in a Downturn". That would be a particularly attractive mantra to those who are looking for an airport in St Helena.
Lord Brett: My Lords, with one or two noble Lords when they enter your Lordships' House, I know that every road leads to Rome. I guessed that this flight-or rather, it cannot be a flight; it must be a boat journey-would lead to St Helena. I can give an assurance that overseas dependent territories continue to have first call. I had the whole of Sunday to read the White Paper, and they are mentioned in there. The question of an airport on St Helena remains under review, I hope to be concluded by the end of the year. That is what my brief actually says-I anticipated that one.
I want to come back to the point made earlier, because I did not do justice to the question of the role of business and of growth. Growth is the key. Growth is the exit route and the role of the private sector is crucial to that. We are talking about supporting people through social assistance measures, but also putting £1 billion into support of growth and trade, working for a global trade deal, supporting sound tax systems and having an international growth centre to transform long-term growth. This, I think, is an area where we can guarantee that we cannot do it alone. In fact, the message from the White Paper is that this is not for Governments alone; it is for business, Governments and all of us.
Policing and Crime Bill
Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)
4.52 pm
71: After Clause 19, insert the following new Clause-
"Decriminalisation of associated workers in brothels
(1) The Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c. 69) is amended as follows.
6 July 2009 : Column 477
"33B Associated workers in brothels
For the purposes of sections 33 and 33A, a person who is not directly involved in the provision of sexual services is not to be treated as assisting in the management of a brothel by reason only of being employed in a brothel.""
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: With Amendment 71, we are looking at the issue of the decriminalisation of associated workers in brothels. This is another step on our road to try to decriminalise as much of this as possible. In introducing these amendments, I commend the Minister for his versatility and energy. He had a lot more consensus, I think, on the Statement just now than he will find from any of us with this Bill. Nevertheless, I shall press on with the amendments in the hope that he will agree with us on some things.
Our first amendment is to decriminalise the associated workers. They are extremely important. The women who work as receptionists or maids are essentially there to keep the sex workers safe, to raise the alarm if something very untoward happens and even to provide company in extremely dull times when there are no customers. None of those should be criminal acts and their presence when they might come across violent clients is essential. Of all the things I saw when we were invited to visit some of the premises in Soho, one of the most shocking was the safe room where women go when they are threatened with violence. There is a steel door and several bolts. It is not used frequently but frequently enough. Something so real as that was, for me, a salutary illustration that these women often face violence. It can appear when they are at their most defenceless.
Amendment 72 concerns the definition of a brothel. I originally tabled this amendment to suggest that the premises should not be regarded as a brothel where there are no more than two prostitutes. The Minister will have noticed that I changed this late last week to four because I reread the Royal College of Nursing's submission on this subject. With all the experience of nurses as health workers, they felt that four was the right number, so I decided to go for their recommendation.
The Minister has heard me talk before about New Zealand so he will not be surprised to hear me say that, in New Zealand, the law makes a distinction between a small, collectively run brothel of up to four people working together and larger brothels which must be licensed. Reports from New Zealand say that the new legislation has increased the safety and security of women by enabling them to work in this way. By contrast, there is no evidence that it has made life more difficult for those hoping to license the larger brothels, that it leads to more disorder or anything of that kind.
We are simply asking in the proposed new clause for recognition of the reality that, as long as women work in the sex trade, they should be kept as safe as possible. We aim to give the Government a chance to honour their commitment made on 17 January 2006. Fiona Mactaggart, then Minister of State at the Home Office, launched the Government's Coordinated Prostitution Strategy. The strategy document said that the present definition of a brothel ran counter to the
6 July 2009 : Column 478
"The Government will make proposals for an amendment to the definition of a brothel so that two (or three) individuals may work together".
With this amendment I invite the Minister to go back to the commitment made at that time. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman: We support the amendments. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us that nothing in this Bill would go against the safeguards that her new clauses seek to insert.
Amendment 71 raises an important point about those people working in incidental jobs in premises which are closed down. There is nothing to be gained by criminalising those who have done nothing wrong but work at a business that is later proved to be a front for an illegal brothel.
Amendment 72 rightly raises the concern that this new power will, if used inappropriately, drive prostitutes out of relatively safe brothels and on to the streets. We have all heard the statistics of violence and abuse against prostitutes. It would be entirely wrong to force prostitutes out of their private premises in order to expose them to more of these attacks. As the noble Baroness highlights, even the Home Office accepts that the current definition of brothel goes against common sense. Why have the Government continued with this harmful definition?
5 pm
Lord Brett: I resist these amendments and hope to persuade noble Lords why Amendment 71 will not achieve its aim and why the Government do not support Amendment 72. Amendment 71 seeks to amend the offence of keeping a brothel used for prostitution by exempting those who do not own the brothel, but are employed there not directly in the provision of sexual services. We do not believe this would be appropriate. However, the amendment could prevent the prosecution of someone who knowingly takes an active part in the running of a brothel. Existing case law already excludes people involved in purely menial and routine duties such as cleaning the stairs or answering the door. We consider it appropriate that someone can be prosecuted for managing or taking part in the running of a business where they have some control over it, even if they are not the owner. The classic example might be a man who has control and ownership of a brothel and employs his brother or friend to manage it. We are therefore not inclined to amend case law in this area by means of legislation.
Amendment 72 also seeks to amend the law in relation to brothels by amending the definition of a brothel to ensure that where one or two prostitutes-the amendment provides for up to four-work together at a premises, whether with or without a maid, the premises will not be considered to be a brothel as long as the prostitutes retain control of their earnings from that prostitution. This definition could apply to a number of offences in the Sexual Offences Act 1956 such as the offence of keeping a brothel. The question of the term "brothel" is defined by case law as a house,
6 July 2009 : Column 479
This covers two or more prostitutes working together at a premises even if only one of the prostitutes uses the premises at any given time.
The noble Baroness referred to opinions expressed by a previous Minister, and it is true that our Coordinated Prostitution Strategy, published in 2006, sets out a commitment to amend the definition of a brothel so as to allow two or three individuals to work together. This remains part of the prostitution strategy, and during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill last year, we made a commitment to consult before any change to the definition was made. Following the publication of the strategy, we received considerable feedback about the negative impact such a move might have on the ability of enforcement agencies to identify and deal with prostitution involving trafficked victims, the under-18s or those who have been exploited, as well as concerns from communities about the impact on local neighbourhoods. Furthermore, the recommendations arising from the Government's review, Tackling The Demand For Prostitution, published in November 2008, make it clear that the priority of the Government should be to focus on measures that address demand. The Government fully accept the findings of that review, and Part 2 of this Bill includes measures to implement some of its specific recommendations. These measures, combined with the non-legislative recommendations made in the review, form the immediate priorities of the Government.
While we still accept that there are arguments in favour of allowing two women to work together in one premises, I am concerned that there could be problems with such a move. Instead, the Government intend to focus their efforts on tackling demand and reducing exploitation. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Monson: Having listened to both sides of the debate, I concede that there is some weakness in Amendment 71 for the reasons advanced by the Minister, although it could be redrafted for the next stage so as to eliminate the aspects he mentioned. However, I do not think that the case he has made against Amendment 72 stands up at all. This is a thin Chamber at the moment and obviously there is no question of the noble Baroness deciding to divide the Committee, but the case she and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, have made for Amendment 72 is very strong. I hope that she will think seriously about bringing it back at the next stage.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I was a little late for the start of this debate and had not realised that it would end as quickly as this. I very much support the amendment and I find it quite extraordinary that it is being resisted in this way. What is being asked for here is the introduction of safer ways for people in this trade of selling themselves, if you like-whatever it is and for whatever reason. It would at least be safer for them under these circumstances. I am not at all convinced by what the Minister has said and I hope that the noble Baroness will bring the issue back on Report, if not sooner.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I am certainly tempted to test the opinion of the House sooner, given the amount of informed support that I have had, but I
6 July 2009 : Column 480
The Minister's only real argument in resisting Amendment 72 was considerable feedback from the enforcement authorities, but that is only one side of the equation. They are not concerned with health, and calling them enforcement authorities suggests that they are not concerned as much with women's safety in this instance either. I hope that between now and Report-it is getting ever further away because we have a Statement or even two every day and are making slow progress-the Government will have plenty of time to rethink. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
73: Schedule 2, page 142, line 23, at end insert ", and
(c) that any persons identified under paragraph (b) have been consulted"
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: Amendments 73, 75, 78 and 80 concern what happens when a closure order is issued against premises. Amendment 73 would ensure that at least if a closure order is offered, it is done fairly by consulting those who should be consulted. Amendment 75 refers to the authorising officer having regard to the views of those consulted, and Amendment 78 is concerned with other measures that could be taken but the police decide for their own reasons that it would be much easier to issue a closure order than to undertake the other more onerous and difficult measures. I invite the Minister to put on record where closure orders should lie in the system of priorities.
We believe that they should be a last resort, particularly when bearing in mind that such premises may be people's homes and children may be adversely affected. The closure order should be undertaken seriously. The Minister in another place talked about it being necessary to disrupt criminal activity and exploitation. Obviously there must be a level of evidence that serious criminal activity, such as violent pornography or class A drug-taking, is happening on the premises, but the Bill does not say that closure orders should be made only as a last resort, which is worrying.
That brings me to my last point, on proportionality. We should aim to ensure that only proportional action is taken. For example, a closure order was issued this year in Soho against premises, and it was thrown out of court. It was not found to stand up at all, and there was no good reason for issuing it. Had that gone
6 July 2009 : Column 481
Viscount Bridgeman: Again, we have sympathy with these amendments. They would add an important requirement to ensure that the police operate with the safety of those working within the brothels in mind. As previous debates have highlighted, it is often unclear where the line of exploitation is to be drawn. As the noble Baroness emphasised, it is imperative that when considering a closure order the police should talk to and listen to those in whose interests they are meant to be acting.
Baroness Stern: I support the amendments. The problem with these clauses brings us once again to the realities of work in the sex industry. While I am sure we all welcome the aim of combating trafficking and child exploitation, these provisions, once again, have unintended consequences. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that sex workers are safer inside than outside-the research suggests 10 times safer-and so measures that drive sex workers out of their premises and on to the street are not desirable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, mentioned the closure order that was taken out in Soho at the time we were visiting for meetings with the people who work there. Although in that case the order was not brought into effect, it is important to note that the women who lived there had prompt access to lawyers, who took action immediately. This is unlikely to be the case with many people in that situation. It is very important that the orders are used only for their avowed purpose of dealing with trafficking and exploitation.
It is worth putting on record the comments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that these provisions carry a real risk of violations of the right to family life and respect for the home under Article 8 of the ECHR, and the protection of property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 where the premises are privately owned. The Joint Committee on Human Rights corresponded with Ministers about safeguards on these provisions but was not satisfied with the assurances. The replies led the JCHR to say that when designing policy,
- "the state is required, as part of the proportionality exercise, to take the least restrictive measures to achieve its aim".
This would mean that closure orders should be made only as a last resort when other methods have been tried and failed.
The JCHR also notes that there is no specific requirement in the Bill for the authorising officer or the court to consider whether an order would make someone homeless and, if so, if they could find alternative accommodation. That, too, leads the JCHR to feel that these measures need amendment. I very much support the noble Baroness.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |