Mr.
Campbell: I am grateful to hon. Members, particularly my
hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham, for reminding us of the
importance of looking at the policy objectives of this particular
measure. Described rightly by the hon. Member for Chesterfield as a
radical
approach, the clause amends the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and introduces
a new offence of paying for the sexual services of a prostitute who is
controlled for another person’s
gain. Bearing
in mind that we had an extensive debate on Thursday on the amendments
to the clause, I shall give a brief background to explain how we have
arrived at the current position. Some of the views that were expressed
imply that the policy had somehow arrived on the back of an envelope
with neither the support nor the evidence necessary to back it up. On
the contrary: the Government published a co-ordinated prostitution
strategy in January 2006, which made it clear that their policy was to
address demand for prostitution by targeting those who pay for sex, and
focusing on those areas where abuse and exploitation are commonplace.
We built on that in January 2008 with the demand review, which explored
the legislative and non-legislative options available as well as
learning from the experiences of other countries, such as—as had
been mentioned—Sweden and the
Netherlands. The
review involved key stakeholders and practitioners, including the
police, the Crown Prosecution Service and organisations supporting
individuals involved in prostitution, and a range of views were
expressed. It also included an assessment of relevant academic
research, which was fully referenced, an audit of enforcement and
prosecution practice in England and Wales to identify best practice, an
independent evaluation of approaches to tackling demand in nine other
countries and ministerial visits to Sweden and the Netherlands to learn
more.
Dr.
Harris: Do either of the two stages that the Minister
mentioned— the 2006 publication of the policy strategy and the
launch in January 2008 of the review—involve a specific
consultation on the strict liability offence that we are discussing? He
went on to say that the evidence in the review was fully referenced.
Does that mean that when the review is finally published, we will be
able to look at the references section of the article? Does
“fully referenced” mean that the mere mortals among us
who have not seen the review will be allowed to see it at some point
before the Bill becomes
law?
Mr.
Campbell: The review has been published, and it references
the contributions that were taken into consideration. I think what the
hon. Gentleman is talking about is the additional—for want of a
better term—consultation. We are currently looking at that short
consultation. He will agree that we do not want to release into the
public domain information that has not been properly looked at or dealt
with according to the rules that should apply in such circumstances. In
addition, we did not say to the contributors to that particular part of
the consultation that we would make their views public. However, we
will announce a date in the near
future.
Dr.
Harris: There is some confusion. I accept that the review
says with a few footnotes what came from where. But the review talks
about another review by the university of Huddersfield of the evidence,
and I assume that that is not merely opinion and submissions, but a
proper review of the academic evidence and published literature. Has
that been published? I am not talking about
consultation responses, but I would be grateful if he will clarify what
consultation there has been to date on that
offence.
Mr.
Campbell: So that we can make progress, I will furnish the
hon. Gentleman with the information that he seeks on the academic basis
for the work that we are doing.
The
Government made it clear at an early stage that we were looking at the
demand side as opposed to the supply side of prostitution, and it
became clear that we were looking at strict liability. We have not
hidden our intention to make progress on that, and I can explain how we
have arrived at strict liability rather than something else.
The hon.
Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a very good point about the way in
which the Committee has been conducted, and I fully endorse what she
has said. I fear, however, that that consensus of approach, if not of
opinion, was in danger of breaking down with the comments of the hon.
Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon and his colleague the hon. Member
for
Chesterfield. The
hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon talked about existing
offences on trafficking being able to deal with the problem. The
reality is that we have done a great deal on trafficking. To some
extent, we are world leaders on that matter. But let me give the hon.
Gentleman an example of where that approach could lead if we are not
careful. Imagine a raid, like Pentameter, on a brothel where women have
been trafficked for sex and the traffickers are in the brothel. The
women are in the brothel and so are the punters who are visiting to buy
sex. We know what would happen to the traffickers. If they were caught,
prosecuted and convicted, they would face lengthy prison sentences. We
know what would happen to the women, because we have signed up to the
convention that means we now have a national referral mechanism and
they would be treated as victims. But unless we have a measure such as
the one that we are proposing today, the men would walk away from that
brothel and not be held to
account. Before
the hon. Gentleman rises to say, “But surely the women have been
exploited to the point of rape,” of course it would be
appropriate if the men could be prosecuted and convicted for that. In
reality the evidence is not always available, so we are left with a
situation where all the people in the three parts of the story can be
dealt with by existing law, except the men who go into that brothel,
who disregard in many cases whether the women have been trafficked or
are being controlled for gain, but nevertheless purchase sex from them.
The measure that we are proposing intends to fill that
gap.
Dr.
Harris: I accept that there is a strong argument that that
gap should be filled. I just urge the Minister to remember that in our
previous debate it was suggested by those on both Opposition Front
Benches that a non-strict liability offence with objective recklessness
would actually allow him to punish the people who are guilty of
something equivalent to rape with more than a £1,000 fine. That
has enormous merits, deals with all the concerns that we have just
heard around strict liability, and provides a penalty to match the
crime. That is what we urge him to
consider.
Mr.
Campbell: I have agreed to look at some of the points that
were raised on the amendments to the clause in the previous debate. We
are confident that strict liability is necessary because, as I have
explained, there is a gap that needs to be filled. The hon. Gentleman
says that he agrees with us in that regard. But there is also a very
strong deterrent message that we need to send. If someone has purchased
and used the services of a prostitute who has been controlled for gain
or, heaven forbid, has been trafficked, and that someone says that they
did not know, that is no excuse in those circumstances. We should not
have to furnish the evidence that the hon. Gentleman is looking for to
prove all the points that he raised in our previous discussions. We
need to send out a strong message to men that such behaviour is not
acceptable.
Paul
Holmes: The principle of English law for centuries has
supposedly been that one is innocent until proven guilty. The Minister
wants to say that it is too difficult to prove people guilty, so we
will find people guilty without any evidence. Why not go the whole hog,
which is what the Government were partly considering with the Swedish
law? But even that is a halfway house. Why not just say that the
purchase of sex and the sale of sex are illegal? The Government seem to
be getting to that by a roundabout route, by saying, “That is a
legal activity, but we will find you guilty even though there is no
evidence to show that the sex worker you were with was trafficked or
coerced.” 11.15
am
Mr.
Campbell: These are part of the remarks that I want to go
on to, but I shall say something about the principles of English law
that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I want to refer to his
comments where we part company, to a large extent. I cannot understand
a system of criminal law that does not do everything that it can to
tackle the exploitation of women, or men, who are put into these
circumstances.
The hon.
Gentleman got into a debate with himself, and others, around the number
of trafficked women who are brought to this country for sexual
exploitation. On the evidence that we have, most of the women who are
trafficked into the country are brought here for sexual exploitation.
He wanted to talk about numbers, but he said that his
understanding—from his experiences and conversations with
organised groups, which I do not discount—is that the number of
sex workers who have been trafficked are exaggerated. He referred to
the situation in Derby. It was pointed out in the evidence sessions
that many of the people we are talking about are probably working on
the streets of London, rather than in his, or my,
constituency.
However, the
point was also made that just because a person is a foreign prostitute
does not mean that they are trafficked, and the hon. Gentleman repeated
that. This is not just about trafficked women—and possibly
men—it is about people who are controlled for gain. However, it
is wrong to traffic women into this country for sexual exploitation
whether the figure is 4,000 or 40,000. It is still wrong and it is
still this Parliament’s obligation to do everything that it can
to protect those women. It is not the only thing that we will be doing
to tackle prostitution, but our view is that this strict liability is
appropriate and proportionate.
Paul
Holmes: We fear, along with most of the organisations
working in the field and many legal organisations, that what is
proposed will end up making things worse for sex workers. The fact that
we disagree on the mechanism does not alter the fact that we agree just
as much as the Minister that anyone involved in exploiting sex workers
in this way should be punished by the full weight of the law. However,
one has to find people guilty first.
Mr.
Campbell: This is a discussion that my later comments will
address. I want to make some progress on this point and I will come
back to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks if I do not answer them
directly. Part of the preparation for this measure was to visit other
countries and look at their approaches. My hon. Friend the Minister for
Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing visited the
Netherlands, where prostitution is regulated through a system of
licensed brothels. He found that that regulation had not ended violence
against prostitutes, it had not reduced trafficking and it had not
reduced the involvement of organised crime in prostitution.
The review
therefore concluded that criminal justice measures were the most
effective way of protecting those involved in prostitution, who are
vulnerable to exploitation. We also considered the option of
criminalising payment for sex in all circumstances. We concluded that
that was not the right approach. Instead, we concluded that measures
should be targeted at reducing areas of the sex market involving the
most vulnerable—namely those who have been trafficked, are being
exploited, or are involved in street prostitution, who are mainly
women In
answer to the hon. Member for Chesterfield’s point about
Finland, we looked at the Finnish example. He said that he was not sure
whether there had been any prosecutions there, but I can tell him that
there have been. He then went on to make the point about the difficulty
of prosecution and quoted, several times, the police view that it would
be difficult. I accept that it will be difficult; we have never said
that it would not be difficult. I even accept that it will be very
difficult—we have never said anything else. However, it does not
mean that we should not try, through this measure, to do everything
that we can just because it is difficult.
Nadine
Dorries: Does the Minister accept that the objective of
licensing brothels in the Netherlands was not to reduce trafficking,
which is seen as an entirely separate problem? The purpose of licensing
brothels in the Netherlands was to keep a control of health care,
illness, needle use and exchange, and to get outreach programmes to the
brothels and for the Government to keep a better hold on what was
happening. It was never intended to reduce trafficking and the Minister
cannot use that as a justification for what he is
saying.
Mr.
Campbell: I did not say that that was the purpose of the
measures introduced by the Dutch. I said that their scheme has not had
an effect on those areas about which we are most concerned in this
particular measure. A strict liability provision should not preclude
our doing everything that we can to keep women safe in other regards
and to attend to their health needs. We should do everything that we
can not only to have exit strategies but to ensure that there are
resources to pay for them. I do not necessarily disagree with the hon.
Lady; the point that I was making is that the route that the Netherlands
has taken has not addressed the issues to which we have
given particular importance in our demand review and the measures that
we are introducing.
Dr.
Harris: Will the Minister give
way?
Mr.
Campbell: Let me move on, if I may. I will allow the hon.
Gentleman to intervene in a second. I want to go back to the
timeline.
In November
2008, the review was published, with a key recommendation that a new
offence be introduced to target those who pay for sex with controlled
prostitutes. There are already offences for trafficking and controlling
prostitution for gain, but the review concluded that in
order to tackle exploitation and abuse, legislation should
go further and address the source of the problem:
the sex buyer who creates the demand for
prostitution. I
want to put it on the record for those concerned about the extent and
extant of the measure that we understand that some people freely choose
to sell sex. However, we also know that many involved in
prostitution—both women and men—have little choice over
their involvement and would leave prostitution if they could. Our
priority must be to protect those people, the victims of exploitation
and
abuse. There
is an issue about exit strategies. We accept that resource issues are
involved. Of course it is about having services on the ground in the
locality and working with local providers to commission services, but
we accept that there may be resource implications. I give the
commitment that we are considering them.
Clause 13
will make it a criminal offence to make or promise payment for the
sexual services of a prostitute if any of that prostitute’s
activities relating to the provision of those services are
intentionally controlled for gain by a third person. The offence will
be committed even if the sexual services are provided abroad, but the
payment or promise of payment must be made in this
country. Those
who pay for sex choose to do so. In doing so, whether they know it or
not, they help contribute to the exploitation linked to prostitution.
It should not—I repeat, it should not—be an excuse to say
“I didn’t know the prostitute was being
controlled.” Proposed new subsection (2)(b) therefore provides
that the new offence will be one of strict liability, which will mean
that a person is guilty regardless of whether they knew that a
prostitute was controlled for
gain.
| 
