Ms
Keeble: May I give my hon. Friend an example that supports
his case? There is a young girl in Northampton whom I have met several
times; she comes from a well-to-do family, but she got involved in
drugs and became a prostitute, and she has been sleeping in a garage.
She is lovely girl, but she has had a rough time. Innumerable efforts
have been made to help her, but however much people try to help, she
keeps slipping back to drugs and prostitution. The bottom line is that
there are public nuisance issues and that other offences are being
caused. Much though society has tried to help her, it also has an
obligation to protect itself and others who might be affected by her
behaviour. My hon. Friend is right to say that there has to be a carrot
and stick
approach.
Mr.
Campbell: I am grateful for that example, which
illustrates the point very well. We have to consider the practical
effects of the measures in our constituencies and across our country.
My hon. Friend has provided a very good
example.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods: We must also consider any unintended
consequences. The New Zealand review picked up on the fact that
decriminalisation led to the spread of prostitution into residential
areas. That is a growing and significant problem in New Zealand. Our
aim is to address such problems better in the Bill. We also know from
the experience in Amsterdam that many women are being trafficked there
specifically for the sex industry, so that is another unintended
consequence of decriminalisation. It is not as straightforward as the
hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon suggests.
Mr.
Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing
not only words of wisdom, but practical advice on the lessons that we
can learn. Her point illustrates the importance of looking at what is
happening in other countries and how they are tackling the problem. We
can learn lessons from their experiences without necessarily following
the routes that they have
chosen. The
clause amends the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purpose of
prostitution, as set out in section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959.
It removes the term “common prostitute”, as I have said,
and requires that a person has acted “persistently”
before an offence is committed. That reflects current police practice
to arrest a person for the offence only if he or she has been cautioned
on at least two previous occasions, or has been convicted of the
offence.
12.30
pm The
Government’s co-ordinated prostitution strategy, which was
published in January 2006 following extensive public consultation,
signalled our intention to make these changes. The measures were
included in the Bill that became the Criminal Justice and Immigration
Act 2008, but had to be withdrawn due to time pressure. We
made it clear then that we would reintroduce them at the earliest
opportunity. Perhaps the only area of unanimity—at least there
was one—was support for removal of the term “common
prostitute” from the statute, as it is outdated and offensive.
The clause therefore removes the
term. The
clause also inserts the word “persistently” so that an
offence will now be committed by
“a person who
persistently loiters or solicits in a street or public place for the
purpose of
prostitution”, as
there are better ways of dealing those who are apprehended only once.
Persistence is defined as conduct
that “takes
place on two or more occasions in any period of three
months”. In
saying that the process we are seeking to introduce is in line with
current practice, the hon. Member for Hornchurch asked what currently
happens on the ground. The truthful answer is that it varies from one
area to another. In some instances, police officers approach
prostitutes and bring to their attention what they believe is
happening; they may also offer them advice and guidance. They might
proceed to a prostitute’s caution in the first instance, but in
reality that might not happen at that early stage. Practice varies
across the country, but there is good practice, and the purpose of the
proposal is to extend that good practice. We are working with ACPO on
proposals to ensure that there is consistency across the country, based
on what works. I hope that I have explained that
point. The
hon. Gentleman asked how warnings will be monitored and the information
kept. We regard this as a local matter, although not exclusively. We
expect prostitutes to be well known to the police in the area, so it is
not a question of looking to a national system. The matter is best
addressed locally and that is how we will
proceed. Prosecution
of the offence currently relies on the identification of the offender
as a common prostitute. As I said, the practice of all police forces is
to use a non-statutory prostitute’s caution to demonstrate that
a
person is a common prostitute. Offenders are not prosecuted until at
least two prostitute’s cautions have been given and witnessed.
The caution is not a formal prerequisite of conviction, but it has
become the method by which evidence is adduced to prove that an
individual charged for the first time is a common prostitute. That
generally takes the form of a brief administrative process, during
which it will be recorded that two police officers have witnessed the
individual loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.
The prostitute’s caution differs from a statutory caution in
that it does not require an admission of guilt. That practice will
continue to be used to prove that conduct has taken place on two or
more occasions in any three-month
period. Other
forms of support may be in place for women seeking to leave
prostitution. As well as establishing persistence, the cautioning
process provides an opportunity to direct the individual to services
that can offer them support to address the problems that have led them
into prostitution and to help them to find a route out. That is not a
new approach. It was set out in the original Home Office circular
issued in 1959 that was sent to police. Although the language of that
circular is somewhat archaic, the welfare approach remains valid. With
increasing partnership between the police and voluntary organisations
providing support to those involved in prostitution encouraged by the
strategy, there will be more opportunity for the police to provide
access to such support to good effect. As I said, we are working with
ACPO on that
policy. The
clause will repeal section 2 of the 1959 Act, which allows a person
cautioned for loitering or soliciting to apply to a magistrates court
to have the caution removed from the police record. As I said, that
section has fallen into disuse and no longer serves a useful
purpose.
Dr.
Harris: In defending the clause and section 1 of the 1959
Act, has the Minister taken into account the potential for an increase
in street prostitution because of the clampdown on brothels envisaged
in other parts of the Bill, such as clause 13 and the proposals for
brothel closure orders? Does the Minister accept that if brothels are
closed, whatever the motive for doing so, there is likely to be an
increase in street prostitution unless prostitution suddenly ceases to
be an option? That will cause an increase in risk and an increased
burden on the policing of the
offence.
Mr.
Campbell: I will certainly not say that I accept that as a
likely consequence. I think that we should have this debate when
discussing closure orders. The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the
police are to be given carte blanche powers to close any brothel; he
forgets that the measure is a targeted approach. We want to close
establishments that contain women—they are predominantly
women—who are being controlled for gain and/or have been
trafficked. Why would such women want to remain in prostitution and why
would they want to move from brothels to the streets? We are trying to
tackle the problem at source. Some of the establishments that the hon.
Gentleman talks of are holding and exploiting women, and that is what
we propose to clamp down on. It is not the case that those women will
necessarily find themselves on the streets.
Nadine
Dorries: The objectives are laudable, but on 18 December a
raid took place on a brothel where nobody had been trafficked and no
one was being controlled for gain, yet the police threatened to charge
the receptionist with controlling for gain. What measures will the
Minister put in place to ensure that the police bear the
clause’s objectives in mind and do not use it to close down
every brothel they know to be in
existence?
Mr.
Campbell: We are working closely with the police to
simplify what can be difficult judgments and to ensure that the
legislation works correctly. The orders under discussion were not in
place for the December raid the hon. Lady mentions. The police
presumably had some evidence on which to act. When we discussed
amendments to clause 13, we debated the issue of what other people in a
brothel might be doing and whether that can be construed as control for
gain. During that discussion, I set out very clearly that we do not
believe the definition includes someone who is, for example, keeping
and organising a woman’s diary, or someone who is at the brothel
specifically to keep the women
safe. My
answer to the specific question I was asked about madams is that it
would depend on their actual role. If a madam’s sole purpose is
to keep the women safe and there is no evidence that she is controlling
them for gain in the way set out by the Act and by case law—the
court is clear on the matter—she would not fall foul of the law.
However, if there is evidence that she is trafficking, exploiting or
clearly controlling women for gain, there can be no excuse for allowing
her brothel to continue. There is no simple answer. The hon. Lady says
that the aims are laudable, but we have to make the measures workable
too. We believe that the measures will have the desired
effect. We
are confident that continuing the police practice of issuing
prostitutes’ cautions provides adequate opportunity for an
individual to protest that they were not loitering or soliciting. If
there is real doubt about whether an individual is soliciting, charges
are unlikely to be brought. In the event of a prosecution, persistence
will need to be proved, and at that stage the man or woman will be able
to explain what they were doing when said by the police to have been
soliciting. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill
Clause
16Orders
requring attendance at
meetings
James
Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 23, in
clause 16, page 15, line 6, after
‘section’, insert
‘by making an order under section
177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
or’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 24, in
clause 16, page 15, line 8, at
end insert ‘(such order
requiring attendance at meetings being referred to as a “meeting
requirement order” for the purposes of this
section)’.
James
Brokenshire: The provisions of clause 16 effectively
follow on from those of the previous clause in that, rather than
levying a fine for an offence under clause 15, the court may deal with
a person convicted of such an offence by making an order requiring the
offender to attend three meetings with a supervisor. That effectively
reproduces, with schedule 1 and with some modifications, proposals that
were dropped from the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. Orders to
promote rehabilitation are now more neutrally described
as: “Orders
requiring attendance at
meetings.” Under
the previous provisions, it would have been permissible for an offender
arrested for breach of an order to be detained for up to 72 hours if he
or she could not be brought immediately before the appropriate court.
We will obviously go on to discuss the detail in schedule 1.
Amendment 23,
standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St.
Edmunds, is the principal amendment in the group. It is designed to
test the Government’s approach to the orders and to question how
effective they will be. If we assume—again, this is an
assumption made for the purposes of debate—that a criminal
justice approach is right or appropriate in certain circumstances, what
should that approach and response be? In the previous debate, we heard
from the Minister that the 1959 welfare approach remains valid, so I
assume that he accepts that some form of positive intervention to try
to change behaviour and prevent harm is appropriate, in addition to or
as a supplement to the existing, more traditional criminal justice
punishment approach. If we follow that line of logic, the clause merely
provides for a requirement to attend meetings. The provisions go on to
say that the purpose of those meetings is to
“address the
causes of the
conduct” and
to help people to
“find ways to
cease engaging in such conduct in the
future”. The
amendment seeks to test why an alternative approach could not be
taken—a community order, for example, with a drug rehabilitation
requirement attached to it, or some other support mechanism. Would that
not be a more appropriate way of addressing some of the underlying
causes, challenges or issues that might be connected with the criminal
behaviour in question?
In
determining what may be appropriate, a court will receive various
reports from probation and other services about the offender. Those
reports will set out and test what requirements or sanctions might be
appropriate to address aspects of the individual’s behaviour.
Why does the Minister believe that the meeting requirement will be
effective? There is some scepticism about whether making someone who
has been convicted of an offence simply attend three meetings will be
effective. It is all very well wishing that something might happen, but
where is the follow-through?
A court
order, which reflects a more compulsion-oriented approach, could be
more effective in providing assistance and support mechanisms in
relation to drugs and other problems. As we know, sadly, many people
involved in prostitution are also addicted to drugs and rely on a pimp
for their supply of drugs as well as for marketing their services. How
can we use the criminal justice approach in a constructive way to
direct and ensure that support services are followed through and acted
on?
Instead of simply saying that there will be some meetings, could a
different, more effective approach be considered? That is why we
propose the reference to section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,
which is the signpost to those community orders. I hope that
the Minister will clarify why the Government have taken this approach.
Will he consider looking at whether it is appropriate and whether
alternative approaches, providing support through a community
punishment, might be more effective and achieve some of the ends that
Members on both sides of the Committee want to be
achieved?
12.45
pm
Paul
Holmes: I have a brief point to make that follows on from
the comments that have just been made. I wonder about the rationale
behind the three meetings that somebody convicted of loitering for
prostitution could be sent to under the clause. Will the Minister
explain how we arrived at three? What is the effectiveness of three
meetings? Are they three half-hour meetings or three one-day meetings?
What duration are we talking about? Who will organise the
meetings—the National Offender Management Service or private
sector bodies that have won the contract? Will they be paid for from
the NOMS budget or will money be made
available? There
appear to be no arrangements to ensure that completion is noted by the
court and the police. Can the order be a repeat order or is it a
one-off? Can someone be sentenced to three meetings and a year later be
sentenced to three meetings again as a repeat offender? Under proposed
new section 1A(4)(b), which is in clause 16(3), the court will, if
sentencing somebody to attend the three meetings within a six-month
period, specify for up to six months where the person resides. That
could be seen as fairly draconian. How will it be monitored and what
are the penalties if the person moves in that period of up to six
months?
| 
