UK Parliament / Open data

Policing and Crime Bill

Proceeding contribution from Alan Campbell (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 May 2009. It occurred during Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this at great length. We do not share the same views, but we have the same concerns. When we went out to consultation, no shortage of local authorities clearly indicated that, were the powers available, they would take them up. Ultimately, my hon. Friend's constituents decide the fate of the local authority. A local authority or lap dancing club that thought it could set itself against a local community would be short-sighted. It is important that local people hold local authorities to account. If lap-dancing clubs are a big issue in their area, the excuses that my hon. Friend attributes to her local authority would not hold water with residents. I shall move on to other important issues and try to deal with them properly and quickly, as I am taking up a great deal of time. On the decriminalisation of under-18 prostitution, new clause 4 seeks to amend the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution so that those under the age of 18 cannot commit the offence. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon tabled similar amendments in Committee. I want to be clear that the Government have a great deal of sympathy with the issue. There is a fine line between the positions held. We recognise that children who have become involved in prostitution are the victims of a sexual offence and should be offered appropriate support. That is in our advice, "Safeguarding children involved in prostitution", which was issued in 2000 and which we will update along similar lines this summer. Since the publication of that guidance, the numbers of those under 18 cautioned or prosecuted for this offence have been very low. It is clear, therefore, that in practice, the offence is used extremely rarely in relation to under-18s, and that in most cases children are treated as victims. The approach of treating children abused through prostitution as victims will rightly continue to be that approach that agencies take, but on balance—and it is a fine balance—we believe there are still reasons for retaining the current position on statute. First, decriminalising under-18s would risk sending out a message that we do not think it is acceptable for adults to be involved in street prostitution, but that somehow it is acceptable for a child or young person to loiter or solicit for the purposes of prostitution. If one child is deterred from getting involved in prostitution because they would be at risk of breaking the law, that would justify our position. Secondly, abolishing the offence could encourage pimps to target children, as they would know that the police could not arrest child prostitutes if they were found loitering or soliciting. Thirdly, we are concerned at the risk that such a move would encourage the trafficking of women into street prostitution, having been briefed to lie about their age. This may be a particular risk as it may be difficult to establish the age of women trafficked form abroad. There may be exceptional cases where support from agencies has been made available but the child refuses to accept that support. At that point, criminal justice agencies may be important to push the child towards that support. Our approach is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service. On that basis we cannot accept the amendments. With reference to persistent prostitution and orders requiring attendance at meetings, amendment 7 seeks to remove clause 16 from the Bill and prevent the Government from introducing orders requiring attendance at meetings for someone convicted of loitering and soliciting contrary to section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959. Following the publication in 2004 of a consultation paper, "Paying the Price", the Government published in 2006 a co-ordinated prostitution strategy that recognised the concern in communities not only about the nuisance that street prostitution can cause, but that there must be a way for prostitutes to exit prostitution should they wish to do so. Respondents strongly indicated that women who are involved in street prostitution have multiple and complex needs, and that our approach must recognise that complexity. It is important that the offence of loitering and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution is maintained and used where appropriate, and we have also identified the need for some important reforms to ensure that the offence is used consistently. However, we want to help people to begin exiting prostitution—something that is difficult to achieve with a fine, which is the current maximum penalty. We intend to remove "common" from the offence of loitering and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
492 c1413-4 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top