I am not sure that there will never be a stigma associated with prostitution in some people's eyes, because it raises very strong feelings. However, we are looking for a series of practical measures to bear down on the demand for prostitutes when they have been controlled for gain and, in particular, when they may have been trafficked. We are offering a way out for prostitutes who wish to exit the sex industry, and, as part of that process, we believe that orders are very important.
Amendment 6 would narrow the definition of "persistence", so that the offence of loitering and soliciting could be used to protect those found loitering and soliciting only on two occasions in one week. We believe that that would be unenforceable in terms of police resources, so we cannot accept the amendment. If someone is found loitering and soliciting within a three-month period, which is a relatively short space of time, the police should have the power to take action against them. They may receive a caution or continue to receive a fine, but they may also be able to access the help that they need. That is why the new clause would introduce a rehabilitative penalty as an alternative to a fine, allowing someone convicted of loitering and soliciting to address why they were involved in prostitution, and helping them to exit street prostitution.
The orders should be tailored to individual requirements, and a series of meetings will take place as a gateway to their accessing the help that they need. If they breach the order, which will be a part of the process that the court puts in place, they should be held accountable for it. There is a misconception that the order would criminalise further those involved in street prostitution and that, as a result of making such persons subject to an order, they would face tougher sanctions, including imprisonment, for having breached it. That is not the case. If someone breaches an order, they will be brought back before the court, but its option at that stage will be the same as its option on conviction. The court will be able to impose a fine or a new order. In deciding what sentence to impose, the court will take into account the extent to which the offender complied with the previous order. A breach will not mean further criminalisation or the imposition of tougher sanctions.
One other issue that was raised in Committee is that the provisions allow an order to be imposed without the consent of offenders. Ideally, we want people to choose to engage with support services in order to leave prostitution, but persistent involvement makes some element of compulsion necessary. The strategy encourages a diversion from the criminal justice system towards support services and, ultimately, away from prostitution. If people relapse, they should get help, but they should be pushed towards accessing that help.
The orders are an important part of the development of the Government's prostitution strategy. I have outlined the reasoning behind its introduction and some of the major concerns that were raised Committee. I hope that hon. Members will reflect on my remarks and on what the Government intend to do, and remember that we are still in listening mode.
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.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
492 c1414-5 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:39:19 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560257
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560257
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_560257