Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, this is another of those Bills from the Home Office which turns its attention to a range of social problems and then tries to find a law-enforcement way of dealing with them. As such, it is rather to be regretted than welcomed, not because social problems do not need to be solved but—here I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—because social problems are rarely solved by law enforcement measures and when they are it is for only the short term. In particular, the Government have set their sights on prostitution, too much drinking by young people and membership of gangs, all of which fit neatly into the definition of social problems for which the solution is not more law, more law enforcement, more police powers and more criminalised people pushed into the ranks of the socially excluded. The answer is more social measures that deal with the drivers of these social problems, preferably by strengthening the role of local agencies rather than dictating from the centre. I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful and full introduction to the Bill, but I am afraid that I was not convinced that there is any evidence that the measures proposed in these areas will be effective. Effectiveness is one line of argument. These measures are not likely to work. For example, criminalising parents who cannot get their children to go to school, so that single mothers end up in prison, did not deal with the problem of truanting children, as we have been able to see quite clearly in the eight years since that measure has been on the statute book. The measures I am concentrating on today will not only be ineffective, they are also unsatisfactory in legal and human rights terms, and will give law enforcers powers that it is not desirable for them to have. I turn first to the measures relating to prostitution. The Home Secretary said in the other place that she was aiming to reduce the criminalisation of women. She also said, ""I am pretty clear that without a demand for prostitution, particularly the sort of prostitution that involves exploited or trafficked women, there would be less of it".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/09; col. 526.]" It is clearly a sensible policy aim to shift away from the criminalisation of women involved in prostitution. Many would agree with that proposition. The Home Secretary is right when she says that, without a demand for prostitution, there would be less of it. The proposition is unarguable. It is also unarguable that we should be concerned about trafficking for sexual exploitation. But we need to consider whether these proposals will have these effects. Can the law reduce demand for prostitution or will these measures be counterproductive? I share the view of many who fear that they will be counterproductive. Regarding the offence of paying for sex, even in the new circumstances defined by the amendment in the other place of force, threats or deception, there are widespread concerns. For example, there are concerns about the strict liability offence. The Joint Committee on Human Rights in its 10th report said that, ""the offence in its current form is overbroad and lacks certainty"." But there are other arguments, too, against this provision. Increasing the elements of criminality and possible law enforcement in the transaction between sex worker and client increases the danger for the sex workers, who are already, as the Minister said, a very vulnerable group. When I was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights we visited Italy in connection with an inquiry into human trafficking to look at the arrangements there. The system there did not aim to reduce demand—it was felt to have been an unfulfillable aim—but was concerned to protect women, to rescue them from coerced situations and to catch, prosecute and deal with traffickers. There was an anonymous phone line for anyone to ring who suspected that a sex worker was trafficked. Does the Minister think that many people would ring such a line or get in touch with the police if they felt they would then be charged with committing a criminal offence? Is it likely to protect trafficked women? I turn to the orders requiring attendance at meetings with a named supervisor which can be used by courts for those convicted of loitering and soliciting. The aim is to help people to get out of prostitution—an extremely worthwhile aim—but the Minister will no doubt be aware that there is a great deal of opposition to these proposals also. Once again, it is the right thing being done in the wrong way. Routes out of prostitution are needed and many organisations do superb work and achieve a great deal. The Government seem to have the view—I assume that this is the case—that it is the threat of punishment that motivates people to do what is good for them. Could the Minister for a moment consider what the life has been like of the women for whom these provisions are intended? Does he not think that their lives have already had more than their quota of punishment? Why does he believe that threats and punishment are more likely to work than support, encouragement and practical, no-strings help, given with understanding and a commitment to persevere even when there are relapses and crises? The third measure in Clause 20 gives the courts the power to make premises closure orders where there is evidence that the premises are being used for activities relating to certain prostitution and pornography offences. Here, too, the safety of the women is put at risk. All the evidence suggests that women are safer working from premises than working on the street. At a meeting I was able to attend with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we heard from sex workers and their maids, who are the gatekeepers, of the security that they can use in a flat to ensure that violent and threatening clients do not get in. They have CCTV and doors that they can control. This is not so easy to do on the street if they have been thrown out of their premises. I suggest that more safeguards are needed to restrict the use of this measure to protect any vulnerable people in the household who will be affected. The Standing Committee for Youth Justice suggests that the Government should give assurances that the local authority must first take into account the needs of any children who may be adversely affected as a result of a closure order. I hope the Minister will look favourably on that suggestion in the later stages. I also hope that at the next stage of the Bill we shall be able to persuade the Government that these offences should not apply to young people aged under 18. Young people engaged in prostitution are victims, not criminals, and criminalising them is objectionable. I support very much the words of the right reverend Prelate. I suggest that the Minister’s reply to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that criminalisation is helpful in getting children engaged in prostitution access to the services they need is a sad reflection on the state of services for very vulnerable young people. The Government’s argument in response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that, if we decriminalise prostitution for those under 18, we are sending out a message that for under-18s to engage in prostitution is acceptable seems to me totally fatuous. Are the Government really so out of touch with the realities of the life of those young people who end up on the streets? The measures on alcohol misuse are similarly problematic. A number of organisations—I have heard from the Alcohol Health Alliance, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice and others—are concerned that the offence of persistently possessing alcohol in a public place, in Clause 30, will result in the unnecessary criminalisation of large numbers of young people, whose drinking needs to be dealt with but not in this way. I endorse the thoughtful contribution made by the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, on this matter. The clause might also give smart young people a very bad impression of the rule of law, and will not contribute to their respect for it if they are subject to laws that make something illegal only if it is done once every four months within one year; it is not illegal the first time they do it, nor the second, and they could get away with it a third time if they waited one more month until the following year. It does not give a good impression of the thoughtfulness of the legislature. I turn to the injunctions to prevent gang-related violence, a proposal which, as Liberty says, continues the worrying trend of blurring the divide between the criminal and civil law which risks stigmatising and punishing the innocent along with the guilty. In effect, these are a mix of control orders and ASBOs for anyone suspected of engaging in, encouraging or assisting gang-related violence. I have watched the growth of ASBOs over the years with great concern and noted the limited evidence of their effectiveness. I have followed the development of the control order regime, and have always had great anxieties about that. In that context, these new powers seem to be a further slide downwards into giving the law enforcement agencies unacceptable powers outside a proper criminal justice framework. There seems to be little evidence that these measures will be effective in dealing with gang-related violence. Before coming up with these measures, did Home Office Ministers go to Glasgow and look at the community initiative to reduce violence that brings all the services in Glasgow together with the police to deal with the gang as a unit? As I understand it, gang members are invited to meetings that lead to routes out of violence and into education, healthcare and work. It seems to be working very well. Should we not be looking more closely at effective measures rather than at more laws that erode many of the legal protections that we have fought for over centuries?