Amendments 67 and 68 seek to probe further the requirement to attend meetings. In particular, I hope the Minister can give us some detail about what these meetings will consist of. A considerable amount of research material has been published analysing the factors that lead a woman into prostitution and keep her there. These factors are diverse and frequently of a very serious nature, including alcohol and drug addiction or an abusive family life. Prostitution often leaves a woman with long-term problems to overcome if she tries to leave the industry, including serious long-term mental or physical health problems.
It would not be easy for even a well resourced and leisurely rehabilitation system to accurately identify these factors, let alone start the long process to treat, cure and support the patient afterwards.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raises a sensible point with her amendment about the necessity of ensuring that those coming to the end of their courses are given the information necessary to access any support network available to them. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee that passing over such information will be a priority.
However, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he imagines that three compulsory meetings, possibly with an unwilling or disengaged patient, will really make a difference. How will the court decide which sort of meetings would be most relevant? Will there be any medical assessment or professional intervention to identify any health problems? Would such an assessment count as one of the three meetings necessary to meet the order’s requirement? And of course, as with so many such initiatives, there will be a problem with resources. I understand that the Government are planning to rely on existing NGOs and charities to provide these meetings. Will they be reimbursed by the courts for their participation? If not, does the Minister not think that these rehabilitation orders could place an unfeasible burden on the third sector?
I have many questions to ask about what level of scrutiny there will be over the quality of advice and support offered by these meetings. Will a government agency be made responsible for ensuring that the meetings are meaningful? What steps will be taken if the courts decide that the meetings were unproductive and badly targeted?
The levels of support a woman often needs to lift herself out of prostitution and establish herself in a stable and healthy life afterwards are considerable. Although we welcome the introduction of a rehabilitation order as an indication that the Government are starting to accept that criminalising prostitutes just to throw them back on to the streets does nothing to address the problem in the long term, I am very sceptical that the requirement to attend three meetings of an uncertain and unspecified nature will prove to be much more helpful.
As I said, these are probing amendments. However, I hope the Minister will be able to give us more background to the arrangements for this rehabilitation programme.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Viscount Bridgeman
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 July 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c308 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:24:03 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572745
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572745
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572745