I thank the noble Viscount for his apposite questions, starting with what a supervisor is, and why we have not specified it more clearly in the Bill. The supervisor will normally be based in a dedicated support project for those involved in prostitution where such a process exists in a local area. However, it is not the intention that the role of the supervisor should be defined so as to limit the project work of a dedicated support user in practice. Supervisors may be based in a women’s resource centre or drug rehabilitation organisation. We want to tailor the supervision to the needs of the person who will benefit from the order.
That flexibility increases the potential availability of the order and means that an appropriate supervisor can be identified to deliver the order in cases involving male prostitutes, transgender prostitutes or young people involved in prostitution. All the clause requires is that a supervisor appears to the court to have the appropriate qualifications or experience for helping the offender to make the best use of the meetings, to address the causes of their offending and ways to stop it.
The intention is that the court can use anyone whom it considers appropriate to carry out that role. Guidance will state clearly those who have the greatest skills. They are likely to be people already working in specialist projects. We see a lot of advantages in using existing project workers to act as supervisors, not least that they may be in continuing contact with an individual after the three meetings have ceased. The voluntary sector is identified to deliver that because it has the greatest expertise in dealing with those involved in prostitution, and all those organisations have a key-worker approach, which will be extremely important in supporting individuals with a difficult challenge. A constable or the offender can apply for the supervisor to be changed if they consider the supervisor unable to continue to act. It will ultimately be for the court to judge whether that is the case and whether to amend the order. Equally, if people move from one area to another, adjustments can be made. The idea is to be as flexible and supportive as we can. The requirement for three meetings is but a start, and we hope that many will be encouraged from the first and second meeting to continue beyond the third.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Brett
(Labour)
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 c313-4 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:44:40 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572758
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572758
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_572758