I support the amendments. The problem with these clauses brings us once again to the realities of work in the sex industry. While I am sure we all welcome the aim of combating trafficking and child exploitation, these provisions, once again, have unintended consequences. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that sex workers are safer inside than outside—the research suggests 10 times safer—and so measures that drive sex workers out of their premises and onto the street are not desirable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, mentioned the closure order that was taken out in Soho at the time we were visiting for meetings with the people who work there. Although in that case the order was not brought into effect, it is important to note that the women who lived there had prompt access to lawyers, who took action immediately. This is unlikely to be the case with many people in that situation. It is very important that the orders are used only for their avowed purpose of dealing with trafficking and exploitation.
It is worth putting on record the comments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that these provisions carry a real risk of violations of the right to family life and respect for the home under Article 8 of the ECHR, and the protection of property under Article 1 of Protocol 1 where the premises are privately owned. The Joint Committee on Human Rights corresponded with Ministers about safeguards on these provisions but was not satisfied with the assurances. The replies led the JCHR to say that when designing policy, ""the state is required, as part of the proportionality exercise, to take the least restrictive measures to achieve its aim"."
This would mean that closure orders should be made only as a last resort when other methods have been tried and failed.
The JCHR also notes that there is no specific requirement in the Bill for the authorising officer or the court to consider whether an order would make someone homeless and, if so, if they could find alternative accommodation. That, too, leads the JCHR to feel that these measures need amendment. I very much support the noble Baroness.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Stern
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 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 c481 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:33:50 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574783
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574783
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_574783