Clause 15
12:30 pm
Alan Campbell (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Tynemouth, Labour)
We are working closely with the police to simplify what can be difficult judgments and to ensure that the legislation works correctly. The orders under discussion were not in place for the December raid the hon. Lady mentions. The police presumably had some evidence on which to act. When we discussed amendments to clause 13, we debated the issue of what other people in a brothel might be doing and whether that can be construed as control for gain. During that discussion, I set out very clearly that we do not believe the definition includes someone who is, for example, keeping and organising a woman’s diary, or someone who is at the brothel specifically to keep the women safe.
My answer to the specific question I was asked about madams is that it would depend on their actual role. If a madam’s sole purpose is to keep the women safe and there is no evidence that she is controlling them for gain in the way set out by the Act and by case law—the court is clear on the matter—she would not fall foul of the law. However, if there is evidence that she is trafficking, exploiting or clearly controlling women for gain, there can be no excuse for allowing her brothel to continue. There is no simple answer. The hon. Lady says that the aims are laudable, but we have to make the measures workable too. We believe that the measures will have the desired effect.
We are confident that continuing the police practice of issuing prostitutes’ cautions provides adequate opportunity for an individual to protest that they were not loitering or soliciting. If there is real doubt about whether an individual is soliciting, charges are unlikely to be brought. In the event of a prosecution, persistence will need to be proved, and at that stage the man or woman will be able to explain what they were doing when said by the police to have been soliciting.