Schedule 2
5:00 pm
Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I will whip through the amendment because we have already touched on it perforce. It is about the question of the extent to which the power will be used. The Minister said that it will not be used indiscriminately, and I am encouraged by that. I want to put it on the record that he said some important things, and indeed, the measure contains some important things regarding my concerns.
The amendment, which is probing, would remove the provisions whereby the closure orders apply to places where prostitution is believed to be, or is, controlled for gain, and would therefore restrict them to matters relating to child prostitution and pornography. The Minister said that there is guidance on how the closure orders will be used. That is important because he could not yet commit to guidance in respect of issues relating to clause 13, which also impact on what we are discussing.
Is it possible for us in the Commons to see a draft copy of the guidance, so that we know what we are voting for? That theme has come around many times—for example, in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. It is hard to argue that draft guidance cannot be made available to us as it is years since the provision was first outlined. It is reasonable that we should be able to see what we are voting on. I hope that the Minister will consider enabling that, as a lot will depend on the guidance.
The Minister said that it is important that this power is not used indiscriminately. The point of my probing amendment is to press the Government again on three points that relate to that non-indiscriminate use. I agree with him that if it is not used indiscriminately and is used carefully, the power could be useful in tackling what it is directed against.
The first question is on the definition of “controlling ... for gain” in the 2003 Act. We have debated the place of madams over a couple of days. The Minister uses a form of words that does not wholly satisfy me, but he said that he would come back to us. It is clear that a madam may sometimes control for gain in the sense that she organises prostitutes and takes a profit from the exercise. However, the prostitutes are not coerced, intimidated or threatened by the madam and are willing to work under that procedure for their own safety and for a sense of fairness because everyone gets a share. It is not clear that madams will not become the issue. This point goes back to the definition in the 2003 Act and the question of Massey, which I will not rehearse. However, Massey is not and must not be the last word on the issue.
Secondly, the explanatory notes on the 2003 Act give an example of the sort of behaviour that might be caught by the offence of controlling prostitutes for gain under section 53. This relates to the 2003 Act and not to the restatement of the term “controlled for gain” in clause 13. The section in question is covered by one of the paragraphs that I wish to remove with the amendment. I am grateful to the UK Network of Sex Work Projects for raising the matter in its briefing. An example of behaviour that might be caught by the offence given in the explanatory memorandum is
“where A requires or directs B to charge a certain price or to use a particular hotel for [their] sexual services [...] and B complies with this request or direction”.
To me, that could be what a madam does. A madam might say, “You go to this room and do this.” Indeed, a madam takes a slice of the income as profit. The UK Network of Sex Work Projects points out:
“This definition of ‘control’ would apply to numerous responsible and non-exploitative relationships in many types of sex work.”
There is a discrepancy between the explanatory notes, which give an indication of the Government’s intention behind “controlling ... for gain” in the 2003 Act, and what the Minister has rightly said about the need to use the power with discrimination and in a way that will not catch the madam arrangement that women use for their safety. The point was made earlier that women should be encouraged to work in safe environments if they are in prostitution—it is not the Government’s aim to end prostitution. It is important to note that if brothels close in this way, it may simply lead to such women being taken further from the public glare and to less safe locations, particularly if there is no prosecution to trap the traffickers or exploiters and the women remain in thrall to them. It may lead to prostitutes working in their own homes or the homes of clients, which are both less safe.
Thirdly, although the Minister claims that he hopes that use of this provision will not be indiscriminate, I understand that when there are complaints, police are likely to be directed to go to such places to invoke a closure order. There might be complaints from neighbours in middle-class areas. I recognise that that is a particular problem, not least in my own constituency. It relates to men going in and out. It does not relate, in my experience and that of the police I have spoken to, to reports of screaming from inside these establishments. I do not see how the Minister can be certain that the police are not simply going to respond to complaints that there is a brothel, as opposed to complaints that there is exploitation, force, coercion, and intimidation being used against these women.
The amendment clearly does not do the job I am seeking to do. I have made it clear that it is a probing amendment, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the points I have raised in respect of it.
Mr. Campbellrose—[Interruption.]