debate in the House of Lords about new legislation

In my last posting I wrote about the debate on the new legislation that I heard on Woman's Hour on the radio. This was about clause 14 and 15 of Policing and Crime Bill which makes men criminally liable for 'paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force'. It comes into force on April Fools' Day.

Two women debated each side of the issue, Cari Mitchell from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Anna Van Heeswijk from Object. I wanted to find out more about Object so I went to their website http://www.object.org.uk/

On this site was a lot of false statistics and false arguments. I will deal with some of these in my next posting, but the most interesting thing for me was a link on this page http://www.object.org.uk/index.php/component/content/article/3-news/78-victory-as-peers-vote-for-women-not-pimps-and-punters to a pdf file of the debate in the House of Lords in November of last year http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/lhan128.pdf

What was interesting was that 12 people spoke in the debate and 6 were for the new legislation and 6 were against it unless it was modified by amendment. Males and females were equally divided on the issue. 3 men and 3 women spoke on each side.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer spoke first and she said some very sensible things. After saying that coercion in prostitution was unacceptable she said this.

“I am not speaking to defend men who buy sex. I am moving this amendment in response to concerns about the effect that this legislation will have on some of the most vulnerable women in our society ...”

She went on to say this.

“Those who support Clause 14 say that making men criminally liable for, 'Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force', will drastically reduce the demand for such services and reduce the incentive for traffickers to traffic women. That belief contains two assumptions that I do not believe are correct: first, that most prostitutes are trafficked women; and secondly and more importantly, that this legislation will make that trade lessen and disappear by further criminalising the sexual services trade. The supporters of the Bill do not accept that it will drive the trade underground and endanger the very vulnerable women that they seek to protect.

If I believed that the Government’s assumptions were true I would support Clause 14. However, I have looked carefully at the evidence and it does not support those two assumptions. First, there is the evidence on trafficking, which we have had a lot more of since debating this in Committee. The Home Office figures on the number of people working in the sex trade who have been trafficked have themselves been widely challenged. That was no surprise to us because we quoted in Committee the work that was just being published by Dr Mai and that had been funded by the ESRC.The Guardian report of 20 October also produced many more questions about the veracity of the Home Office figures.

Be that as it may, let us suppose for a moment that the Home Office is right about the figures. The next question to answer is whether as a result of the provisions the sex trade will disappear, or whether it will continue to exist but as a less dangerous place for women to work. There is lots of evidence on that from countries all over the world, including the US, which, with the exception of one or two states, has a highly criminalised system. For us, however, the most persuasive evidence came from those who work with women in the sex trade and those who work with the women themselves. I want to share with the House some of what I have heard since we debated this in Committee.

As far as those who are trying to improve the life of women in the sex trade are concerned, I shall simply cite, for instance, Georgina Perry from the Open Doors project in the East End of London. This project has been going since 1993, and it sees about 1,200 women a year who work in indoor sex and about 300 who work on the streets. Many are migrant women. They do not believe that the percentage of those who are trafficked is significant at all, but that the women who they work with are there because of economics, not force. They believe that it is essential to tackle health issues, first and foremost, and to support the women. They are deeply worried by these clauses.

In theory, many academics who have studied these issues for years and years are, equally, deeply against the Bill — I am sure that Ministers are aware of their names. Perhaps most persuasive are those who see the really terrible side. Women Against Rape are also deeply worried by these clauses. When we debated the provisions in Committee, the Government stated that this new offence, “is distinct from rape because there is no requirement to show that the defendant knew or ought to have known that the prostitute was threatened or deceived”. — [Official Report, 01/7/09; col. 278.]

As these provisions introduce a lower tariff, there will be a temptation to prosecute under them even in cases where prosecutions should be directed at the offence of rape. It is extremely rare to successfully convict someone of rape, particularly in such cases.

However, the most persuasive case for my amendment is made by the women themselves through the English Collective of Prostitutes and the International Union of Sex Workers. I am aware that supporters of Clause 14 are somewhat dismissive of these women’s comments and claim that they often represent the views of pimps and exploiters. However, that is not the case with the women I have met who have attended many meetings in Parliament. These women are very fearful that the trade will be driven underground.

We need to look again at the evidence from the JCHR, which made its case forcefully. It referred to the likelihood of the measure having unintended consequences, including driving prostitution further underground and increasing the vulnerability ofprostitutes. I do not think that the Government have provided new evidence to assuage the JCHR’s fears.”

She ended by saying this.

“However, in this instance I am deeply worried that the Government are pursuing a line that will increase these women’s vulnerability and will not solve the problem. We should be looking at better enforcement of existing law rather than creating this new offence.”

Lord Morrow spoke some rubbish about the bicentenary of the abolition of the slave trade and the 175th anniversary of the release of all British colonial slaves in relation to contemporary 'sexual slavery'. He went on to talk about the issue of forcing prostitution further underground.

“I am of course aware of the argument that says if you make it an offence to buy sex from someone subjected to force, you will push forced prostitution underground and women will suffer more. I do not believe, however, that this stands up to close scrutiny.

If we do not make it an offence to buy sex from people subject to force, women will continue to be drawn into forced prostitution and more and more will suffer.

If, on the other hand, we do make it an offence to buy sex from women subject to force, some men will think again, mindful of the fact that the shame of being caught buying sex from someone subject to force will be considerable, and fewer women will suffer.

Moreover, we must not forget what the Swedish police have told us; namely, that making buying sex an offence does not push prostitution underground in the sense of being beyond the law’s protection. Pimps have to advertise to their punters and reel them in, and it is in doing this that they give themselves away and the police can move in and take action.”

He is wrong because forced prostitution is rare in this country. The law will impact women who are not forced, and make their lives more difficult and dangerous. He seems to be suggesting that the police will always be able to find and arrest pimps. This seems such a strange thing to say. It's like saying the police will always be able to find and arrest drug dealers. If that was possible, there would be no drug-addicted street girls. Even I, who speaks out against drugs, can understand the argument for legalising some drugs (such as heroin) so that drug taking is no longer forced underground.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland decided that a few 'facts' were called for. She said this.

“Let me remind the House about numbers. The average age in Europe for entry into prostitution is 14.”

“Seventy five per cent enter before their 18th birthday.”

“Ninety-five per cent become hooked on class A drugs.”

Baroness O’Cathain then decided to give a few 'facts' of her own.

“According to the Home Office, as many as 70 per cent of the women involved in prostitution were drawn into—bullied into—prostitution as children.”

“Let me give you some facts: 85 per cent of women in prostitution say that they were physically abused as children; 70 per cent spent time in care; and 45 per cent have experienced sexual abuse.”

“We are so often told about prostitutes who regard prostitution as a business, one where some make much money, and can shut out of their minds what they are doing. But, if the research is to be believed, they are in a very small minority. According to that research, 90 per cent of prostitutes say that they want to escape prostitution, but they do not feel able to do so.”

“More than half the prostitutes involved in one study said that they had feared for their life at least once.”

I don't have to tell you that all of these facts are wrong. What do you think of a democracy where baronesses can make decisions that affect large numbers of women, some of whom are the most vulnerable people in society, based on false statistics, some of which are provided by a Home Office that is dishonest and has its own agenda? Remember that Baroness Miller had already stated that the Home Office statistics were not to be trusted.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland thinks that she can help poor mothers by taking their money away from them. She said.

"... or they are poor and are doing it to support their children. What kind of society allows the degradation of a mother, with all the social and health issues involved, to support her children? We can do better than that."

Both Baroness Howarth and Baroness O’Cathain talked about teen runaways and girls in care. These are common stereotypes of women who become prostitutes.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer restores my faith in baronesses.

One statistic is interesting. '90 per cent of prostitutes say that they want to escape prostitution'. If you did a poll of sex workers in walk ups in Berwick Street Soho, it would not surprise me if 90 per cent said they would prefer to be doing something else. I mention Berwick Street because I am familiar with it. There are many walk ups close to the market. I wonder how many of the sex workers would like to get up early in the morning in winter and work on Berwick Street market all day. Some would, some wouldn't, but there is nothing to stop them.

A lot of the talk was about strict liability which is a technical issue that I won't go into. Except to say that some people are trying to change the whole basis of how law works in our society for the worse.