House of Lords reject attempts to weaken sex trade law
On 3 November 2009, the House of Lords rejected another attempt to weaken the Government’s proposed new law dealing with prostitution and sex trafficking.On 3 November 2009, the House of Lords rejected another attempt to weaken the Government’s proposed new law dealing with prostitution and sex trafficking. CCFON welcomes the Government’s proposal and the Lords’ decision.
Clause 14 (formerly Clause 13) of the Policing and Crime Bill, which is going through the stages in the House of Lords, addresses the increasing demand for prostitution by making it an offence to pay for sex with someone who is subjected to force, where the definition of force includes coercion by threats and other psychological means, including exploitation of vulnerability. The clause is aimed at the protection of vulnerable and exploited people by shifting the focus of the law onto those who create the demand for prostitution.
However, the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment which would have weakened the proposed law. Their amendment said the offence should only apply if the person buying sex ‘is aware, or ought to be aware’ that the prostitute is being exploited.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne claimed that clause 14 would toughen the law with the effect of driving prostitution further underground. Her claims were challenged by Peers who defended clause 14.
Lord Morrow said that prostitution ‘is a matter of national shame’ which exists ‘only because there is a demand for it’. He said:
‘Increasing demand for paid sex is a matter of national shame. Not only does it result in more women being drawn into forced prostitution from within these islands but also in women being trafficked and, yes, trafficked into Northern Ireland.
‘We must confront the fact that forced prostitution exists only because there is a demand for it. If it was not for that demand, there would not be women languishing in forced prostitution in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the UK today.
‘There is a terrible sense in which anyone who buys sex from women subjected to force can do so in good conscience, going to bed at night knowing they are a good citizen who has broken no law.
‘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.’
Baroness Howarth of Breckland said that she agreed with Baroness Miller on the point that we need to do more about health, education and supporting the groups that can help young women to come out of the sex trade. But she added that she ‘listened to the stories of these women, who are all hoping desperately that noble Lords will support Clause 14.’
‘It will stop providers enslaving women, or at least deter them, because even if you are a user and not the pimp you are complicit; there is no other way of looking at it. If you see some of the young women whom I have seen, there is no way in which you could not know, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop implied, that they are damaged goods. They need to get out of that damage and live a life,' she said.
'There are good men who will stand instead for the rights of women and children so that they can live decent lives that are free from coercion and the slavery of the sex trade. I hope that noble Lords will support the Government,' she concluded.
(Click here to read the debate)
The new proposed law creates a strict liability offence. This means that the person who buys a sexual service commits an offence whether or not he knows that the person he is buying has been exploited. Without the strict liability element of the law, the purchaser would simply be able to say ‘I did not know they were coercively pimped or trafficked’.
The burden of proof is on the Prosecution who have to show that the person charged paid, or attempted to pay, for a sexual service.
