---

Policing and Crime Bill

Yes, I will come to that precisely in the next section of my speech, and the hon. Lady should intervene if she does not get an answer. The Bill does not go as far as to outlaw paying for prostitution, as is the case in Sweden. That might have been a more intellectually coherent and honest approach. The Government are not brave enough to do that. Instead, the Home Secretary has apparently adopted the Finnish-style middle way of criminalising the client of a prostitute controlled for gain by others, whether those others be traffickers, pimps or perhaps even brothel owners. That is controversial because it is a strict liability offence, so it will not be a defence to argue that the client did their best to discover the true circumstances of the prostitute. The legal consequences of that are important. First of all, no client in Finland has been convicted of sex with an exploited or trafficked woman since June 2006. That is certainly not because the trade has gone away; it is because none of the women say that they are trafficked or exploited at the time, and juries are understandably reluctant to convict if the client says that he was misled. Many experts in Finland do not support those laws, and the unintended consequence has been a booming internet prostitution industry. I hope that the Home Secretary reads the submissions that she has received from interested parties, because she has stirred up something of a hornet's nest. This is the submission from Justice:"““Further, offences of strict liability—which may be appropriate in regulatory or environmental law—are not appropriate in these circumstances. Effectively, these provisions will criminalise the use of any prostitute other than one who is self-employed. This may deter men from using prostitutes who are not working alone. This is counter-productive in relation to their safety.””" As the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) knows, it is often the fact that women are working together that provides them with some reassurance that they will be able to defend themselves against particularly aggressive rapists, and other unfortunates who try to acquire their services. The Royal College of Nursing says:"““Part 2 will essentially lead to further criminalising of prostitutes and will place them in increased danger””." Liberty's submission says:"““What 'controlled for gain' means is also very broad, encompassing any activity controlled…in the expectation of gain for anyone. Presumably this would cover the owner of a brothel.””"