Move to decriminalise child prostitutes fails

The Policing and Crime Bill continued its passage through the House of Lords yesterday. Skip related content

There were divisions on a number of amendments.

The government successfully opposed moves to decriminalise child prostitutes themselves, review extradition arrangements, and restrictions on the storing of DNA.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Lib Dem) argued that child prostitutes should be treated as victims and not criminals but peers voted by 80 to 68, a majority of 12, to retain the current position.

Lady Miller told peers: "It is failure of institutional services that ends up in children going into prostitution and we shouldn't be further criminalising them."

Lord Desai (Lab) added: "It seems to me perverse that on the one hand we say these children are exploited by somebody else - they are not in prostitution willingly - and yet we criminalise them for doing something they have unwillingly done.

"There must be a logical contradiction here. If these children are exploited rehabilitate them, look after them but do not criminalise them."

Lord Skelmersdale (Con) also opposed Lady Miller's plans.

He said: "It is important to remember we are not talking about legalising or criminalising all prostitution."

He added: "Isn't the key point here that behaviour that impacts seriously on the local community is to be accepted when engaged in by children but not when by adults. That cannot be right."

But Home Office minister Lord Brett said children were "only prosecuted in the most exceptional circumstances".

He told peers: "If we were to decriminalise the under 18s it would in our view send out a very wrong message.

"It would say that while it is unacceptable for women over 18 to be involved in street prostitution on the other hand it is in some way acceptable for a young person to loiter or solicit for the purposes of prostitution.

"It is one thing not to have a criminal offence for the under 18s but it is an entirely different thing to decriminalise a statute offence for under 18s."

Baroness Gould of Potternewton (Lab) introduced a new clause under amendment 36 concerning the control of sex establishments by local authorities.

She was concerned that the new licensing regime was "optional for local councils".

She added that it would be" lawful for an impresario to tour with a troupe of performers to different venues without any need for a licence".

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer opposed the amendment as a restriction on local authorities, but agreed that local authorities should implement the regime.

Lord Skelmersdale said: "There will be plenty of local authorities in this country for whom these provisions will be entirely unnecessary."

Lord Brett committed to "bring forward an amendment at third reading to address concerns regarding the lack of a statutory duty on local authorities to consult with local people on adopting these powers when they come into force".

The amendment was withdrawn, with Baroness Gould saying: "I will not divide the House today, but that does not preclude me from doing so at Third Reading if I do not feel satisfied with the replies."