Prostitution law change 'is flawed'

 www.publicservice.co.uk (19 May 2009)

The government has been accused of doing a u-turn on prostitution and diluting legislation to the extent that it no longer protects women forced into the 'profession'.

Clause 13 of the Policing and Crime Bill, which essentially decriminalises prostitution and makes it an offence to buy or attempt to buy sexual services, ie the offender is the service user, not the provider, is going through its third and final reading in the Commons.

However, changes to the wording make it an offence to buy sexual services from anyone "subjected to force, deception or threats" rather than anyone "controlled for gain by a third party". This essentially means that buying services from a prostitute who has a pimp is not illegal but it is an offence to buy services from someone who is under duress from someone else.

Not only does the legislation not make clear how a service user could find out if this is the case, it also means that British prostitutes who are not protected by trafficking legislation are vulnerable, campaigners have said.

Frances Brodrick, director of services at the women's charity Eaves, said: "In effect, this amendment reverses the significant progress made towards appropriate legislation over the past 18 months. If anything, we should be following the Nordic model – which recognises the gross human rights violations suffered by many women in prostitution, and takes action accordingly by criminalising all forms of demand – rather than further diluting what was already a comparatively timid legislative step. We are extremely disappointed by this backwards move."

And yet, Nicky Adam of the English Collective of Prostitutes approves of the new wording. "The change is an acknowledgement that there's a difference between prostitution and violence," she said, adding: "The 'controlled for gain' clause was so wide that it could have been used against anyone working with another person – even someone working with a another prostitute for safety. It would have been used to criminalise women working independently and collectively, forcing women to work on their own, thus making them much more vulnerable to attack."