Agenda item

The report of the scrutiny task group – sex trade in Cheltenham will be introduced by the chair of the task group, Councillor Barbara Driver. The O&S committee are asked to satisfy themselves that the terms of reference have been met and endorse the recommendations before forwarding them to Council on 22 February.

The chair of the scrutiny task group, Councillor Barbara Driver, introduced the report. She reminded members that the starting point for the review had been media coverage which had suggested that Cheltenham may have a significant problem regarding the illegal trade of sexual exploitation. Following a comprehensive review, the task group recognized that there was a problem but this was no more significant in Cheltenham than any other similar town. Unlike Gloucester, the sex trade in Cheltenham was mostly behind closed doors rather than being on the street. It was essential that the borough council worked in partnership with other agencies to address the issue of the illegal sex trade however small. During the review, the task group had heard from a young lady who had been trafficked and they understood how difficult it was for women to get out of their situation particularly as they may not even speak English. The police had suggested that the borough council may be able to help by ensuring there was a safe house in Cheltenham where they could take these vulnerable people whilst they were giving evidence to the police.

At the end of the review the task group felt able to reassure the public that it was not a big problem in Cheltenham, however everybody should be aware of the danger signs and the council should continue to work with the other agencies to ensure that young and vulnerable people are safe. She added the task group had not been concerned with prostitution; their concern was with people who had not chosen it as their career but had been forced into it. They hoped that by raising awareness of this issue, this would encourage people to feel confident about reporting any suspicions to the appropriate authority. She concluded by thanking all the members of the task group and Rosalind Reeves from Democratic Services and Sidgoree Nelson from the County Council who had supported the review.

The chair asked members to consider whether the task group had met their terms of reference.

A member said the report contained some really useful information but felt there needed to be more clarity on some of the recommendations. For example in order to consider the request for a safe house there needed to be more information on how many people it would need to accommodate and how often. There may be issues about the security of the people running the safe house as well as those residing in it and he questioned whether CBH was necessarily the best provider. He also had some problems with the timings of the report, as if this committee were to conclude that the report needed amendment or the task group needed to do further work, the report had already been published with the council agenda.

Another member felt it was a good report and set out what the council could do, however a multi agency approach was needed.  They were concerned by the potential number of agencies involved set out in appendix 2 of the report and suggested that there were a lot of potential gaps between agencies where the approach could fall down. How could a joined up approach be ensured?

Another member welcomed the report and was shocked by some of the statistics it contained.  She welcomed the recommendations and thought it would be good if Cheltenham could be seen as a leading light in addressing this important issue. However she suggested more clarity was needed on recommendations iii) and v) to make it clear what was the council's role.

Councillor Chard, as a member of the working group, said the issue of a safe house was a difficult one but emphasised that it had been specifically requested by the police when they attended the scrutiny meeting. It was not intended as a long-term stay but purely for a short period of time from 28 to 48 hours to allow the police time to interview the people concerned. The vulnerable people could then be moved out of the county to other national facilities.

The Chief Executive, who had supported the review as the lead officer, wished to highlight a process point. The role of this committee was to ensure that the working group had met their terms of reference and could endorse the report and forward it to Council. It was not envisaged under the new arrangements that this committee would change the detail of the report and it may be that Council decides that they need some work to be done on working up the recommendations. He advised that during the course of the review he had had discussions with CBH and they had made it clear that they would require a business case in order to set up a safe house.  This business case was not currently available but if council were to support this recommendation in principle then the council would need to work with other agencies to work up the necessary business case.

The chair thanked the task group for their report. He felt it was important to make Councillors and officers more aware of the issue and encourage the public to raise their suspicions. He suggested there may be an action for the council to take some positive steps to make communities more aware of the issue so they could be more self policing in this matter.

Resolved that the scrutiny task group report be endorsed and forwarded to Council on 22 February 2013.