Programme motion, Report stage, 3rd reading in the Commons
- Speaker
Dr. Evan HarrisLiberal Democrat- Quote
- I shall continue with the second half of my contribution, in which I shall specifically support new clause 25. It has been tabled by myself, by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Totnes (Mr. Steen), by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes), and by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who chairs the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I understand that it is supported by both Opposition Front-Bench teams. My view on clause 13 is that further criminalisation of prostitution will be detrimental. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and I voted against the clause in Committee, but I recognise that my view on that does not have sufficient support in the House, and that the Government have a majority to get some sort of offence on to the statute book to tackle demand. It is only realistic, therefore, for me to work with other hon. Members to find a form of words on which we hope there can be majorities in both Houses. I am grateful to Liberty, Justice, the Criminal Bar Association, the English Collective of Prostitutes and the International Union of Sex Workers, as well as to hon. Members, for their help in drafting the new clause. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) for his willingness to try to identify a way forward that delivers what he wants—a workable law that does something about demand but does not have the drawbacks that he expertly identified in the Public Bill Committee. New clause 25 is therefore based on a consensus, and it has three main ingredients. First, it would get rid of the strict liability provisions, for reasons that I shall explain. Secondly, and as a consequence of that, it would enable the punishment to match the offence where there is not strict liability. Thirdly, it would redefine “controlled for gain” in a narrower way. I recognise that in tabling amendment 47 and associated amendments, the Government have also done that, so I do not propose to spend time comparing the construction of that amendment and the new clause. There are probably advantages and disadvantages to both, but they are both in the same general ballpark. I have some points to make about the Government amendment, however. First, it still provides that control has to be for gain. We considered that matter with the lawyers who were assisting us, and could not understand why the Government did not want to capture pimps who do what they do for cruelty and for the hell of it, who get a kick out of controlling women and girls in prostitution and perhaps running them for drugs purposes, but do not operate for gain from the sale of sexual services. If the Government are still in listening mode concerning the nature of that part of their provisions, they should consider that. Our equivalent provisions have four main parts. First, in proposed new subsection (3), we define a victim of trafficking. We use the language that has found favour with the hon. Member for Slough in other legislation. She is concerned that we ought to return to the definition that is often used in international law, and we have included it as far as we can. Secondly, the new clause mentions “coercion” and is therefore very similar to the Government’s provisions. We include in that violence, threats and intimidation. We thought that it was important that the third point was clearly captured, so that people controlling prostitutes would know exactly what they were letting themselves in for. We state that the person in control commits an offence if B—the prostitute—has provided sexual services “in order to gain access to controlled drugs”. Finally, recognising that we could not get the Government to agree with us on the matter in the Public Bill Committee, we believed that we needed to discriminate between brothels that are run co-operatively, in which the women at all times accept the control of the madam, and brothels where women are working together but do not freely consent to the direction or instruction of someone who tells them, “Do this with this person, in this room, for this price.” That situation would be covered by the new clause, because we reached consensus on a pragmatic way forward that would cover mischief in relation to which demand needs to be tackled on a non-strict liability basis. I hope that the Government will consider that further, as they have indicated they are willing to do in another place. I now turn to the important matter of strict liability. I know that other hon. Members will talk about the experience and views of the English Collective of Prostitutes and others, so the best thing that I can do is demonstrate the forensic job that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, did, in a report that was unanimously agreed, on why the strict liability offence is so wrong.
- Time
- 19:39
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Fiona MactaggartLabour- Quote
- rose—
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Dr. HarrisLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Of course I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who has strong views and has always been willing to have a proper exchange of views on such matters.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Fiona MactaggartLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman describes the existing situation, whereby men who rape prostituted women too often act with impunity. Does he realise that Cleveland police authority, which has the highest conviction rate for rape—twice the average rate of other police authorities—is also the most active in protecting prostituted women and tackling kerb crawling? Is he aware that it is possible to prosecute effectively if police and prosecution authorities work together to protect prostituted women? Cleveland has begun to show that, but it is not being done elsewhere in the country.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Dr. HarrisLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- The hon. Lady’s comments would be evidence for the Government’s proposals if a causative association could be shown between the further criminalisation of prostitution and what she describes as an improved success rate for rape convictions. However, even she does not make the direct association—[Interruption.] I am sorry—I did not hear what she said just then; I shall give way to her again shortly, but I want to make my point clear. Policing prostitution as she described cannot be said to cause higher rates of conviction for rape. She states ex cathedra—I would like to see the published evidence—that there is such an association. Those on our side of the argument are talking about clear evidence of driving women away from the police. Making men more furtive will make women more vulnerable.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Fiona MactaggartLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been no research on causation. But let me offer him two facts. First, approximately 20 per cent. of all the prosecutions for kerb crawling in the country happen in Cleveland. Secondly, Cleveland police authority has double the average success rate, and a much higher success rate than the nearest police service, for rape prosecution. That authority takes seriously the violence against women that is inherent in prostitution. I believe that, as a result—though no study has been funded and completed—
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Dr. HarrisLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- Perhaps it will be best if I do not take any more interventions. I have the utmost respect for the way in which the hon. Lady has put her case on this matter in the past few months. However, all I can say about her comments is that she is entitled to her own opinions, but not to her own facts. We need evidence-based policy, which seeks to protect women and punish the real offenders. New clause 25 would make it an offence for a person to make or promise payment, or use the sexual services of a prostitute, when he knows or ought to know that the woman essentially does not consent. Associated with that is a prison sentence, which is the proper penalty befitting the offence of deliberately having sex with someone who does not consent, or of being reckless—the new clause has a wide recklessness test—of that fact. In the worst cases a long prison sentence can be expected, because it cannot be right for such an offence to be greeted with a fine. The fundamental difference between us is, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights makes clear, that the Government’s approach has no evidence to back up its effectiveness. It is not sufficiently clear for users to know when they are committing an offence, and it will make matters worse for the prostitutes because the men will be driven to seek out the exchange of money for services in a place where they will be less likely to be detected.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- rose—
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Philip DaviesConservative- Quote
- rose—
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Dr. HarrisLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- I have nearly come to the end of my speech, but I shall give way twice before concluding.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Keith VazLabour
- Quote
- I am happy to accept “I have nearly come to the end of my speech.”
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Philip DaviesConservative
- Quote
- The new clause specifically states that a person commits an offence when they know or “ought to know” that somebody is “the victim of trafficking” and so on. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by “ought to know”? I am not entirely sure what that means.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Dr. HarrisLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- “Ought to know” is a recklessness test, which basically means that if the court decides that it is reasonable that the person should have known, given the information in front of him, that the other person was not consenting—that the person was controlled, or whatever definition we use—he would be committing an offence. I hope that I have answered the question. Now I shall respond to the intervention by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). He is right: the case has been made for new clauses 4 and 25, and I hope that the House will support them both.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Fiona MactaggartLabour
- Quote
- Given that so many hon. Members wish to speak, I aim to be brief. I want to speak about amendment (a) to amendment 47, amendment (a) to amendment 51 and amendments 215 and 216. Some are amendments to the amendments that the Home Secretary tabled to clause 13. Earlier, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) reminded us of what, for many of us, is the trigger for the debate: the violence that is inherent in prostitution, and the cause of the fact that prostituted women are, according to the British Medical Journal, 40 times as likely to die a violent death as other women. The Government’s proposal for a strict liability offence, which targets demand for prostitution, is based on clear evidence from other European countries that such an offence can reduce trafficking and also the demand for prostitution. For example, in Sweden, the number of men who pay for sex has reduced in the time that that country has had a stricter but comparable offence, from 13.6 per cent. to below 8 per cent. On the whole, that 8 per cent. pays for sex outside Sweden. Other Nordic countries have followed Sweden, including Norway. Despite being so much smaller than Sweden, it had a massively larger population of women who were trafficked for sexual purposes. Norway perceived that as a serious human rights problem, which it had to address. Finland has a slightly half-hearted version of the offence, with few prosecutions, although more have begun to be conducted. Countries that have taken the opposite approach, such as the Netherlands, regret it and have experienced the growth of criminality and abuse that is inherent in prostitution. It is also important to realise that public opinion on the issue can follow leadership. The Swedish law has become more popular since it was introduced. When the Minister for Women and Equality commissioned research in the United Kingdom into whether people thought it right to make it illegal to pay for sexual services, to start with, only a third thought so. When there was a prompt and people were asked whether such a law should be part of a campaign to reduce trafficking and exploitation, a clear majority of respondents supported it. That is why, despite being profoundly attracted by the Swedish approach, I felt it right to support the Home Secretary’s more limited definition, which says that there should be a strict liability offence of paying for the sexual services of someone who is controlled for gain.
- Time
- 19:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lynne JonesLabour- Quote
- My hon. Friend is arguing that the Government’s proposals as amended by her would help to keep women safe and help victims of trafficking. Could she cite evidence that the laws in Sweden have been effective in doing that? She gave no information on that point. Have the laws in the countries that she has named been subject to reviews of their effectiveness, as has been the case in New Zealand, which she has not cited, but where completely the opposite approach has been adopted?
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Fiona MactaggartLabour
- Quote
- Those laws have indeed been subject to such review. There is quite clear evidence from research showing the extent to which there has been a reduction in trafficking in Sweden. I cannot find the citation, which is buried somewhere in this heap of paper, but I will send it to my hon. Friend by e-mail. That is also evidenced by the figures that I gave comparing Sweden and Norway. She referred to New Zealand, where there has been a Government-sponsored survey of the impact of the law. In this debate we are looking into how we can use the prevention of demand to protect women, and we are considering a legal mechanism to effect that prevention of demand. However, there are other mechanisms to prevent demand. Small communities, where people know each other, act as a very effective mechanism to prevent demand. If someone knows the guy knocking on the door of the brothel and is aware that some of the women in the brothel are exploited or controlled by other people, they will be likely to tell their neighbours that he is sleeping with exploited women and paying for it. That changes the nature of the sex market in New Zealand—the fact that it is miles away from anywhere also changes it. The community is very small there and it is different from other places. I have quite specifically compared us to similarly diverse and similarly densely populated European countries that, I believe, have stronger lessons for Britain.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Keith VazLabour
- Quote
- I know that my hon. Friend has a great interest and passion in the subject. However, she has clearly not had the opportunity to read the Home Affairs Committee report into human trafficking, which we published last Thursday, following a year-long investigation. The best way to stop demand is to stop the women from being trafficked into the country. That means going to the source countries. Once those women get here, it is too late. My hon. Friend’s complaint is actually against prostitution. It is not about human trafficking; she just wants to stop prostitutes.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Fiona MactaggartLabour
- Quote
- My right hon. Friend is using an inaccurate definition of trafficking. Trafficking does not require people merely to be transferred across a border. Rather, trafficked women are often moved around within countries. There are women trafficked from Glasgow to Nottingham, Slough or London daily. We therefore cannot simply deal with such gross exploitation and violence towards women by protecting women from Romania or Thailand; we have to protect the women in our own communities who are trafficked and exploited through violence, pimping and abuse.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lynne JonesLabour
- Quote
- Will my hon. Friend give way?
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Fiona MactaggartLabour
- Quote
- May I just finish this point? This is a point on which the Government and I do not completely agree, but I have chosen to support them in what I believe they are trying to achieve. I urge the Minister to accept my amendments because, without them, he will not achieve what I believe he is trying to achieve. The Government have identified the ill as the exploitation and control of a prostituted woman by another person. In effect, that is a modern day form of slavery. We are talking about women who do not have a choice because of “force, deception or threats”, to use the Government’s words. We also need to include the psychological exploitation that is so often at the heart of prostitution. The Bill will not do what the legislation in Sweden has done. It will not make any man who pays for sexual services an offender. There is a strong argument for doing that. I believe that buying someone else’s sexuality destroys human relations and creates a grossly unequal society. At present, however, I am not arguing for that position. I am hoping that the Government will accept my amendments and ensure that this offence will include women who are controlled by psychological means and exploited because they are vulnerable. Ministers have taken that position from their platforms in the past, and said that those women should be protected.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lynne JonesLabour
- Quote
- My hon. Friend responded carefully to my earlier intervention, saying that there was evidence that trafficking in countries such as Sweden had been reduced. However, she did not address the question of whether violence against women in the sex industry per se had been reduced. In relation to New Zealand, does she not think that that country has just as many big cities as Sweden? To suggest that it has no large communities is an inaccurate reflection of that country.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Fiona MactaggartLabour
- Quote
- It does have large communities, but they are not as diverse as those in Britain. The mechanisms that we would need to use extend beyond those that would work in New Zealand. I have not challenged the New Zealand Government-sponsored review of their legislation, although I have spoken to women who have worked with prostituted women in Britain and who currently work with prostituted women in New Zealand. They believe that that report is not a proper description of what is happening on the ground there. I did not answer my hon. Friend’s question about violence against prostituted women in Sweden because I could not find the citations that she asked for. I can tell her, however, that I have spoken to Kajsa Wahlberg, a chief police officer in Sweden, who has made the specific point that one of the consequences of the Swedish legislation is that women are safer. I want to conclude by looking at the issue of human rights. People have cited the conclusion of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that introducing strict liability in the Bill would make it difficult for an individual to know how to regulate their conduct, and suggested that that could lead to an abuse of the rights of the punter. I would like to direct Members’ attention to the parts of that report that clearly state that measures aimed at preventing prostitution can actually protect human rights. Our international human rights obligations are quite clear under the United Nations convention against transnational organised crime, the convention on action against trafficking in human beings, the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the Beijing platform for action, and the declaration on the elimination of violence against women. All those international human rights instruments require states parties to tackle the demand for sexual exploitation. The Bill is our first serious attempt to do that since the legislation on kerb crawling 20 years ago. I urge Members to support my amendments and to support the Bill.
- Time
- 20:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- It is important to put on record on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition that the trafficking and exploitation of women and children is a vile and disgusting trade, and we can all agree that the Bill tries to tackle it more effectively. The question is the means that we should use. I am aware that many hon. Members wish to speak—in retrospect, I think it might have been a good idea to have had two days for Report—so I shall quickly state Her Majesty’s Opposition’s view on two points. First, there has been a great deal of debate on the definition of “controlled for gain”. Many of us thought that the definition in the original drafting was too broad and would not successfully target those who had been trafficked. Paradoxically, it might have caught many of those who assisted prostitutes in their trade. Government amendments 46 to 48 seek to narrow the original broad wording, and the Government are to be congratulated on that attempt. However, we believe that the language in new clause 25 is more appropriate, for the simple reason that it tracks the language relating to trafficking that is used in the Palermo protocol, which states: “‘Trafficking in persons’ shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.” That definition is included in new clause 25. My second point relates to strict liability. It is important that people listening to the debate understand why we are wary and sceptical about this issue, and why we do not support the Government’s importation of strict liability into the offences in clauses 13 and 14. We are not going soft on the horrible exploitation of vulnerable young women and children in any shape or form, but we do have a concern about the nature of strict liability offences generally. That concern has been put across rather well by Liberty, which has stated that such offences “have traditionally been enacted in the regulatory sphere or for fairly minor offences where it is obvious that an offence has been committed. The strict liability standard is inappropriate where a person is unable to ascertain whether what they are doing is unlawful.” The proposed offence will apply whether or not a person knows that a prostitute is being controlled for gain or trafficked. Liberty went on to state a point of principle: “We are not aware of any other criminal offence of this nature where the strict liability standard applies allowing no prospect of a defence. It is worrying that such a move is being made here and it would be extremely concerning if this approach were to be extended.” That is our concern, too. Is this a slippery slope? Does it represent the thin end of the wedge? We are going into territory here that would be best avoided.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- My hon. Friend mentions a point of principle, but is there not also a point of practice in respect of parity with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, especially where there is an incorporation of a mental element? In the light of the proposed amendments, we also need to reflect on circumstances involving forced threats and deception; there should be parity of sentencing—not a level 3 fine, but an either-way offence.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. RuffleyConservative
- Quote
- My hon. Friend anticipates me, and his points are well made. That is why we see merit in the proposal in new clause 25 for a “know or ought to know” test instead of a strict liability test, which would mean that it would be an offence only if the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the prostitute was controlled for gain. That will ensure that strict liability does not apply and it also deals with the issue of parity, to which my hon. Friend referred. The offence would require actual knowledge of or recklessness in respect of the circumstances; the person who should have known should be presumed to have had knowledge.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. MacShaneLabour- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman is making his case fairly, but what he is actually saying is that there is going to be very little deterrent and no discouragement. I am not all surprised that Liberty, which is a libertarian organisation, is defending the rights of men to have sex almost on any terms, provided that they can put their money on the table and say later that they had no idea of the conditions of any of the women that they paid to have sex with. Liberty is a deeply reactionary and conservative organisation, whereas we need a more liberal interpretation of—
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. RuffleyConservative
- Quote
- The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that is traditionally put across in such discussions and we have heard it debated many times. The point here, however, is that moving away from strict liability is not being soft on the offence nor indicative of failing to want a deterrent. I shall rapidly cite the reasons for that claim, before allowing other Members, many of whom have a great deal of knowledge in this subject, to speak. We believe that the penalties for men who engage in sexual relations with trafficked people should be strengthened, and we support amendments 237 and 240 precisely because they will toughen the penalties for those caught under the new offence. Currently, a person found guilty of the new offence is liable to a fine of up to £1,000. The Government have not proposed any amendments to alter that, but under the amendments I mentioned, a person found guilty of the new offence under clauses 13 and 14 will be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. On conviction for an indictable offence, a person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. Those severe penalties are appropriate given the ghastliness of the crime and offences that we are debating. It is particularly important for Conservative Members to underscore the abhorrent nature of paying for sex with trafficked individuals, and it is in that spirit of toughness, while keeping a certain element of practicability in the back of our minds, that we believe we should move away from a strict liability test and replace it with a “know or should have known” test instead. That is the purport of new clause 25, which we support.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lynda WalthoLabour- Quote
- Many of us have had problems with lap-dancing clubs in our constituencies. The arguments were well rehearsed at length in Committee, so I willnot go over them again. I would like to speak to amendments 194 and 199, and Government amendment 54. We have had trouble in our constituencies because lap-dancing clubs are currently licensed solely under the Licensing Act 2003. Those clubs share the same licences as cafés and karaoke bars and since the 2003 Act it has become very much easier for lap-dancing clubs to obtain a licence and far more difficult for our communities to have a say. Local authorities are also prevented from putting in place vital controls to govern how many licences can be granted in an area and whether private booths should be permitted. Industry mapping has shown that new lap-dancing venues are opening on a nearly weekly basis and legal advice has shown that concerns relating to gender equality cannot be raised by local authorities or residents during the licensing process. This places local authorities in direct breach of their duties under the gender equality duty, which came into force in 2007. I applaud the Government’s response to this issue, but they have gone only so far. I think that the Bill is seriously undermined by the fact that the proposed sexual encounter venue category is optional and that venues where lap dancing is provided less than once a month are exempt from the category. In other words, the SEV licensing category is optional. Local authorities will not have to adopt it, although universal application has recently been advocated by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, following a lengthy review of the Licensing Act 2003. It is crucial that we adopt the SEV category because it will guarantee local communities a voice. The current optional arrangement means that our communities will be deprived of that voice, so they are not guaranteed a greater say in the licensing of lap-dancing clubs because the outcome will depend on whether the local authority in question chooses to adopt that option.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Ms Celia Barlow (Hove) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- In Brighton and Hove, money was ring-fenced for a private Bill to change the licensing law, and there is a will among all parties to control the spread of lap dancing, particularly in small communities like my own in Hove or Slade. There is concern that, on a temporary basis, it will possible to hold up to 11 such events a year, and it will be very difficult to police them in the same successful way that Sussex police have been able to police the larger venues.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lynda WalthoLabour
- Quote
- Indeed, and it is very difficult—in fact, impossible—for local people to object to those temporary licences; only the police are able to do so, and in my experience they rarely do. This state of affairs applies despite massive objections, a 10,000-name petition that went to No. 10 Downing street and almost mayhem in some constituencies—not least my own. We also need to protect local authorities from being vulnerable to challenge by the lap-dancing industry, which is quite a strong advocate. Furthermore, a sub-group of almost virtual lap-dancing clubs is growing, with businesses aiming to move their stable of women—a term used previously—from venue to venue. We really must not allow that to happen. We must protect local authorities from their vulnerability to this strong and powerful industry. The voluntary aspect governing the application of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and the sexual encounter venue category will create an uneven licensing landscape, vulnerable to exploitation by the industry. Before the Licensing Act, uneven licensing between local authorities enabled lap-dancing clubs to exert pressure in favour of looser regulation. In 2002, for example, Westminster city council came under pressure to relax a no-nudity clause following the decision of a neighbouring borough council, Camden, to do so. Unfortunately, unless we can amend the new clause, that risk will be reintroduced. It has been argued that universal reforms will impose a burden on local authorities, but closer examination of the actual process involved in implementation of the new clause reveals that that is simply not the case. Optional reforms will require local authorities to undergo eight procedures to install the controls that the new clause would introduce. However, if the reforms were applied universally, the process that each local authority would then undertake would be halved, and would require significantly fewer resources. We are talking about a low-cost procedure for local authorities, regardless of whether lap dancing clubs are involved.
- Time
- 20:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
David LepperLabour- Quote
- I believe that fees are set nationally under the Licensing Act, but under the usual regime the local authority can levy a charge for the application for a licence which covers the costs of the administration involved in consideration of that application. Would not universal reforms be cost-neutral?
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lynda WalthoLabour
- Quote
- Indeed. I intend to say more about that later. Optional reforms would reduce the burden on local authorities that chose to adopt the new controls. The increased costs of enforcing the new clause would arise when an application was made. However, the costs of the process would be absorbed by licensing fees, and incurred by lap-dancing club operators rather than local authorities. That contrasts with the current circumstances, in which local authorities are not guaranteed to recoup fees through the premises licensing costs. Local authorities with existing premises would likewise be able to retrieve the cost of requiring venues to apply for the new SEV licence. The new category would, in fact, create efficiency savings for authorities. Many local authorities currently undertake enforcement work against premises licence-holders who have specified dancing on their licences but who are, in fact, hosting lap-dancing events. The new clause will reduce the amount of work required in that context by providing for adequate scrutiny and funding through the increased licensing fees. It should also provide a solution that delivers local flexibility. Universal application of the new category is consistent with that, allowing local authorities more discretion when it comes to licensing clubs. Sexual encounter venue licensing affords flexibility within application and renewal rates. The duration of licences and a wide range of other factors could be included. The localities in which the sexual encounter venues could be licensed are assigned by individual local authorities. The definition of a locality is also determined by local authorities, as are licensing conditions.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- At the beginning of her speech, the hon. Lady said that the arguments had been advanced before. That is in no small part down to her, and I congratulate her on the work that she has done. Does she agree that lap-dancing operators and their representatives ought to welcome a consistent approach across the country, which would enable them to know exactly how they will be treated because they would know that their establishments would be treated as sexual encounter establishments throughout the country?
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lynda WalthoLabour
- Quote
- They ought to welcome it, but of course they do not, because they prefer an uneven mixture of provision enabling them to exploit loopholes. Their industry has a history of exploiting loopholes and gaining as a result, and I do not expect its approach to change. In its current form, the Bill exempts premises that provide lap dancing less frequently than once a month from requiring a sex encounter venue licence. Removal of that exemption is crucial, because we need to prevent the growth of lap dancing sub-markets. The proposed exemption will exclude a large number of premises that hold lap-dancing nights provided by lap-dancing agencies that take bookings in a range of public houses, bars and hotel venues. That sub-market is likely to grow in the light of such an exemption, especially in the context of falling alcohol revenue during the economic recession. That is demonstrated by the recent case of the White Hart lap-dancing application in Lewisham, in London. A landlord stated: “lap dancers are the sole salvation for my struggling pub”. Mapping of the lap-dancing industry between May and November 2008 revealed that a new lap-dancing venue opened, on average, every week during that period. Half those openings were in public houses or bars which now provide specialist lap-dancing nights. We can prevent additional burdens from being placed on local authorities. The frequency-based exemption will increase the workload of local authorities, which will face higher enforcement costs in order to ensure that venues do not host lap-dancing events more than 11 times a year. That will place further financial pressure on authorities that are struggling now to recoup existing licensing costs through low premises licence fees. I believe that the new clauses and amendments will add to what the Government have already done. I note and welcome Government amendment 54, which attempts to address the possible abuse of the TEN system, but I do not believe that it is strong enough.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Quote
- I entirely agree that the Bill is already having an effect. I offer as an example the fact that a major lap-dancing venue in west Kensington has withdrawn its appeal because it could see the writing on the wall. My hon. Friend is also right that temporary event notices are a way around regulation. The debate on this Bill has drawn attention to the fact that TENs in general—not just in relation to lap-dance clubs—represent a major loophole. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be welcome if the Government were to issue a statement that the TEN system in general should be looked at so that local populations can challenge their use in the same way as they can challenge licences?
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lynda WalthoLabour
- Quote
- Indeed. The Minister spoke earlier about possible Department for Culture, Media and Sport plans to give councillors a voice. That—a community voice—is what has been missing. If the TEN system is looked at across the board, we will get what I and many of my colleagues started out in politics to support: a voice for local people. That is what has been missing.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind)Independent- Quote
- Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems with the TEN is that local councils are either reluctant to collect the evident to prosecute, or do not have the required staff to do so, and so encourage breaches, which local people do not want? Local people do not understand why the Government are not taking stronger action.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lynda WalthoLabour
- Quote
- That is absolutely the case. In conclusion, I believe that the removal of the frequency-based exemption and universal application are crucial to ensure that these welcome reforms to lap-dancing club licensing deliver real and robust change, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to revisit the area covered by the amendments, if not here then in another place.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. GummerConservative- Quote
- Because of the way in which the House works, I am the only Member representing the Ipswich area who is able to refer to the terrible situation that arose there, and on which this Bill importantly bears. Before I do so, I would like to say that I agree with the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) about the licensing of the occasional venue; it certainly will be misused, and I hope the Government will resile from that. I do not, however, agree with the hon. Lady’s comments about local authorities. They must have as much freedom as possible to decide whether they wish to use these provisions. I would just say to her that different parts of the country are very different, and it is perfectly reasonable for a local community to decide, through its local authority, that it does not need to have this kind of operation; it should be allowed to do that. I turn now to what for me is the most important part of the Bill. I agreed very much with the comments of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who put the point very clearly. It is difficult for those of us who have a strong view about the nature of prostitution to speak in a way that is wholly acceptable to those for whom that view seems too harsh, or, indeed, too old-fashioned. I just think that the exploitation of human beings is at the heart of evil. There is little that one can say about it except that it is deeply offensive to the nature of human beings. To exploit the vulnerable—and particularly, if I may say so, those who are vulnerable because they are women—is offensive in a way that practically nothing else is. Therefore, we ought to talk about this subject very seriously, and I want to congratulate the Government on the delicacy of the manner in which they have sought to find an answer that helps us to move away from the old arguments. We have gone through a period when it was thought so improper for personal sexual activities to be affected by the law that we could not get beyond that and see how sometimes the human rights bit is about the exploited person and not about my human rights to follow to the nth degree any desire I might have. It is, I fear, 40 years since I wrote a book on this subject. In considering whether one might bring it up to date, I must say that I am appalled how right I was in some prognostications of what would arise from the perfectly reasonable liberal attitudes that made people think that we ought not to be as judgmental as historical societies had been. I join those who hold the view that the problem is that the pendulum has moved to a degree whereby it is difficult to discuss this subject without being thought to be censorious. I wish to say simply that I hope the Government will move a little further, because it is very necessary to take on board what the hon. Member for Slough said. Our definition of trafficking must not be limited to the horrible but obvious business of collecting women—it is not always women, but it is in general—from poor and depressed communities in one part of the world and moving them to another part of the world where people have the money to indulge themselves in this way. I must tell my own Front-Bench team that I thought it unacceptable to try to move away from having strict liability, because that is crucial; if someone wishes to pay for sex, they must recognise that in doing so they take on a particular burden. If they think that what they are doing is reasonable, they must recognise that the downside is with them and not with the woman concerned. I am sorry that our team has moved from the position that I thought it had taken—one of understanding that the libertarian position means being concerned about the woman in these circumstances—so I hope that it will move from the position it has taken. One other issue must be raised very clearly. I have gone through the experience of those terrible few weeks in Ipswich when the bodies of a number of women were deposited in some of the most beautiful parts of my constituency. One must remember the circumstances of those girls, who had but a short period before been the light of the families who bore them. I wish to make that point, because we are not necessarily talking about girls who come from some appalling background and who are forced into this situation; we are talking about girls who, for one reason or another, find themselves believing that there is no other way in which they can pay for things—in this case, we are talking almost universally about drug habits. I cannot see that such a situation is any less exploitative than one where somebody is standing behind them with a knife, one where they know that they will be beaten up or one where they have been threatened that they will be deported. This situation is just as exploitative, and the suppliers of the drugs know perfectly well where the money is coming from. I do not see that one can make so clear a distinction between these things. I come to the conclusion that it is better to move further towards the position that the hon. Member for Slough described so well, simply because we have to find a way in which the source of the money is restricted. This is a matter of trying to ensure that those who make this kind of prostitution successful enough to pay for the drugs or successful enough for the people to engage in trafficking find it more and more difficult.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
John McDonnellLabour- Quote
- May I just say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is no way to run a country, is it? We have had two hours of debate on amendments and about 15 more amendments will not even be discussed. We are talking about the prospect of legislation that will put prostitutes’ lives at risk and will allow people to be arrested, detained and deprived of their liberty. We have had two hours, and that is all. I say to the Government that we cannot go on like this with criminal justice legislation. We also cannot legislate on the basis of such lack of knowledge. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), I have tabled questions just to try to get some information. We asked the Government how many prostitutes there are in the country, and about their ages, sexes and basic circumstances, and we were told that information was not available. We then found that 80,000 was the figure used in one of the reports—one reference mentioned that a vast proportion were trafficked. We asked how many were trafficked and the Government estimate that came back was 4,000. I asked about incidents of violence in relation to prostitution, and was told that the information was not held centrally. I asked for information about prosecutions concerning brothels, and was told that information was not held centrally. We not only do not give ourselves the time to discuss legislation, but we legislate in absolute ignorance of the facts of what is happening on the ground. Let me very briefly address the amendments tabled in my name, and particularly new clause 37. I would welcome a Division on that new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I accept that we might have to make choices between new clause 4 and new clause 37. If there has to be a priority, I would support a Division on new clause 4, because it relates to children. A number of us have tried as best we can to get as much information on the subject as possible. I pay tribute to the English Collective of Prostitutes, which has brought together the Safety First coalition. I have met a number of representatives of the constituency of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and particularly from Ipswich. I have met the GMB sex workers branch; the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, the religious group; Imperial College, which has carried out research; the Royal College of Nursing; the Women’s Institute, which got involved in these discussions; the National Association of Probation Officers; and Women Against Rape. They have tried to raise at least some awareness and consciousness of what prostitution is like in this country. My amendments are based on that information and on the level of understanding that many of us have gained. I have met sex workers in this country—men and women—who are sex workers by choice. They feel that there is no reason why they should be penalised for offering what they believe is a service to other human beings. They do not believe that that relationship is exploitative. Like others, I find that difficult to accept, but we have met those people and discussed their role with them.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lynne JonesLabour
- Quote
- Criminalising such activities makes it difficult for people to make the choice to exit from that sort of work.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- John McDonnellLabour
- Quote
- What came across from all the information we have gleaned, and from the Government’s strategy discussions in the early stages, is that there are women and men who undertake such work from choice, but most others—the vast majority—do not. They are there because of push factors such as poverty and drug dependency, and they often have mental health problems or other background problems. They need assistance to get “off the game”, as they say. The one message that comes across loud and clear is that anything that criminalises their actions in any way undermines their ability to leave those occupations voluntarily.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Fiona MactaggartLabour
- Quote
- Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most effective exit projects in London, based at Toynbee hall, supports the new orders for prostitutes? Those workers with drug-dependent prostitutes say that often there are co-dependency issues that can be dealt with only if the prostitutes are brought to diversion projects by the court.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- John McDonnellLabour
- Quote
- We all bring anecdotal evidence. I have been convening Safety First Coalition meetings for more than three years and I have met a group of people who work with prostitutes in such centres and I have to tell my hon. Friend that a vast proportion of them oppose any measures that would introduce criminality in the system, because engagement with the legal system is such a deterrent.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lynne JonesLabour
- Quote
- To counter the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), on Friday I was at a meeting of people involved in a project in Balsall Heath on the boundary of my constituency. The people in that group are very much of the view that it is so important to build up trust with the people they are trying to help that they do not think a coercive and punitive approach would achieve that.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- John McDonnellLabour
- Quote
- In fact, in the consultations the Government undertook, the view expressed time and again in various representations was that punitive measures actually make matters worse. It did not help that the Government did not publish the 67 responses to their consultation—a vast proportion of which opposed their proposals on criminalisation. As we learned from Ipswich, the overall priority is the need for safety. Anything that undermines the safety of sex workers should be avoided. On new clause 4, I endorse the assertion made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that we are talking about children who are victims. Almost every children’s agency with which we have had discussions has said that we need to ensure that there is decriminalisation. Anything that increases the stigma for children and prevents them from coming forward will undermine their ability to seek protection and security. Turning to new clauses 37 and 38, we have to recognise that women work together in brothels for safety reasons. My new clause would simply bring into legislation what Ministers were arguing for only a few years ago: a recognition that where two women come together, with a maid or madam—however we describe her—they should not be prosecuted under legislation relating to brothels. When we undertook our consultation, the English Collective of Prostitutes provided their analysis showing that it is 10 times safer for women to work in a brothel than to work on the street. As was mentioned earlier, small brothels often involve people working co-operatively to ensure their safety. In 2005, when my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was a Home Office Minister, she announced that two women should be able to work together from premises, yet that idea has been dropped and we are now introducing relatively punitive measures. In 2006, the Home Office acknowledged that—I quote from an article in The Times— “the present definition of brothel ran counter to advice that, in the interests of safety, women should not sell sex alone.” In recent months, the RCN has also debated the fact that nurses and health workers who work with sex workers are fearful for the safety of women who work on the street and are urging the Government to reconsider. At that time, the Government and others were considering four women working together. I am willing to accept a compromise of two women if that would increase their safety. The reality of the sex trade in this country is that women are working together to provide one another with safety and security. Mention has been made of New Zealand, where a law makes a distinction between small, collectively run brothels of up to four people working together and larger brothels, which must be licensed. All the reports from New Zealand have said that the new legislation has increased the safety and security of women by enabling them to work together in that way. Some of the information that we have managed to glean suggests that prosecutions for keeping a brothel used for prostitution have been increasing. In 2004, there were only three such prosecutions; in 2007—the latest figures that we could extract—there were 41. So the increasing pressure that is being put on women working together in brothels is forcing women on to the streets and into insecure and unsafe conditions. One of the reasons why police harassment of brothels and sex workers has increased is, unfortunately, the incentive provided by the proceeds of crime legislation, whereby 25 per cent. of any assets confiscated during a raid on a brothel goes towards the police, 25 per cent. goes towards the Crown Prosecution Service and the Inland Revenue takes the rest. That is almost like the Government and the police living off immoral earnings. No wonder that there is an incentive to increase the number of raids on brothels. What we are asking for in the new clause is simply a recognition of the reality that women will continue to work in the sex trade. If they do, they should be kept as safe as possible, and one way of doing so is to enable them to work in small numbers in brothels, where they can work co-operatively and therefore avoid the threat of being out on the street. There are further amendments in my name. The Government are trying to introduce legislation whereby someone who is found in the same place twice in three months can be prosecuted for loitering or soliciting. I do not believe that something that happens twice in three months can be construed as persistent behaviour. We should reduce the period, and in amendment 6, I suggest using the phrase “twice in one week”—otherwise, we will draw more people into the criminal prosecution process, and they will therefore be more unsafe if they work in that way. In amendment 7, I refer back to the debate that we had on previous legislation when a system of penalties was introduced whereby a person goes before a court, is given an order and placed before a supervisor. In all the discussions that we have had with NAPO—the trade union that represents the supervisors, given that the Government inform us that they will be appointed by the probation service—it has told us that the resources and trained staff are not available. In fact, the probation service is being cut back at the moment, as we learned from a seminar today. Therefore, the staffing is not available. If such people, who lead extremely chaotic lives, do not attend a series of three interviews, they will be placed back before the courts. We are told today that that will be done as soon as practicable. We have been given such assurances on other new laws and crimes, and the phrase “as soon as practicable” can mean that someone is detained at least overnight. Our fear is that someone could be detained for up to 72 hours. That would have a devastating effect not only on individuals, but on their families. Many of them have children who need to be cared for. Therefore, my view is that that provision will render itself unworkable, while having a deleterious impact on the women themselves and on their families. It will be a way to intimidate women even further and undermine their ability to get off the game.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- In the 30 seconds left, may I sound a positive note? I welcome new clause 22, which supersedes what I have been trying to do for many years, namely increase the penalty for encryption of child abuse pornography that is tucked away in data, and failure to give the key. I used the example of an individual who had 150 gigabytes of encrypted material. There were four years of attempts to break the encryption, but the attempts failed. The gentleman concerned has just been sentenced, and the best that could be managed for him was a community order for three years. That happened about four days ago. In that example, the judge tried to turn the matter to get the best result.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Quote
- I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. Protecting the public, tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, and ensuring an effective but responsive police force are key issues for the people whom we serve. I therefore welcome the positive and constructive manner in which the Bill has been addressed during its passage. There have been lively debates, not just today, but in Committee, and I would like to put on record my thanks to my ministerial colleagues— my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick). I also thank the Whips and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries, who worked so hard in Committee, and the civil service team, who also approached the issues with energy and commitment. Opposition Members, too, have been willing to support much. That constructive approach has helped us find consensus on several issues, and I believe that the Bill is the better for it. Crime has fallen, and continues to fall, in this country. That is due in no small part to the hard work and expertise of our police force. Locally, nationally and internationally, the Government’s increased investment in policing is being used to good effect and felt in every community. However, in every community people also need to be able to have their say about what the police should focus on locally, and hear how their concerns have been addressed. The Bill, alongside monthly crime information meetings, will ensure that that happens around the country. The measure has also ensured that local people can have a say when lap-dancing clubs are proposed.
- Time
- 21:31
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)Labour- Quote
- Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about how the public might have a say on whether a temporary event notice is granted for a lap-dancing event? Will she consider enabling local people to have a say, not only through their councillors but perhaps, for example, a by means of a community call to action, to push the council in a particular direction?
- Time
- 21:31
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Jacqui SmithLabour- Quote
- My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) have assiduously pushed that point. As we have already said today, there may well be an opportunity in proposals that are now being considered—not least those of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee—for a greater role for councillors in lobbying, particularly against temporary event notices. I can certainly give her a commitment that we will continue to consider, as the Bill progresses in another place, how we can ensure that the public have a meaningful say, even when temporary event notices have led to an exemption. We expect much of our police, so we must ensure that they have the tools to keep us safe, to catch the guilty and to clear the innocent. That includes our world-leading use of DNA. Some have argued today that we should delay making the proposed changes. I do not believe that we should. Following the consultation, we will be in a position to move quickly, not only to meet our commitment to the European Court, but to ensure a fair, balanced and proportionate response to the difficulties of balancing the rights of the individual with the rights of society to protect itself from murderers, rapists and other criminals. As the Bill has progressed through this House, I have been pleased that we have acted quickly in providing for new powers to control gang members. I have seen the good work of the police and their partners in places such as Birmingham in using every method that they can to protect their communities from gang violence. We owe it to them to find a way through difficult legal territory, as we are doing in this Bill. With stronger powers to tackle problem drinking and new powers to deal with sex offenders, we are learning from what has worked in tackling antisocial behaviour and protecting the vulnerable, and building on that where needed. However, in some areas of the Bill we are taking a radical new approach, setting a new path to tackle social issues that have been the subject of debate for years, if not centuries. As we have heard today, prostitution can not only blight communities, but be a terrible trap for the most vulnerable in our society. That is why the Bill contains provisions to tackle the most exploitative elements of prostitution. Placing a new responsibility on those who pay for sex is a radical shift in policy in this country. It is vital that we get it right, and that is why we have undertaken today to continue our discussions, including those in another place, on how we get the definition right.
- Time
- 21:31
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind)Independent
- Quote
- I congratulate the Home Secretary on pressing on with the strict liability offence. The whole country will agree with the Government that women and children who are vulnerable need and deserve protection much more than do the men who would use and abuse them.
- Time
- 21:31
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Jacqui SmithLabour
- Quote
- The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The most important point to bear in mind is that some of those women do not have a choice. The people who use the services of prostitutes do have a choice, so my argument is simple. Those with the choice need to think carefully about the consequences of their actions, and where their actions lead to exploitation, they must face the consequences of that. I have been encouraged by our debate, not just today but throughout the Committee stage. It has been wide-ranging and there have been important amendments along the way. Delivering practical legislation with practical applications will help protect the people whom we serve. This Bill will help us to build stronger, safer and more confident communities, and I commend it to the House.
- Time
- 21:31
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- Let me start my remarks by echoing the Home Secretary’s words of thanks to those who served on the Committee and those who have been involved in steering the Bill through the House. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), as well as our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for the work that they have done in scrutinising the Government’s proposals. For all the Home Secretary’s enthusiasm for the Bill, it reeks of a decaying Government. Instead of a systematic approach to tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, we are left with a sort of closing-down sale of everything that the right hon. Lady found at the back of the Home Office policy cupboard. The Bill contains a whole series of missed opportunities. Where we could have had a fresh approach to gang crime, we have a hotch-potch of measures, some of which do not even apply to people under the age of 18. Where we could have had measures to make crime statistics believable by making them independent, we have a blank space. Where we could have had a review of the problems with our 24-hour drinking laws, we have a code. Where we could have secured an absolute preservation of the principle of innocent until proven guilty, we will still have people’s DNA held for many years, even though they have committed no crime, and perhaps not even been charged with any crime. Moreover, there are a number of measures on which, had the Home Secretary been sufficiently bold, we would have supported her. We would have welcomed detailed measures to cut police red tape and get officers back on the beat. We would also have welcomed proposals for directly elected police commissioners. The reason why we would have welcomed those measures is that the Government have continued to fail on crime. Where they promised to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, they have actually been soft on crime. Their legislative hyperactivity has been an alibi for their failure to get at the roots of crime in Britain today. I shall turn to the specifics of the Bill. It could and should have been an opportunity for the Government to do the right thing and preserve absolutely the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, but they have not done that. Ministers are still trying to get away with doing as little as they possibly can, instead of taking real action to remove innocent people from the DNA database. The indefinite retention on the national database of the DNA of people who have never been charged with any crime, or have been acquitted by a court, is unacceptable in a society founded on the basis that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Under the national DNA database as currently constituted, however, that presumption is reversed. A person is always regarded as potentially guilty unless shown to be innocent. Everyone is a potential suspect. Instead of thinking through the DNA issue before the Bill came to the House, the Government sought a legislative blank cheque, so that once they had finally made up their minds following their consultation they could do what they liked, with little parliamentary scrutiny. We retain significant misgivings about the approach that they are taking and the length of time involved. We do not share their views on this matter. In government, we would follow a system based on the Scottish model, and we believe that the present Government should do the same. Another missed opportunity in the Bill concerns people’s use of alcohol. When 24-hour drinking was introduced, we were promised a continental café culture. We have certainly ended up with drinking in the street, but not quite in the way we imagined. There are still too many things wrong with our licensing system. In particular, we need stronger powers to ensure that retailers who systematically break licensing laws are closed, permanently. Those powers need to be simple and they need to be quick. We cannot allow the culture of public binge drinking and the resulting public nuisance to continue unchallenged. Back in the days when the content of the Bill was merely a Green Paper, the Government trumpeted their plans for more democracy in the governance of policing. To quote them directly: “The Government believe that Crime and Policing Representatives will provide clear and transparent governance structures that will simplify the system so the public can readily understand how to influence their policing and will be able to do so.” They also noted that the Association of Police Authorities’ own polling showed that 55 per cent. actively supported that policy and only 19 per cent. disagreed with it. Sadly, however, that proposal has gone. It has disappeared, and it will be left to a future Conservative Government to bring to local communities the accountability on policing that the Government promised but failed to deliver. Perhaps the Government’s biggest mistake has been to tie the hands of police officers with targets and bureaucracy. The Bill could have been a real opportunity to get to grips with the byzantine bureaucracy that keeps the police off the streets. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has advanced a comprehensive programme for freeing up the police and getting them back on the beat. The Government could have used the Bill to look at ways of changing the hugely time-consuming disclosure process that takes up so much time in our police stations. The Bill could also have abolished statutory charging for more offences, which would have given back to custody sergeants the power to charge offenders so that they no longer had to fill in forms seeking approval from the Crown Prosecution Service. The Bill could have cut the unnecessary requirements imposed on police to fill in regulation of investigatory powers forms before conducting routine police surveillance and investigations. Instead, as a consequence of this Bill, the police will spend little more time on the beat than they do at the moment. The Government could also have used the Bill to get to grips with antisocial behaviour. The number of young people entering the criminal justice system has gone up by a fifth in five years. In 2007-08 more than 93,000 youngsters aged 10 to 17 received their first caution or conviction, up from 78,000 five years ago. At the moment the tools given to the police by this Government have proved largely ineffective. Just about the only power in the Bill that is designed to deal with antisocial behaviour will mean that the police can move on 10-year-olds if they are causing trouble in the evenings. I do not think we should be shifting 10-year-olds out of their home areas; I think we should be sending them home to bed. The Bill is the product of a tired Government who are scratching around for ideas. They have already run out of ideas, and very soon they will run out of road. It is time for a change.
- Time
- 21:38
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Chris HuhneLiberal Democrat- Quote
- This is a mixed bag of a Bill. We have seen it passing like the proverbial bus, loaded with the various parcels that the Government have seen fit to put on it. We certainly welcome some of its provisions, including those on the extension of foreign travel orders for sex offenders, which seem proportionate and sensible. We support the Government on that issue. New clause 22, which amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in relation to penalties for encrypted data involving indecent images of children, is also to be welcomed as useful for tackling the terrible crime of child pornography. The new sex encounter establishment licensing regime is also a useful development that we welcome. It will allow lap-dancing premises to be considered as such for licensing purposes, which will allow local authorities to make decisions based on their own situations, which we very much welcome. Against the positive aspects of this portmanteau Bill, however, we must set a number of real problems. The Government are proposing to address the S and Marper judgment on the DNA database in the wrong way and by using the wrong principles. They are the wrong principles because the proposal they have brought forward seriously questions the long-standing commitment of our judicial system to the principle that everyone should be presumed innocent until they are proven to be guilty; and it is the wrong way because the Government propose to use secondary legislation—statutory instruments—for a change that is of such significance and controversy that it should be properly debated on the Floor of the House and implemented through primary legislation. The precedent is provided in the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Act 2008, which was a response to another court judgment. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to go ahead in the manner they are suggesting. There are also missed opportunities in the Bill, particularly on police reform. My party has long been committed to putting more police on the beat and to an increase in police officers. We are still an under-policed society, in comparison with other western democracies, but even more importantly, we are a society for which policing could be much more effective than it is. The discrepancies between the best performing and the worst performing police forces are enormous, yet there is no suggestion in the Bill to allow police authorities to pressure forces that are underperforming to reach best practice. We need real police reform and a move towards real local accountability—not elected sheriffs, on the model proposed by the Conservative Front-Bench team, because that would not adequately represent minorities in important parts of the country. If we are going to get better policing, what we need are directly elected and accountable police authorities. Yes, there is a cross-party consensus on dealing with the issue of police bureaucracy, but let us not disguise the fact that there is a massive difference, for example, between the effectiveness of the best performing police force in North Yorkshire, with a 67 per cent. clear-up rate of violent crime, and the 36 per cent. for the Metropolitan police. We have to find ways of improving police performance towards best practice. That, I am afraid, is a opportunity missed in the Bill. I believe that the measures personally championed by the Home Secretary on sex offences and prostitution are misguided. They are misguided because they introduce something that the House should always set its face against: a strict liability offence. There are many basic principles of legislation that we abandon at our peril. One is obviously retrospection, but another is the strict liability offence. The reason is simply that people do not know when they are committing a strict liability offence; and if they do not know, anybody deciding whether that offence has been committed—whether it be a magistrate or a more serious court—will regard the offence as unfair. What we always see with strict liability offences of the sort in the Bill is that the penalties are absolutely puny. Why? It is precisely because of the unfairness of the original offence. That is why I very much hope that when the other place considers our deliberation on the Bill and reflects on how it has been hammered through this Chamber with many parts completely unconsidered, it will amend it and do its absolute worst. What we have seen is a Bill that has some good elements, but others that are frankly against many of the fundamental principles that this House ought to hold dear. We have heard all the usual tough talk, rather than tough action, from the Government about tackling crime, and we have seen a failure to get to grips with some of the real problems of fighting crime in this country—notably, police reform and police accountability. I very much hope that our colleagues in the other place will look at the record of our deliberations—outrageously truncated as they have been by the timetable motion pushed through earlier today—and then very substantially amend the provisions. On that basis, we will not press for a Division, but we will hope for a very substantial degree of amendment in the other place. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
- Time
- 21:43
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
