| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Marshall: I am sure that we shall hear from the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has been a rapporteur at the Council of Europe, which of course has representatives from more countries than the European Union.
The House must take action to make it more difficult for paedophiles and child molesters to travel abroad and ply their profession.
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth):
It is important for us to be clear about what is being done and what is not being done. Am I right in thinking that the advertising and incitement of the sort of activities that the hon. Gentleman cited would be open to prosecution if his Bill were passed, but that nothing could be done in respect of the individual whom he described, unless there was an act of organisation or incitement? In other words, the Bill would not catch the individual whom he described.
Mr. Marshall:
Hon. Members are adept at anticipating and asking me about what I am going to say in five or10 minutes' time, which makes it much more difficult for a speech to have a theme. The Bill makes it more difficult for individuals to find out about such holidays and also makes it a crime for rings of paedophiles to discuss the issue and consider going to, say, Brazil. I am told by legal experts that such behaviour would be an offence under the Bill.
I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is concerned about the concept of extra-territoriality. As he knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday that the Government are looking again at the matter and have set up an inquiry. I shall be talking about the concept in some detail, because I think that there are two different issues--first, what we do with those who return with a video, and secondly, whether one can try to produce witnesses from, say, Thailand in United Kingdom courts.
Mr. Michael:
I was just trying to be clear. Thehon. Gentleman described a particular incident that everyhon. Member finds distasteful. Yet if there were no organisation or incitement in this country, the behaviour would not be caught by the Bill because of the problem of extra-territoriality to which he referred. The problem is that inquiries have been promised in the past and little progress seems to have been made.
Mr. Marshall:
We have to accept--I shall deal with the matter in greater detail shortly--that the Bolin case,
I remind the House that the tests that apply to extradition are less strong than the tests that apply when the prosecution seeks to convict. An individual can be extradited from this country if there is a prima facie case to suggest guilt. If an individual is found guilty of a crime, the jury has to be satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt. In the Bolin case--the Swedish case--no British jury would have convicted the person concerned because of the way in which the evidence was collated and the way in which the witness was trained by a non-governmental organisation. The Government are right to say--
Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme):
Many lawyers think that the person concerned would have been convicted in this country. It is a matter of legal opinion and until we test it, we shall not know the answer.
Mr. Marshall:
Of course it is a question of legal opinion and lawyers, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) will confirm, make money by giving conflicting opinions. Every lawyer will say that one has a good case; that is the only way in which lawyers can survive.
As the House is interested in the Swedish case, I shall refer to it briefly. We have to remember the way in which the evidence was collated. The victim was threatened by a police officer with a gun. He was looked after and prepared for the court hearing by a non-governmental organisation. Under those conditions, any rookie lawyer would have had the evidence ruled inadmissible in a British court.
Bolin admitted molesting the boy to an undercover Swedish police officer, who arranged for the conversation to be recorded by a Danish television producer. I suspect that that would have been regarded as entrapment. We should remember that someone accused of murder recently was found not guilty on the basis that the evidence could not be counted because an undercover police lady had trapped him into making a confession. When we remember that and when we remember the circumstances in which the boy's evidence was collated in the Bolin case, we have to come to the conclusion that we would not have got a conviction in a British court.
I point out to the hon. Member for Newcastle- under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) that the only reason why the Swedes prosecuted the case was that under Swedish law, the man could not be extradited to Thailand. Under British law, he could have been extradited. One of the problems in comparing our system with that in Sweden, France or Germany is that those countries do not allow their citizens to be extradited to Thailand, the Philippines or other countries. We are on a different plane.
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham):
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that anyone who is suspected of such a crime could be extradited to Thailand. Is he convinced,
Mr. Marshall:
The Thai authorities are becoming more robust. Last year, they passed a law that introduced a maximum penalty of 10 years for an act of under-age sex--
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):
Will thehon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Marshall:
Can I just finish this sentence? I have given way frequently; I have been very generous.
Only this week, I spoke to someone from Thailand who told me that an individual had been sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment because he had been found guilty of five acts of under-age sex. I believe that there is some evidence that the Thai authorities have become slightly more robust. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) is right. The problem can be eradicated only if the authorities in the countries concerned decide that they will close down the brothels, that they will prosecute and that the police will become honest.
At the end of the day, if the local authorities in Thailand and the Philippines will not do those things, extra-territoriality is irrelevant because the evidence will not be collated. We cannot expect the Metropolitan police to go to Bangkok to collate the evidence. It must be collated by the local police. If they do not show enthusiasm to do that, it is pure gesture politics to alter our law to make extra-territoriality possible. The law enforcement agencies in Thailand would need to show enthusiasm for enforcing their law to stop this disgusting trade.
Mr. Anderson:
The hon. Gentleman cites extradition as a possibly significant factor. How many examples have there been of British citizens being extradited to countries where that trade takes place?
Mr. Marshall:
That underlines the point that I was trying to make. Extradition can take place only at the request of another country. If the countries concerned want to enforce their laws, they may seek to extradite British citizens. If they do not want to enforce their laws, there is nothing that the British Government can do. We cannot extradite citizens unless the countries concerned produce the evidence and it is up to them to do so. I very much hope that they will.
Mr. Michael:
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the authorities in those countries do not want to protect their children, it does not matter what British citizens do abroad? Surely that is not what the hon. Gentleman intends to say.
Mr. Marshall:
I do not think that I said that. I was trying to say that the problem of enforcing the law was the responsibility of the authorities in Thailand, the Philippines and Brazil. We must try to persuade them to protect their children.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |