| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.35 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton): I am in total agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). His realistic approach to the Bill is entirely sensible.
I felt that earlier in the debate some confusion crept in in the encounter between my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), which essentially focused on the legitimacy of the jurisdiction contained in the Bill. The Bill has got it right. I must take to task slightly the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who made an impassioned and moving plea to address some of the ghastly things that go on in other countries.I urge her to appreciate that no one on the Conservative Benches is in anything but total agreement with her, and we share her reaction to what goes on in other countries. We are all against child prostitution, wherever it happens.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire said, we make law in the House and the courts must be courts of law, not courts of morals. Whatever we put into law and whatever we legislate for must be founded in sensible legal principle that our courts are able properly to enforce.
The real issue over which we slightly disagree with other hon. Members is how far the jurisdiction of the English courts should be allowed to stretch. Can the long arm of the law go from here to Bangkok, or should it stop at the boundaries of our country? There is a severe danger of which the House should be deeply wary in saying that we have the right to legislate for behaviour in other countries.
In prisons in Bangkok, there are British citizens who have been prosecuted for murder or drug peddling in Thailand. Quite rightly, the offence that took place in that country should be prosecuted and tried there. If we were to say that English justice could stretch that far, be it for child prostitution, murder or peddling of drugs, we would create a situation in which one country was subject to two laws. That would be profoundly confusing and difficult for us to administer. It would mean sending British policemen to other countries to apply our law in their territories. If one messed about with the fundamental principle of justice--that it should be confined in one nation--severe problems would emerge.
The Bill says that the offence can be prosecuted if it can be defined as one that is rooted in Britain. The Bill has properly been drafted to say that if the offence is
advertising, and recruiting people for, child prostitution in this country to practise it in another country, it can be prosecuted in this country.
Sir Ivan Lawrence (Burton):
I apologise to the House for not being in the Chamber earlier in the debate--I was slaying other dragons in other parts of the building.
More than a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and I met the Home Secretary to try to persuade him that the evils of international child pornography were so great that we should bend every sinew, as a Government, to help stop it. He was rightly worried about our abilities to do so at that time, and my right hon. Friend and I left the meeting with no great optimism that legislation would ever reach the statute book.
When I first came to this place about 22 years ago--with you, Madam Deputy Speaker--I felt strongly, as a lawyer, that we should not introduce any legislation in this place that was likely to be unenforceable. I believed that that was not the function of Parliament or of our courts, that it was a waste of time and that we should always be constrained in the limits of our ambitions.
My opinion has changed and qualified over the years. I have learnt that there is a value in laws that are declaratory of seriously wrong behaviour, which we do not expect of our citizens.
I have not completely gone over to the opinion that we should have declaratory laws, but I have moved in that direction because I realise that some people feel that there is nothing wrong in doing something against which no law exists in this country. I am, therefore, prepared to accept a law that is predominantly declaratory, provided that in some circumstances it may have a practical and enforceable effect.
There is merit in the warning sounded by myhon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton(Mr. Duncan) and for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), both of whom made interesting and significant speeches, but in my opinion, this place has a function in passing laws in such circumstances as these.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his determination and dedication to this cause and so many other causes, in the pursuing of which he is a distinguished representative of, at least, the Conservative party in this place. I also wish to encourage my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who have shown interest and expressed concern that we should advance this matter as far as we sensibly and reasonably can.
There has been a change in the climate in the Home Office, or at least among politicians in the Home Office, since my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby and I first spoke to the Home Secretary about those matters.I welcome that very much, because the evil of the exploitation of children is one of the most sickening and
horrifying modern manifestations of social behaviour.It is one of the modern horrors of the world and we must all co-operate to do what we can to stop it.
People say that there are doubts about extra-territorial legislation--there have been doubts, and one reason why I have changed my view is that those doubts have been, to a substantial extent, diminished. We have introduced extra-territorial legislation in the world of finance. We had some agonising debates about whether we could do anything about California imposing double taxation. There are various subjects on which we originally said that we could do nothing, but found that we could do something. Equally, we found that we could do something under the war crimes legislation that the House passed with an overwhelming majority. A prosecution is currently under way--the matter is sub judice, so I shall say no more about it.
Mr. Couchman:
Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Sir Ivan Lawrence:
I cannot give way. My hon. Friend has already spoken and I am under time constraints.
There are examples of extra-territoriality and it remains to be seen whether they are enforceable. Certainly, the stand that we took in the House over extra-territorial financial relationships with America may have modified the financial laws that were being laid down in the United States. If we co-operate with the laws of foreign countries, we may also see some positive results. That is surely the key to the change in the world in recent times.
We have all become more international and our legal systems have had to become more international. Yesterday, in a question to the Leader of the House, I deplored the fact that the Government had meekly agreed to an extension of five years for the right of individual references to the European Court of Human Rights.I strongly object to the fact that we have done so without referring the matter to Parliament for discussion, because it is important. But I do not argue from that basis that we have no obligations to link ourselves into European or international laws as part of the new process of the open world. We shall deal with the appalling child pornography, as shown by the exploitation of children as set out in the Bill, only if we co-operate and give our legal support to countries that are trying to deal with the problem.
Mr. John Marshall:
We have had an interesting debate comprising 10 Back-Bench speeches. As three of them were made by lawyers, the House may be surprised that the debate is shortly to come to a conclusion.
Everyone is agreed that the sickening trade in young bodies is offensive. We all want to do our best to bring it to an end. I am sure that the Minister will have heard speeches from both sides of the House commending the Government on their initiative in proposing a further inquiry into extra-territorial legislation, particularly in respect of videos. Clearly, the main action has to come from the Thai, Philippine and other such authorities, but the Bill will help to tackle the sickening trade. The fact that young children can lose their innocence at the age of 10 or 11 must offend every decent Member of the House and all our constituents.
I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading and that it will have a positive but not too prolonged period in Committee.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |