| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that clear cases exist in which asylum legislation and the threat of removal under that legislation can empower the trafficker and give them a greater hold over the adult or child whom they have trafficked?
Ms Keeble: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I was going to deal with that point later in my remarks.
The system is perhaps not intended to work in that way, but it often does at the practical level. In preparing for the implementation of this legislation, will Ministers give some very careful consideration to the support for victims? I see that the Home Office, as is mentioned in the background documentation for today's debate, has a working party on unaccompanied children, and perhaps this matter, including trying to capture information and scope the size of the problem, can be dealt with by that group, as the problems of unaccompanied and trafficked children blur at the edges.
It would also be helpful if clear guidelines were sent to local authorities, so that they knew what to do. At present, the only realistic way to get access to the support that should be provided under the Children Act 1989 is to go to court. However, the victims are the least likely to do that, so in many cases nothing happens.
I also want to deal with areas in which the Bill's provisions, excellent though they are, could be improved. One is the provision of a statutory reflection period, which is the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). It was also raised in the other place. If we are seriously to deal with trafficking, we need to be able to prosecute the traffickers. That is difficult, not least because of the vulnerability of the victims and their unwillingness immediately to give information. Indeed, there are sometimes difficulties in trying to get information from them, given differences of language and culture.
In the example of the Thai massage parlours in my constituency, Northamptonshire police did an outstanding job in difficult circumstances, as there were problems with getting evidence once the women had been dispersed, or in some cases deported. These rings are often enormously sophisticated, and the resources that we are able to pit against them are quite small in terms of numbers. Also, I cannot think of how it would be possible to get information from children who are trafficked without providing good time to build their confidence and to win their trust.
I see that a reflection period forms part of a Home Office pilot project, and verbal assurances have been given on deportations in cases of trafficking. That needs to be clearly set out in the legal framework or there could be inconsistency in practice. That could set back the efforts to deal with this pernicious problem.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) took up the point that there should be differentiation between the trafficking of adults and of children. I have seen the record from the other place, where the argument against that involved the penalty. To pick up the hon.
Gentleman's point and considering the other offences dealt with in the Bill, there are differences between offences committed against adults and those against children. There will be an inconsistency if the same distinctions are not drawn in relation to trafficking. I would argue that the age or youth of the person trafficked should be an aggravating factor, and it should influence how the offence is regarded and the offender treated. I hope that the assurances that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already given will make it possible to deal with that issue. I urge the Government to draw differences between the trafficking of children and of adults.Also, I see that trafficking is confined to that for sexual exploitation. I realise, of course, that the Bill relates to sexual offences, but it appears that some trafficking is for other purposes, in particular domestic work or, to be more honest, slavery. Some trafficking involves financial exploitation in the form of charges and benefits. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider some of those other purposes and whether it might be possible to provide protection for people, especially children, who are the victims of such trafficking?
Whatever shape the Bill ends up in, it will be a huge improvement on the situation now. It will strengthen the arm of those who seek to end the trafficking and exploitation of some vulnerable people, and it represents a huge step forward in protecting some extremely vulnerable children from sexual crimes that have shocked us all over past decades. I welcome the Bill and commend it to the House.
3.33 pm
Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). I hope she will allow me to call her my hon. Friend, given our previous lives when she was leader of Southwark council. We always co-operated strongly, in spite of our party differences. She is right to draw the House's attention to the fact that we are dealing, for the first time in sexual offences legislation, not only with the domestic position and domestic law, but with the terrible abuse and exploitation that can happen internationally. Those can be dealt with quite effectively by domestic legislation, as long as there is collaboration across boundaries.
There is a blunt truth: people who 50 years ago would have made their money from armed robbery, 30 years ago would have made their money from pornography in its early days, and 10 or 20 years ago would have made their money from drugs, have decided that there is money to be made from exploiting people. They are completely ruthless and reckless in the harm that they can cause. It is important that we address that issue in this context, and the debate has given us a welcome opportunity to do so.
The Minister will have the task of steering this somewhat complex legislation through consideration in Committee. Mercifully, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) said to me, he will do so without some of the heat that, apparently, was generated in the House of Lords over many a long day and night.
I say to the Minister that we pay tribute to the fact that before the last election, when the present Foreign Secretary was the Home Secretary, the Labour
Government grasped a nettle that needed to be grasped by saying that the sexual offences laws of this country needed to be reformed. The laws had been effectively untouched by a full review since the 1950s and some pieces of legislation dated back to earlier than that. A thorough reform was needed, although it was always thought that that would be difficult and controversial.
Vera Baird: Should not the Government also be commended on their earlier step in 1999 to abolish the admissibility of previous sexual history to show consent during rape trials?
Simon Hughes: Yes. The Government faced up to the need to take the files off the shelf in the Home Office and established the "Setting the Boundaries" review in 1999. They appointed good people to the review body, and the report, which formed the basis of the Bill, was completed after substantial work. The wide-ranging report tried to suggest up-to-date law that would be much clearer than before and non-discriminatory. This country had never before recognised that much of the existing law had been based on prejudices and assumptions that dated back to Victorian ages when, for example, the monarch did not believe that women could have same-sex relationships, so such relationships were never referred to. It was decided that the law needed to be brought up to date, and we should all be grateful for that.
I pay tribute to Members of the House of Lords who laboured long and hard on the Bill, especially our colleagues Lord Thomas of Gresford and Baroness Walmsley. The Home Secretary said that the Bill was a long time in the making—it was certainly a long time in the Lords. After hearing and reading several of the debates, one discovered that people such as Lady Saltoun of Abernethy appeared to have an unusual interest in such legislation—far be it for me to comment on whether she also has unusual expertise. The Bill seemed to preoccupy Members of the House of Lords, but they grasped several difficult nettles and managed to tease out answers that have led to a greater consensus. There is much more consensus on the Bill now than there was when it started its passage. The Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have added sensible recommendations.
The Bill deals with four types of protection in particular: the protection of children; the protection of vulnerable adults, especially those with mental disorders or learning difficulties; the protection of all individuals who might be the target of unwarranted sexual approaches; and the protection of the public. I hope that we all share the view of the public at large that those who abuse children, young people and the vulnerable are, in colloquial terms, sad and sick individuals whose violence and perversion is revolting to society. We must protect the vulnerable against such people's activities. They are often in need of help and treatment, but none the less their actions must be minimised and people must be protected against them at all costs.
It has not yet been said that sexual abuse happens most often in the broader family context. It is next most likely to happen among people who know each other. Sexual abuse is least frequent among people who have
never previously had contact. Unless we understand that fact, we fail to grasp the difficulty of dealing with the problem. Most such activity occurs between people who know each other all too well, not between people who have never met.The Home Affairs Committee identified the controversial issues of how rape should be defined, what protection should be given to a defendant and how consent should be defined. There is a question of what we should do about the controversial issue of exposure, including activities that should be permitted and when people should be allowed to walk around without clothes on. Thankfully, we have got rid of the nonsense of convicting people of an offence because someone under 16 has seen them walking around at home with no clothes on. Mercifully, that has been sorted out.
Protecting children involves orders and registers, and we must ensure that offenders abroad are registered here. There is general agreement that the issue of the day—grooming for sexual purposes—should be an offence. That is welcome. There is, however, the caveat that we should not imply the commission of a further offence just because of a grooming prelude.
The final general issue is that of anonymity, which is the most difficult general problem that we still face. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) alluded to that.
I shall go into detail on only one aspect of the second tier of issues. We have to try to win the Home Secretary's magnum or flagon of champagne—I expected it to be bitter. It is nonsense that we criminalise young people between 13 and 16 for what may be minimal sexual activity that is not of a predatory nature—when it is effectively consensual—and is part of the natural process of an adolescent growing up. We all have to sort that out. There are enough crimes on the statute book and enough people criminalised without adding to it. Let us not be prudish and old fashioned. Throughout the history of the world, teenagers have explored themselves and each other, and that will continue. There is all the difference in the world between that and ensuring that activity with under-13s is unacceptable. That is what the Bill says, which is a good thing. There is no defence or excuse for interfering with under-13s. We should be clear that that is understood outside this place. That is why the event reported today, if it is true, of an adult running away with a child who is under 13 is serious and needs to be brought to a quick and satisfactory conclusion.
Liberal Democrats share the view that we are right to be clear about the need to deal with abuses of positions of trust. That has never been clear before. It does not matter who abuses that trust—whether it is the sports coach and a person in the team, the teacher and a person in the class, the priest and a person in the church, or the voluntary sector leader and a person in the group. That abuse is wrong and the relationship must not be taken beyond what is acceptable. We welcome the fact that the Bill picks up on that and tries to extend the principle to the abuse of people through prostitution and pornography.
I pay tribute to those who do the unglamorous work of tracking down people who commit such offences. In my previous life, I was involved in prosecutions on behalf of the police of people involved in those offences.
It is a gruesome, unpleasant and sordid business. Police officers will often only do it for a couple of years before going on to other work because they cannot stand the grotesque horror of it. However, it is important that it is done. The charities and the voluntary sector that help with it are extremely valuable.On another point, I have a friend who has an adult daughter with learning difficulties. The mere fact of a child having learning difficulties does not mean that he or she should not have physical relationships with other people, although there used to be that presumption. I remember my friend telling me that when she was looking at a residential centre for her daughter, the person who ran it said, "Don't worry, Mrs. So-and-So, we'll make sure that your daughter doesn't get up to any hanky-panky", to which she said, "In that case, she's not coming, because I want her to live a full and fulfilled life like everyone else." It is important not to say that people with a mental disorder or learning difficulties should be precluded from normal sexual activity. The Bill is about not exploiting people; it is not about forbidding them from having a natural and normal life.
I told the Home Secretary that we needed to ensure that information is shared across continents and borders so that those who abuse in one country cannot get away with moving somewhere else.
It is important to get the rape issue right, not just because it is the most serious offence and the conviction rate is inadequate, but because it goes before a jury. I hope that that way of trying someone will be supported and upheld by the House of Lords when it considers the Criminal Justice Bill today. We must not change the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial just because of the sort of offence. That is why people laboured so hard to get the definition right, and I pay tribute to them. It may not be perfect, but the combination of clause 1 and clauses 76 and 77 is much clearer and will allow juries to receive much clearer guidance.
The best way in which to deal with a high level of acquittals is to try to grasp the nettle of anonymity. There should not be party views on the issue. The argument for the anonymity of the defendant, the complainant or the witness is that it is less damaging if identity is not revealed. Even though a defendant may be acquitted, the reputation gained does not go away. We can all think without much prompting of television personalities and people in the arts, sports or public life who, as a result of an unproven allegation, have not escaped from under a black cloud for many years. Alternatively, there is the argument that, as a result of a trial and those participating being in the public eye, other people come forward having realised that they ought to say something too and that others should be convicted.
The biggest danger is the press abusing its position. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I have been to see Ministers to say that we must prevent the publication of stories about prospective defendants—such stories are often leaked by the police—that take over the tabloids in particular and mean that there can be no fair trial. There have been some crude examples of that over the past year. I therefore hope that we can agree on provisions that offer
protection from such exploitation. The issue goes wider than sex offences, although such cases are often the most vulnerable in that respect.My preference is that we adopt the proposal of the Home Affairs Committee: from the moment of arrest at the latest to the moment of charge, anonymity rules should apply for all parties. After that, they should not, but the courts should be able to receive applications in either direction. A court should be able to agree to a request for the continuing anonymity of a defendant, witness or complainant, or it could decide, on receiving an application setting out why it is not in the public interest to apply the anonymity rule, that there is a good case for not doing so.
In the light of much constituency experience, I know that it is equally important that witnesses—not necessarily the complainant—receive the same protection, as they will often not come forward when they could substantiate a case because of the public embarrassment of doing so. The case might relate to a professional colleague or someone in the same family. We must bring everyone within such a remit.
I repeat that convicting for grooming for sexual purposes is fine, but we must not presume that that means that people have committed the intended offence. The intended offence must be separately proved; presumption is not enough.
I want to say a word about naturists. I do not know how many there are, but they have been making a lot of noise over recent months. Some of us accept that for many people nudity is not beautiful, although for others it is—all power to them and long may they celebrate it. I hope that we have struck the right balance in allowing people who want to walk around with nothing on to do so without prosecution while respecting that on some occasions that causes some people difficulty.
That brings me to the protection of the public. I hope that we have reached a common-sense solution. If one goes behind the sixth hillock with somebody on a warm, summer afternoon, it is not the job of the state to send people in blue to find them and prosecute. If one goes behind the 28th sand dune on the left on the east English coast on a rare warm, summer day, that is not the business of the state either. However, places such as public conveniences, which are meant to be used by the public, should not be no-go areas for the citizens of this country when they need to use them for the purpose for which they were intended. That is not a sexist, homophobic or anti-gay point—public conveniences are meant to be safe places, but often they are taken over and have become thoroughly unpleasant places. When the Bill has completed its passage, there should be a sign on each one saying that they are to be used for the purposes for which they were intended, and other activity will be dealt with. I hope that we proceed by the means of public order legislation, which would be a better way of tackling the problem than sexual offences legislation.
My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Romsey have volunteered to serve as Liberal Democrat members of the Committee considering this difficult Bill. In Committee, they will not be able to secure the provision of better treatment for people whose mental and psychological problems lead to sex offences, so that is a
battle that we must continue to fight elsewhere. Providing centres to treat people with such disorientations is just about the least popular cause in the country, but it has to be addressed. In the meantime, I hope that my hon. Friends will try to make sure, along with me and all our colleagues in the House, that we end up with a Bill that is modern, non-discriminatory, clear, enforceable and effective. I think that that is within our grasp, and it is a prize well worth attaining.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |