| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Morley: On the last point, the ships are not coming through the Pentland firth, and I am not aware of any proposal to alter the route. On departmental responsibilities, I come back to the point that the competent authority is the Environment Agency. It is not a split responsibility between the Department for Transport and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, although, of course, there are issues in which we have an interest, but there is a very clear competent authority and it is the Environment Agency.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.
Point of Order
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I gave you notice. The Post Office dispute is now, I hope, being resolved. Many Labour Members were shocked at the tactics employed by the Post Office management. It seems clear that low-paid workers with genuine grievances were bullied and harassed. Furthermore, they were followed and spied on as they demonstrated against that treatment. The Post Office management has acted more like the Stasi than responsible management in charge of a public service such as the Post Office. Indeed, Mr. Adam Crozier, who I believe is paid half a million a year plus perks, has presided over what have been appalling tactics—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Lady. She is making a case against the management of the Post Office. The matter is in the hands of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and it is best that no comment be made by any hon. Member at the moment. It is not a point of order. It is not a matter for me. The matter is being negotiated at the moment and it would be best to keep out of it.
Orders of the DaySexual Offences Bill [Lords]
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
- That the amendments to the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, New Clauses, amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 56, Schedule 1, Clauses 57 to 72, Schedule 2, Clauses 73 to 80, Schedule 3, Clauses 81 to 93, Schedule 4, Clauses 94 to 104, Schedule 5, Clauses 105 to 138, Schedule 6, Clause 139, Schedule 7, Clauses 140 to 142, New Schedules.—[Paul Goggins.]
New Clause 2
Penalties For Keeping A Brothel
'In paragraph 33 of Schedule 2 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (c.69) (mode of prosecution, punishment etc. for offences under section 33 of that Act)—
(a) for the entries in the second and third columns substitute—
(i) On indictment Seven years
(ii) Summarily Six months, or the statutory maximum or both";
(b) omit the entry in the fourth column.'.—[Paul Goggins.]
4.2 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 142, in clause 48, page 28, line 14, leave out
'against a person under 16 is liable'.
Amendment No. 143, in clause 48, page 28, line 16, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
Amendment No. 186, in clause 57, page 30, line 38, at end insert—
'(c) a person who has been subject to trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation shall be granted the opportunity of remaining in safe accommodation in the UK for a period of up to 6 months.'.
Amendment No. 49, in clause 59, page 31, line 22, leave out from 'he' to 'done' in line 24 and insert
'believes that another person is likely to do something to or in respect of B, after B's departure but in any part of the world, which if'.
Amendment No. 138, in schedule 2, page 80, line 17, leave out '48' and insert '49'.
Amendment No. 139, in schedule 2, page 80, line 27, at end insert—
'(e) an offence under section 48 where the victim of the offence was under 18 at the time of the offence.'.
Amendment No. 140, in schedule 3, page 84, line 39, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
Amendment No. 141, in clause 86, page 45, line 17, after 'Kingdom', insert 'for any period'.
Amendment No. 135, in clause 115, page 63, line 2, after '16', insert 'or 18'.
Amendment No. 136, in clause 115, page 63, line 3, after '16', insert 'or 18'.
Amendment No. 137, in clause 116, page 63, line 26, after '15', insert '29,'.
Government amendments Nos. 74, 134 and 114.
Paul Goggins: This first group covers the areas of sexual exploitation and trafficking. New clause 2 raises the maximum penalty available for the offence of keeping a brothel at paragraph 33 of schedule 2 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 from three months imprisonment, or six months for a second or subsequent offence, to seven years imprisonment. That brings it into line with our exploitation of prostitution offences in clauses 53 and 54, adding to the ability of the police to tackle the serious sexual exploitation of adults involved in prostitution.
Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): I wholly agree with what my hon. Friend is saying, but in the provision there is an assumption that we all know what a brothel is, and I am sure that he is aware that that is somewhat uncertain in law. Indeed, under section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 a brothel would include anywhere to which people resorted for the purpose of lewd homosexual practices. I wonder whether my hon. Friend intends at any point to reform the law so that it is a bit clearer on precisely what a brothel is.
Paul Goggins: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced a review of prostitution and one of the issues that that review may consider is a definition, but my hon. has raised the matter with me privately as well as on the Floor of the House. He has some concerns that the proprietors of commercial gay saunas, for example, may be caught by the new clause. I make it absolutely clear that we intend at Lords consideration of Commons amendments to restrict the use of the seven-year penalty to those cases that involve prostitution. I hope that that offers my hon. Friend some assurance.
In formulating our offences in this area, we were keen to ensure that the law is focused on genuinely exploitative behaviour. It was for that reason that the sexual offences review recommended the repeal of the offence of "man living on the earnings of prostitution" in section 30 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and why we created the offences in clauses 53 and 54. In Committee, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration underlined that these offences were designed to tackle the problems of on-street pimps who exploit prostitutes in their control.
The offences are also designed to tackle those who cause, incite or control the prostitution of others in any circumstances, whether that is on-street prostitution or off-street in brothels or in any other place. However, it has come to our attention that the police were not confident that the prosecution would always be able to make out the element of "control" in our new offences where the owner of a brothel, or multiple brothels, might be exploiting several prostitutes at their
premises—and making a considerable amount of money out of it—but putting himself at a distance from the actual running of the premises.We have said throughout consideration of the Bill that the issue of brothels is outside the scope of this Bill and should be looked at in the wider context of the review of prostitution that I have mentioned. Having discussed the matter with the police, we feel that the best way to tackle this possible difficulty is to raise the penalty for the offence of keeping a brothel in section 33 of the 1956 Act to give the police another offence with a substantial penalty effectively to target those who exploit the prostitution of others in this way.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): The Under-Secretary will agree that there is a clear distinction between living off earnings and controlling activities. It might have been possible to make section 30 gender-neutral with a reference to "any person" who lives off the earnings of a prostitute, irrespective of whether that was a man or a woman. Was there any particular reason why the Government did not adopt that course?
Paul Goggins: We did not adopt that course because quite innocent third parties could be caught technically by the offence of living off the earnings of prostitution—for example, somebody earning an income from prostitution and using the money to help send a daughter to college or to help a member of the family in some other way. That is one of the reasons why we felt it important to move on. We will look at the area in greater detail in considering the legislation on prostitution.
Subsection (b) of new clause 2 and the other Government amendments in this group—Nos. 74, 134 and 114—are merely consequential and minor drafting amendments as a result of new clause 2, and simply ensure that references elsewhere in this Bill and other legislation relating to section 33 of the 1956 Act are up to date.
The purpose of Government amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 to the trafficking offences in clauses 57 to 59 is to ensure that the offences can be used effectively to prosecute all those who arrange or facilitate the process of trafficking, believing that someone else is going to commit a sexual offence against the victim. As drafted, the offences require a higher threshold of criminality, namely, that the defendant must intend to facilitate the third person's commission of an offence against the victim. We have been persuaded that it would be very difficult in many cases to prove this intention, with the result that many of those who take part in this horrendous trade, fully aware of what will happen to the victim at the end of the process, could be beyond the reach of the criminal law.
As the House is aware, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 introduced new offences of trafficking for the purposes of controlling someone in prostitution. These made it an offence for a person to arrange or facilitate the arrival, travel within the UK once arrived, or departure from the UK of another person, when either he intended to exercise control over that person's prostitution or he believed that another person was likely to do so. That is a lower threshold than the offences currently in the Bill and, on reflection, we have concluded that the lower threshold is the correct one.
We are striving to ensure that different levels of involvement in prostitution and exploitation are reflected in a range of different offences with appropriate penalties and I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.
Amendment No. 186, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would add a statutory requirement that all victims of trafficking as defined by the Bill be given the opportunity of remaining in safe accommodation in the United Kingdom for up to six months. I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment, but we believe that the application of a blanket period of leave for those who claim to have been the victims of trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation would not be appropriate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |