| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley): Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the process of notification and understanding sex offenders' actions involves questioning what they are doing if they travel to certain destinations or often go abroad? That might lead to an investigation that might bring to light concerns that might not otherwise be recognised.
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Lady has a point, but my fear is that such investigations might mean that we have in effect allowed abuse to take place. The fact that
someone travels often to the Czech border or to one of the Asian countries may well sound alarm bells. However, a successful prosecution can follow an investigation only if that person has been allowed to offend again. That is why I have a difficulty with the new clause.Three days would still allow quite a long time, and I understand that Interpol says that it can operate in two days. That would be a step in the right direction and I would welcome the Minister's comments on why 48 hours was not chosen. We live in an age of computers and technology and we are able to alert other police authorities as to what is going on. However, the policing infrastructure in some of the countries where abuse takes place is either corrupt or does not have the resources to deal with the problem. Such offenders are very cunning and know which countries to target so that they have the greatest chance of success.
Some time ago, I visited Cambodia where the age of consent presents a real problem. The Cambodian Government have raised the age of consent to 18, but 17 and 18-year-olds in that country look very young and might appeal to the sort of person who has a particular liking for sex with young children. However, the way in which we deal with that problem at the moment seems to be under a lesser offence because the age of the consent in this country is 16. I want reassurances that if people tried to visit regularly a country in which the age of consent was 18 to exploit the aspects of its society that I described, the problem could be dealt with.
Paul Goggins: I shall keep my remarks fairly brief because I outlined my views extensively earlier in the debate. I tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that although the police did not support the repeal of the offence of living off immoral earnings, we drafted the new clause to increase the penalty for keeping a brothel at their urgings. The Bill is an attempt to modernise the system and deal with modern circumstances and we want to avoid innocent parties being caught up by it. We need to achieve the right balance between addressing on-street pimping and capturing the more distant and vaguer figures—the Mr. Bigs, if you like—who often make a lot of money from their activities. I tell the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) that the police are confident that the Bill will enable them to track such people down and ensure that they are penalised, and I agree that the distant and shady characters are often those whom we really need to prosecute. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. His views and those of other hon. Members will be the sort of views that will be reflected on during the review of prostitution that I mentioned earlier.
Mr. Bryant: There is no definition of what constitutes a brothel in law, so we rely on judgments for definitions. In the case of Gorman v. Standen in 1964, Lord Parker said that a brothel was
- "a house resorted to or used by more than one woman for the purposes of fornication".
Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend points us in the direction of the debate that will no doubt ensue. I do not think that defining a brothel is among the many things that I must do this evening, so I shall pass on that, if he will forgive me.
As I tried to say earlier, I entirely understand the motivation of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) in tabling amendment No. 186. I share her motivation and I was not trying to be negative about it in any of my remarks. I simply put the argument that given that we are trying appropriately to support the victims of trafficking as I outlined, it is not necessary to introduce time constraints. What matters is for individual decisions to suit a person's specific circumstances. We must evaluate the pilot to assess its success and decide how the work can be extended further. I underline the fact that helping and supporting the victims of trafficking is a high priority for the Government and I am sure that we share that commitment with the hon. Lady.
I am sure that the whole House, as it often does, will join me in paying tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) champions the rights and needs of children. However, we must have a degree of proportionality when considering his amendments, the offences that we are discussing and sentencing and foreign travel orders, so I urge him to reflect further. I am sorry that I have not been successful at persuading him of the need for a sense of balance. He acknowledges that the change from eight days to three days is sensible and positive. The time period of three days is balanced and although it will not be burdensome for either the police or individuals, it will give us the tighter protection that we clearly need. If there is evidence that children might be the potential subjects of attack from specific paedophiles or sex offenders, a foreign travel order is available to prevent such people from travelling abroad, so we have a further measure to prevent them from going abroad if there is evidence that they could pose a real threat.
My hon. Friend raised the interesting idea of to what extent anyone—16, 17 or, indeed, older—consents to sexual activity that is part of prostitution. Again, that will be considered in the review as part of the extent to which people have been subject to abuse, caught up in drugs or manipulated by others. It is questionable to what extent anyone freely consents to sexual activity within that wider context. There is a debate to be had on that, but it is probably for another day.
5 pm
The hon. Member for Romsey quoted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his usual robust form. When he makes such remarks, he speaks from the heart and guts, as we all do on such offences. We would probably all be harsher than the measures set out in the Bill, but it is our duty in Committee and on the Floor of the House to react not just with our heart and guts but with our heads, to create a sensible framework of law that will provide protection while being enforceable and workable. I urge hon. Members to support the
Government amendments and not to press other amendments to a vote.Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 3
Service Courts
'(1) In this Act—
(a) a reference to a court order or a conviction or finding includes a reference to an order of or a conviction or finding by a service court,
(b) a reference to an offence includes a reference to an offence triable by a service court,
(c) "proceedings" includes proceedings before a service court, and
(d) a reference to proceedings for an offence under this Act includes a reference to proceedings for the offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 (3&4Eliz.2 c.18) or the Air Force Act 1955 (3&4Eliz.2 c.19) or section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c.53) for which the offence under this Act is the corresponding civil offence.
(2) In sections 92 and 104(1), "court" includes a service court.
(3) Where the court making a sexual offences prevention order is a service court—
(a) sections 104(1)(a) and (4) to (6), 105, 109, 111 and 112 do not apply,
(b) in section 108, "the appropriate court" means the Crown Court in England and Wales, and
(c) in section 110(3)(a), the references to the Crown Court and Court of Appeal are references to the Crown Court and Court of Appeal in England and Wales.
(4) In this section "service court" means a court-martial or Standing Civilian Court.'.—[Ms Harman.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 82, 37, 53, 52, 63 to 66, 68, 69, 111, 67, 87, 88, 124, 125, 89, 90, 126, 91 to 95, 127 to 131, 96, 97, 70 to 72, 98, 132, 99, 73, 100 to 104, 54 to 56, 133, 105, 57 to 60, 76, 77, 112, 78 to 80, 113, 115, 81, 106 to 108, 62, 109 and 110.
The Solicitor-General: The amendments are minor, drafting and technical.
New clause 3 deals with the powers of service courts—that is, courts martial. It will ensure that references in part 2 to court orders, convictions, findings, offences and proceedings apply to those matters in the context of service courts as well as civilian courts. It makes it clear, for example, that if a person is convicted of a serious sexual offence before a court martial, that person will be subject to the notification requirements. It will also enable service courts to impose sexual offences prevention orders at the time of sentencing in the same way as civilian courts.
Courts martial have jurisdiction to try all offences committed outside the UK, including the most serious, when committed by service personnel, their dependants or other civilians who are subject to service law overseas,
such as Ministry of Defence officials posted abroad who are accompanying Her Majesty's forces. If an offender is sentenced to imprisonment by a court martial, he will be sent to a UK civilian prison to serve his sentence in the normal way. If a service court, by which I mean a court martial or a standing civilian court, is satisfied that the test set out in clause 104(l)(b) is met—namely, that a sexual offences prevention order is necessary for the purposes of protecting the public in the UK from serious sexual harm—we consider it appropriate for that court to be able to impose such an order in the same way as a civilian court. The new clause gives a service court the power to impose a sexual offences prevention order only on conviction or sentence, not following an application by the police, as the latter power is not necessary or appropriate in relation to service courts.On amendment No. 69, schedule 3 contains the sentencing thresholds at which the notification requirements under part 2 are triggered. For some offences, the thresholds include the imposition of a community sentence of at least 12 months. Service courts do not generally have the power to impose community sentences, but they can impose a punishment called service detention. That is considered a lesser punishment than imprisonment, although it deprives the service offender of his liberty, pay and other privileges. However, its purpose is rehabilitative, with the offender undergoing a period of corrective training and then usually resuming his or her career in the armed forces. It can be used in similar circumstances to those in which community sentences are applied in civilian courts.
Taking account of different provisions for sentence calculation, it is estimated that a sentence of 112 days' service detention is equivalent to a 12-month community sentence. The amendment adds 112 days' service detention to the thresholds as an alternative to 12 months' community sentence. That will ensure that offenders who would be subject to notification requirements if sentenced in a civilian court will not escape that because of the different sentencing powers of service courts.
Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 56, 58 and 68 are to clarify drafting or to ensure that appropriate service legislation is referred to. Amendments Nos. 57 and 59 deal with schedule 5A of the Army and Air Force Act 1955 and equivalent naval provisions, which empower standing civilian courts overseas, when punishing civilians who are subject to service law, to award absolute or conditional discharges and community supervision orders. Paragraph 5(1) of that schedule deems such sentences not to amount to convictions. Amendment No. 57 is a drafting amendment to reflect the provisions in paragraph 5(1). Amendment No. 59 applies part 2 to community supervision orders so that an order imposed by a service court will trigger the notification requirements in appropriate cases.
Amendment No. 52 to clause 67 limits the offence of exposing the genitals to the situation where a person intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |