|
Sandra Gidley: Earlier, the hon. Member for Rhondda sent me on an unfortunate train of thought. I remembered that several years ago I used to go camping frequently. I am unsure why we have this obsession with toilets, because I recall that there were communal shower blocks on some campsites where exactly the same sort of activity that is addressed in this clause could take place even today—the only difference being that it takes place in a shower cubicle, rather than a toilet cubicle. I do not understand why we are criminalising one and not the other, when the circumstances are incredibly similar.
3.45 pm
Paul Goggins: I simply remake the point that if the activity is causing harassment, alarm, distress, or outrage, those engaging in it can be prosecuted under existing legislation. I am dealing with a specific difficulty and the fact that the clause is in the Bill. We must either knock it out or make it workable. We are proposing amendments that make it workable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda asked about registration. The answer is no, there will be no consequence in terms of registration. On the definition of the word ''public'', in relation to a public lavatory, he will know that MPs are part of the public, therefore the toilets to which he referred in this building are public. Toilets in and near the lobby of a hotel are public toilets, because the public are able to use them. We are trying to exclude toilets that are clearly private, for example in a person's home.
In answer to the question of whether the offence requires two people, no, it does not, and it never did. One person is covered by this measure.
Column Number: 300
Finally, as a local Member of Parliament as much as anything else, I have to say that the people who come to my surgery to raise issues of disquiet about public toilets do not mention sexual activity. However, they mention dirty needles, filth, the state of the toilets and the fact that they cannot get access to them when they need them. Public lavatories are for people to use and any encumbrance that prevents them from doing so, or which causes harm, must be deprecated and dealt with. In this instance it is being dealt with in the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 119, in
clause 67, page 32, line 33, leave out 'activity within subsection (2),' and insert 'an activity, and'.
No. 120, in
clause 67, page 32, line 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person's purpose, consider it to be sexual.'.
No. 121, in
clause 67, page 33, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
No. 122, in
Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
Exposure
Amendment made: No. 96, in
clause 68, page 33, line 9, leave out '(A)'.—[Paul Goggins.]
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in
clause 68, page 33, line 10, after 'genitals', insert 'in a public place'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 184, in
clause 68, page 33, line 11, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.
Amendment No. 226, in
clause 68, page 33, line 16, leave out paragraph (b).
Mr. Malins: I shall be brief. I do not wish to proceed further with amendment No. 216.
Amendment No. 226 would knock out the indictable nature of the offence. I wonder whether it would be more appropriate for this offence to be summary only. I cannot think of any cases in which it should be tried on indictment—they could all be covered summarily. I shall seek permission to withdraw No. 216 in a moment, but I should like the Minister to comment on why he thinks that the offences should sometimes be indictable.
The Chairman: Before we start the debate I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that if he wishes to press amendment No. 226 to a vote, he will have to move it formally in due course.
Paul Goggins: I shall respond to this group of amendments in the spirit in which they were moved.
Column Number: 301
Amendment No. 216 would restrict the offence of exposure to public places. There may be examples where such an occurrence in a private place could be distressing. One thinks of a child having a friend to stay and an incident happens. I take it that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
Mr. Grieve: The Minister will be aware that this is one of the clauses that caused naturists anxiety, and they have lobbied Members about it. I am satisfied that the protection afforded in paragraph (b), which says,
''he knows or intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress'',
is sufficient to ensure that naturists will not be wrongly criminalised as a result of the clause. Is the Under-Secretary also satisfied about that?
Paul Goggins: I have looked at the matter in great detail and have replied to many letters on the subject, and I am completely satisfied that the clause will allay any fears that naturists have that they could somehow be captured by the legislation.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made a point about summary-only offences. That is a familiar debate to the Committee. We will attempt to ensure consistency in the Bill, but I should just say that it is not true that the activity would always be of a less serious nature. There could be situations in which it was more serious. Because of that, we want to give maximum scope to courts, so that the prosecutor and court could make the appropriate decision. We want to leave that breadth so that it is open and available to them.
Mrs. Brooke: I realise that I cannot move an amendment, but I should like to refer to one, if that is satisfactory.
I have received many representations from naturists, probably because I am lucky enough to live close to a beautiful naturist beach in Studland. Quite a few people retire to the locality in which I live because of it. There are still enormous concerns about the Bill, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will put a few more words on record to give comfort to the naturists. I understand that there are at least 5 million naturists in this country, although it is difficult to know the total. We are addressing the concerns of a great number of people.
I attempted to table a simple amendment to raise an issue that relates to Studland beach. There is a nice walk, which starts with a ferry trip, from Poole to Swanage. That walk goes through the naturist beach, and as one approaches the beach, there is a sign that says that there are naturists ahead, and says how far the area extends. In fact, there are postcards of the sign; I meant to buy one, but they have sold out, so the beach is well known.
The point is that even on the acknowledged naturist sites it is absolutely clear that a naturist knows that someone will see them. I must say that some people, once they reach the naturist beach, find it difficult to cope with the situation. I have walked the beach for many years with my children and we enjoy doing so, but I have sometimes taken guests who have reacted;
Column Number: 302
there are no two ways about it. That is why I simply suggest the words, ''knows and intends''. I should be interested to hear a response to that suggestion.
In more general terms, we must take on board the fear that the Bill will be used to suppress naturism. Because the offences are in the Bill as we have defined them, there is a fear that landowners, and even local authorities, will take the easy way out and will not be prepared to offer facilities.
Stephen Hesford: I have had no correspondence on the matter, perhaps because, unlike the hon. Lady, I do not have a naturist beach in my constituency. Is there any evidence from naturists that, under existing law—we have heard what existing law can contain and be aimed at—they have been suppressed and harassed, and that the Bill would reinforce that? Or is it suggested that there has been no harassment or suppression in the past, but that it might start now because of the Bill?
Mrs. Brooke: I think that the concern is that, with such a rightly high-profile Bill, which rightly has such an emphasis on children, people will be much more cautious about what they give permission for on their land. That is why there is worry that the clause could have an unintended consequence of suppressing naturism. We are aware that naturists wanted it to have a sexual gratification element, so that they were definitively excluded from it. In turn, the Home Affairs Committee considered the matter extensively and listened to the evidence, but did not decide that that was necessary. However, it certainly wanted to protect naturism and felt that it was undesirable to criminalise it. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary would say why it is considered unnecessary to introduce a further qualification relating to sexual gratification or to whether the activity was designed wilfully to provoke another person into a state of fear, alarm and distress.
Furthermore, naturists have said that if, for example, one of their members accepted a caution on a beach—which he might do as a simple way out of a difficult situation, rather than arguing—if we follow that through and put the clause with clause 81(1)(d) and clause 83, there is a fear that it could lead to someone being placed on the sex offenders register. It is important for the Under-Secretary to allay such concerns and put his comments on the record. I reiterate that I have a good mailbag on the issue and the fears remain. However, there is much gratitude for what has already been done to improve the clause.
The Chairman: Order. At the start of her remarks, the hon. Lady said that she could not move her amendment. There is a point of procedure whereby, when amendments are debated together, it is open to her to move her amendment formally at the end of the debate if she so chooses and to inform the Chair of her intentions.
|
