| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Policing and Crime Bill
Consideration of Lords amendments
1.12 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism (Mr. David Hanson): I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 5.
Mr. Hanson: This new clause is related to provisions already in the Bill in clauses 6, 7 and 8. All the clauses are intended to facilitate the work of police collaborative units to ensure that where two or more police forces reach collaboration agreements in respect of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the fact that investigative teams may comprise officers from different forces will not cause any operational problems. Amendments 2 to 5 are minor and technical amendments that authorise conduct likely to take place in Scotland under section 46 of the Act. I hope that the House will concur with the Lords in these amendments.
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): Clauses 6, 7 and 9 make certain procedural amendments to the Police Act 1997 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in order to streamline the authorisation process for matters such as surveillance and, in particular, covert human intelligence sources or CHISs. Where collaboration is necessary, amendments to the RIPA authorisation are required. The Government anticipate greater collaboration between police forces, two or more, in which they enter into agreements to deliver better policing and-one hopes-some efficiencies. We are strong supporters of such arrangements and we therefore support Lords amendment 1.
Subject to certain conditions being satisfied, authorisation by one collaborating force for such surveillance activities or use of CHISs could be extended to members of another collaborating force, removing the need for duplicate authorisations to be issued by both collaborating forces. We supported this in Committee and we are pleased to do so again today.
Paul Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): I agree with the points that have just been made. These are very straightforward technical arrangements to facilitate co-operation between two forces working across force boundaries so that they can have a controller from one force area and a handler from another force area, if that is relevant to an operation in progress. We support these amendments.
Lords amendments 2 to 5 agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Alan Campbell): I beg to move, that this House agrees with Lords amendment 6.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 7 to 24, 46 to 51 and 60 to 63.
Mr. Campbell: Amendments 6 to 15 respond to the concerns raised during the debates in this House about the potential scope of clause 13. Broadly, the amendments mean that it will be an offence to pay for sex with someone who has been subject to exploitative conduct of a kind likely to induce or encourage them to provide the sexual services. A person engages in exploitative conduct if he practices any form of deception or uses force, threats-whether or not relating to violence-or any other form of coercion. This recognises that not all forms of coercion involve the use of physical abuse. Amendment 46 responds to concerns raised in this House and in the other place about the need for safeguards in the provisions creating the new rehabilitative orders for those convicted of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. The amendment places an upper limit of 72 hours on the period for which someone can be held in police detention after being arrested in pursuance of a warrant following breach of such an order.
Amendments 47 and 48 require a court to be satisfied that before issuing a closure notice the police took reasonable steps to identify any person with an interest in the premises and that they were given a copy of the notice, before a closure order is made.
Amendments 16 to 20, 22 to 23, 60 and 63 change the name of the new category of sex establishment introduced by clause 27 from "sex encounter venue" to "sexual entertainment venue" in response to concerns that the term "sex encounter venue" could inadvertently stigmatise those who work in lap-dancing clubs.
Amendments 21, 24, 61 and 62 are minor and technical amendments that ensure that once premises have been granted a sex establishment licence in order to operate as sexual entertainment venues, they will be deemed to be a sexual entertainment venue for the duration of their licence, irrespective of how frequently relevant entertainment is provided.
Amendments 49 to 51 place a duty on local authorities that have not adopted the lap-dancing provisions within one year of commencement to consult local people to ensure they are given the opportunity to express their views as to whether the provisions should be adopted or not.
I hope that the House will agree the amendments.
Mr. Ruffley: Amendments 6 to 15 are important, and we had a fruitful debate on that subject in Committee. They seek to achieve a better definition of coercion. It will be an offence if an individual engages in exploitative conduct, the definition of which is if someone uses
"force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any other form of coercion, or...practises any form of deception".
That is an improvement on what was in the Bill when it was previously before the House. We accept the Government's main thrust, which is that it is important that we recognise that psychological pressure can be used to coerce someone into prostitution, and that it can have a considerable effect on people who are vulnerable. This is a better form of words than before.
An example of a case affected by the new wording would involve a threat by a pimp or other coercer used to entice someone into prostitution. The person might threaten to report the prostitute or sex worker to the immigration authorities if they were here illegally, or a prostitute or sex worker might be being controlled through a third party by controlled access to a supply of drugs to feed a habit, which would obviously affect an individual in a weak position compared with the person making the threats and seeking to exploit them.
We went around the block many times in Committee on that matter, and we believe that the new wording is an improvement. We will keep the situation under review, as I am sure Ministers will, to ensure that the redefined wording has the intended effect.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): I wish to speak briefly about the amendments. I welcome what the Government have done. There was concern on Second Reading about the original proposals. As the Minister knows, the Home Affairs Committee looked into human trafficking. One problem, however, is that it is very difficult to find victims prepared to admit that they have been trafficked. My worry on Second Reading, therefore, was about enforcement and putting people in a position that involved them in a strict liability offence.
On considering the matter, I, and the Select Committee, felt that that went beyond the issue of exploitation and into the area of prostitution. Some people choose to be prostitutes as a matter of lifestyle. It is regrettable, but many people are in that position. I, and other Committee members, went to Soho with the Metropolitan police.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): Good show!
Keith Vaz: Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend was not available; otherwise I am sure that we would have taken him with us.
We engaged some ladies in a conversation about how they got there and what they were doing. They, too, were concerned that this was in some way a reflection on them. While accepting all the points that I know that my right hon. Friend-he is my dear friend, and was my successor as Minister for Europe-will make, the fact remains that we have real concerns about enforcement. The amendments help, but in dealing with enforcement, the Government need to work closely with the Metropolitan police, so that we do not take on an issue wider than was intended in the legislation.
Paul Holmes: As the Minister said, Lords amendments 6 to 10 improve the definition of how we establish that a sex worker has been coerced into that line of work. They use the words "exploitative conduct", which allow for a wider definition that includes things such as deception and threats-for example, the withdrawal of accommodation-rather than the earlier definition, which relied much more on threats of physical violence and others of a similar nature. The definition to be used, therefore, is an improvement, and one that we welcome.
As the Minister knows, we still have concerns about some of the intention behind it and the use of strict liability. Only one country in the world uses the strict liability definition for prosecuting clients of sex workers-Finland-but in the first two and a half years, no prosecutions were brought under that law. From January to June this year-the latest six months of the three years for which the scheme has been running in Finland-there have been two successful prosecutions. Such measures do not have a very good track record, therefore, and magistrates and judges in this country have expressed considerable doubt about achieving prosecutions using that concept. We welcome the improved definition, but we still have considerable reservations about the intention to prosecute on strict liability and its effectiveness.
Lords Amendments 16 to 20, 22, 23, 60 and 63, to which the Minister referred, change the legal definition of a lap-dancing club from "sex encounter venue" to "sexual entertainment venue". That is a step forward. Many young women working in such venues expressed concern that the original definition was prejudicial to what they regarded as a straightforward entertainment process. It was said in the other place that the legal definition and description being applied to lap-dancing clubs was much harsher than that applied to the same process in a film. However, those arguments might have been overdone: for example, watching a scene in the American series "The Sopranos" with lap dancers in the background would be rather different-in style, intensity and content-from being in lap-dancing premises before a naked, or semi-naked, lap dancer, especially as someone can pay for a dance in a private room in which only one person, plus the lap dancer, might be present. That difference marks out the latter from the same process in a film. None the less, "sexual entertainment venue" is an improvement, although perhaps it does not go far enough. As Liberal Democrats said in the other place, we would have preferred a definition such as "adult entertainment venue" rather than "sexual entertainment venue", but the latter is a welcome improvement none the less.
Amendments 47 and 48 introduce a third condition for courts to be satisfied on before accepting a police proposal to close a brothel. Again, there were considerable discussions in Committee in January and February, later on Third Reading and in the other place about the danger of over-emphasising police powers to close brothels, because many sex workers-many of us on the Committee met with many sex workers who visited the House of Commons to lobby and talk to us-were concerned that the over-zealous use of powers to close brothels would present a much greater danger to the safety of sex workers, because it is much safer and more secure to work in a small brothel, involving two or three people working off the streets, than to work on the streets. The amendments are a welcome step forward; they recognise some of the concerns raised over the past year during the Bill's passage through the Commons and the other place.
Finally, under amendments 49 to 51, local authorities that do not adopt the new provisions on regulating lap-dancing clubs must consult local people. That, too, is a welcome step forward, but will the Minister suggest how that consultation will take place? In Chesterfield, for example, we have nine community forums covering the town. Would a consultation through a community
forum be enough to meet the requirements in the amendments? Having chaired one of those forums years ago, before I became a Member of Parliament, I know well that only a small number of people tend to turn up-the same dedicated group-apart from when there is a controversial issue, whether planning or, in this case, lap dancing. On such occasions, a larger group tends to turn up that is perhaps unrepresentative of the community at large. Exactly what level of consultation would have to take place to meet the requirements in amendments 49 to 51?
Lynda Waltho (Stourbridge) (Lab): I shall discuss amendments 16 to 20, 22, 23, 60 and 63, which deal with lap dancing. Generally, the legislation on this area is welcomed as an important change to lap-dancing licensing. We all know that it is the result of an 18-month campaign led by organisations such as Object and the Fawcett Society, parliamentarians on both sides of the House, equality organisations and residents associations, all of whom were concerned about the unchecked expansion of lap dancing and its impact on women and local communities in general. My interest in the matter was awakened by an application for a lap-dancing club in Stourbridge for a club with 50 private booths to which my constituents could not object despite living two doors away.
The legislation is important because it recognises that lap-dancing clubs are part not of the ordinary leisure industry, but of the sex industry. It is important to recognise that. As such, such establishments have serious implications and risks, not only for the women who perform in them, but for women in wider society, because they promote a sexist culture in which women are treated as sex objects and, I believe, a culture that fuels violence against women.
1.30 pm
Mr. MacShane: I am shocked that my hon. Friend says that there is a lap-dancing club in her constituency proposing to build 50 private booths. We just heard from the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Paul Holmes)-the Lib Dems are now the party of lap-dancing supporters-but 50 private booths? What on earth does she think will happen in them? A discussion of Lib Dem policy?
Lynda Waltho: The question has been the subject of quite a lot of debate in Stourbridge. A stamp-collecting club meets quite close to the lap-dancing club. We wondered whether it might be using the booths for swapping stamps.
The feeling among local residents that I have described led them to think, "This is not the sort of establishment that I want to live by," but they found that they could not object. That is how I started on this road. What is good about the reforms is that they will allow local authorities that wish to do so to apply greater controls on clubs and give local people greater powers to prevent lap-dancing clubs from opening. That is the good bit. However, I am still disappointed-and will remain so until I can be convinced otherwise-that the Government have chosen not to apply the legislation universally across England and Wales, nor to apply it to all lap-dancing events, regardless of the frequency with which they occur in particular venues.
A quick look at the debate on Report demonstrates the great strength of feeling on the issue in all parts of the House. I am concerned that the industry will take advantage of the legislation-I have seen that happen in my constituency and in Durham and Brighton. If there is a loophole, the men who control that area of the sex industry will exploit it. As a result of what is proposed, local authorities will not be obliged to adopt the legislation and can continue, if they wish, to licence lap-dancing clubs like cafés, relying only on the will of the council. Even if there is local opposition, like there was and still is in Stourbridge, local people will not necessarily be guaranteed a greater say in the licensing process unless Dudley, my local authority, takes up the legislation. Local authorities that do not adopt the powers will be vulnerable to challenge by the lap-dancing industry. It is an industry with a great deal of finance, and I believe that some local authorities will cave in to pressure from this strong and serious lobby.
Local authorities will also be prevented from applying greater controls to lap-dancing events if they occur 11 times or less in a particular venue each year. That puts the safety of performers at such venues at serious risk and also duplicates and undermines an existing discretionary power in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I referred to an owner of a venue in Committee who welcomed the new legislation, because he felt that he could get all the bars and pubs in Stourbridge to apply for up to 11 events a year and thereby effectively have a mobile lap-dancing club around the area. If Dudley council is not robust and does not pick up the legislation, that could still happen in my constituency.
Paul Holmes: Does the hon. Lady agree with my earlier comment that we need to hear from the Minister exactly how the Government envisage the consultation by those local authorities that do not adopt the legislation taking place? If that consultation consists of an advert in the local paper that nobody responds to, it will be toothless. However, if it is to be a proper consultation, those constituents who are concerned, such as those whom the hon. Lady has discussed, should have ample opportunity to put pressure on their local authority. However, the devil will be in the detail, and it will depend what the legislation requires.
Lynda Waltho: I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, the Lib Dems in Stourbridge have supported my position on the issue and have worked with me all the way along, so I do not necessarily have the same issue with Lib Dem concerns as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). It is key that the Government's response now should be robust and allow local authorities to consult properly and effectively. The consultation will be a fallacy and a waste of time if it is just an advert in the local paper. We must ensure that those who are affected-the people who live in the streets where such venues are proposed; those who live next door; those who go to nearby colleges; those who have to walk past on the way to stations such as Stourbridge Junction or Stourbridge Town-are consulted. Young women who stay behind to do extra work or extra-curricular activities will have to walk past such venues. Indeed, they have already complained to me at my youth surgeries about catcalls and harassment. We must ensure that we consult everybody at every level; otherwise we will let them down.
I am glad that the Government have responded to the concerns that Members from all parts of the House have voiced by committing to place a statutory duty on local authorities to consult on the adoption of the new powers and introduce an order-making power to allow the Secretary of State to tighten the exemption, if it is found to be exploited. I am happy with that. However, I would have been happier had the provisions been applied across the board, but hey, I am a nice lady and I want to get the legislation through. I am happy with 80 per cent. of what I want, rather than fighting for 100 per cent. and losing. The two measures that the Government have set out address concerns expressed from all parts of the House, but I wish that they had been a bit bolder. The Government need to ensure that the measures are as robust as possible and that they are implemented to their fullest extent.
I felt a lot happier when I read Lord Brett's strong reaction in the debate on the issue in the other place:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |