|
Mr. Malins: I am following the hon. Lady's argument with interest. She, like the rest of us, seeks to improve the position. Is she troubled about the word ''controls'', or about the word ''intentionally''? Will she develop a bit further the proposition that the phrase ''intentionally or knowingly controls'' is wider and more likely to cope with the dilemma she mentioned earlier than the current wording?
Sandra Gidley: There is a problem with just using the word ''intentionally''—the police say that it would be difficult to prove intent.
It is easier to prove that someone did something ''knowingly'', particularly if money is going into their bank account as a result of certain activities. For example, a brothel owner who is ostensibly running a massage parlour could use the argument, ''Well, you know it's not my intent that they behave as prostitutes. So what if they give extras for the cash?'' In reality, he knows very well what is going on and is reaping the rewards. The amendments would establish whether the Government are happy that prosecutions can be made in such circumstances.
Beverley Hughes: Adding ''knowingly'' to the provisions on the offences would add little to the mens rea and interpretation of what is in the mind of
Column Number: 272
the defendant. It is difficult to understand how someone, for example, can knowingly control, incite or cause the prostitution of another person without intentionally doing so. There is no point in adding ''knowingly'' to the clause; its meaning is encompassed by ''intentionally''.
The purpose of the offences is to tackle the exploitive aspects of the sex industry. They replace existing legislation, such as section 31 of the Sex Offences Act 1956, which deals with a woman exercising control over a prostitute. I mentioned that because the section uses ''knowingly'', not ''intentionally'', which is probably why the hon. Lady tabled the amendment. It makes sense in the context of the offence of knowingly living on the earnings of a prostitute, because someone could be living with a prostitute and conceivably not know how she is earning money. The purpose of adding ''knowingly'' in that context is to make sure that the prosecution has to prove that the defendant both knows that the woman is a prostitute and that he is living wholly or in part on her earnings. The term ''knowingly'' makes much less sense in the context of the new offences under the Bill. In any event, it is difficult to envisage what the term is intended to cover that is not covered by ''intentionally''.
Work is under way on a consultation paper examining issues relating to prostitution, the public nuisance that it causes and the organised criminality and drug abuse with which it is associated. The Home Secretary announced the paper in the summer and it is likely that it will also consider legislation associated with the difficult area of prostitution. We hope to consider those issues in great depth when undertaking such work. I mention the paper because the hon. Member for Romsey referred to prosecuting people who organise prostitution, but who distance themselves from it—the big boys, as they are described. Brothel-related activities were not considered in ''Setting the Boundaries'', because they are prostitution-related issues, and thus outside the scope of the Bill. They will therefore have to wait until we have a clearer picture of some of the complex issues surrounding that subject as a result of the review.
We resist the amendment for two reasons, the first of which is that ''knowingly'' is encompassed by ''intentionally''. Secondly, the broader issues raised by the hon. Lady about making sure that we can reach those who are controlling prostitution activity in a big way are outside the scope of the Bill, but will be part of the review that has now commenced. If that reassures the hon. Lady, I invite her to withdraw the amendment.
Sandra Gidley: I said at the beginning that the amendments were tabled to ascertain whether the concerns of the Metropolitan police were realistic. The police have to deal with such things in practice, so I was quite taken by their arguments. However, I understand the point about the wider aspects of prostitution, and that there will be further legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Column Number: 273
Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Sections 50 to 52: interpretation
Amendment made: No. 92, in
clause 53, page 27, line 35, leave out 'moving or still'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Sandra Gidley: I seek clarification on the interpretation clause. The definition of ''prostitute'' does not pose any problems, but the definition of ''pornography'' gives rise to certain questions in my mind. The Bill seems to deal solely with images. There is a certain amount of written material that clearly describes child pornography and could put ideas into somebody's head, if they were minded to read it. I am particularly mindful of some of the more sadistic child pornography. Will the Minister clarify whether there is any way in which we could tighten up on the sort of written material that promotes the very activities that the Bill seeks to reduce?
Beverley Hughes: I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady is referring to, but if she would like to elaborate outside the Committee, I am certainly willing to consider whether we need to firm up on that. I thought that she was going to return to the definition of ''indecent'', which is part and parcel of subsection (1).
Sir Paul Beresford: I back the thought of the hon. Member for Romsey, who has queried the clause. I raised the matter on Second Reading. It is well known that many paedophiles have written material of a nature that would shock most, if not all, of the people on the Committee. Paedophiles use such material to stimulate themselves and others and they spread it. I accept that that is an exceptionally difficult area in which to apply the law and I suspect that the Minister will have extreme difficulty in dealing with it. That was the response before.
Beverley Hughes: We also have to remember that we are discussing images. That is the point that the hon. Member for Romsey makes when she asks whether we need to go beyond images. We define pornography as images. Other legislation makes indecent or obscene written text a prosecutable offence. We have covered those different situations in existing law and, in the definition of pornography in the Bill, for the specific situation in which the real image of a child has been made into pornography. That is the distinction. I am happy to check with officials to ensure that the existing legislation, primarily the Obscene Publications Act 1959, covers the situation that she has raised.
11 am
Mr. Grieve: The 1959 Act covers the situations raised by the hon. Member for Romsey, but it is archaic. I do not know how many prosecutions for written text there have been under the 1959 Act in the past 12 months, but the Minister will find that it is a statute that, in that context, has fallen into disuse. Perhaps the Minister will tell me about a bold Government, who are going to grasp that particular
Column Number: 274
nettle, and produce an obscene publications Bill for the 21st century.
Beverley Hughes: No, I certainly was not going to say that. I gave the hon. Member for Romsey a commitment to consider, within the scope of the Bill, and taking account of the point just made, whether there is anything further that we can do to address the situation that she identified. I do not think that there will be, but I will consider that point for her.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 54 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Extension of gender-specific
prostitution offences
Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Prostitution by children and young persons—
Beverley Hughes: The new offences in clauses 49 to 56 to tackle prostitution and child pornography replace existing legislation, but they do not replace all existing prostitution legislation. The provisions relating to kerb crawling, loitering and soliciting for prostitution, among others, remain on the statute book. That is because of the point that I made in response to the hon. Member for Romsey. Primarily, the area of prostitution, rather than the exploitation of people through prostitution, was outside of the remit of the sexual offences review, which recommended a further review of matters relating to prostitution. The Home Secretary announced that review earlier this year.
Clause 57 rectifies one of the fundamental flaws in existing legislation—the fact that it is gender-specific. Most existing prostitution legislation is framed in terms of men committing offences against female prostitutes. However, male and female prostitutes can be exploited both by someone of their own sex and by someone of the opposite sex. The law is outdated, and clause 57 introduces and brings into effect schedule 1 to make the legislation gender neutral. I do not propose to go through all the details. Schedule 1 lists all the legislation to which clause 57 applies.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I could deal with proposed new clause 3. It would amend the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution in section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959. That is outside the scope of the Bill, but we believe that it should be taken up in the review that I have outlined. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre not to press the new clause, but I
Column Number: 275
will be happy to make some more points when he has spoken to it.
| 
