Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in Committee I introduced an amendment to Clause 47 which is now Clause 47(4)(a). This covers all those who, whether or not in the course of employment and regardless of the setting, provide care, assistance or services to the complainant in connection with the latter's mental

9 Jun 2003 : Column 57

disorder or learning disability. I am satisfied that this definition is sufficiently broad to cover all those referred to in Amendments Nos. 136 to 138 and 142.

I believe that the approach in Clause 47(4)(a) is preferable to citing in legislation lists of too many different types of care because there is always the risk of inadvertently excluding groups which should have been included. It also avoids the uncertainty of having in the legislation such undefined terms as "general healthcare" and "social care".

I hope that that is the assurance the noble Lord seeks and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's very satisfactory response, and his satisfaction that the definition is sufficiently broad, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 137 to 140 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 141:


    Page 24, line 6, leave out "53(1)" and insert "53"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]

Clause 49 [Sections 42 to 46: sexual relationships which pre-date care relationships]:

[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]

Clause 53 [Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography]:

Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 144:


    Page 27, line 16, leave out from "to" to end of line 17 and insert "be abused through prostitution, or to be involved in the making or production of abusive or indecent images,"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 153 which I have tabled on a probing basis, as the Minister is aware. We debated the amendments in Committee and I do not wish to reiterate the arguments at length. I sought to emphasise that the use of the adult terms "prostitution" and "pornography" is completely misleading for juries. Whenever a child is drawn into prostitution and pornography that child is abused. I do not believe that there is serious dispute about that in your Lordships' House. However, it has been far from clear that that was well understood in the wider world. That is why my amendment sought to insert the existence of abuse into the offences.

In Committee, the Minister said that my amendment would make it harder to gain a conviction. Of course, there is no way that these Benches would want to be associated with making it harder to bring to justice the kind of people who corrupt children through prostitution or pornography. Therefore, with the Minister and his officials I have been researching ways of indicating in the Bill that the child offences we are dealing with raise a very different set of issues from adult prostitution and adult pornography. I place on record my gratitude for the work that they have done. I am disappointed that we cannot change the titles of

9 Jun 2003 : Column 58

the offences to emphasise abuse but the Minister's amendments in this group separate out the child offences and will give them their own heading. I beg to move.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, Amendment No. 144 may have a small technical defect. It appears to leave out "in any part of the world". It is important to keep those words in the Bill.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support this group of amendments. It seems inappropriate to refer to young children as prostitutes. It has connotations of culpability which are completely inappropriate when we are dealing with children who are being abused. I support the spirit of the amendments even if, technically, they are not quite right. I hope that the Minister will help us out.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated privately and publicly, I am sympathetic to the concerns which prompted these amendments to make it clear that child prostitution or child pornography would always be abusive to those involved. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly said, I think that we are all agreed that we do not want to do it in such a way that it makes it harder to prove the offence.

I believe that there is a way to reflect the House's concern. It can be achieved by changing the italic titles of the relevant sections of the Bill to reflect the view that these offences are concerned with abuse of children. That requires separating out the clauses dealing specifically with child victims from those dealing with prostitution generally.

Currently Clauses 52 to 59 are grouped under an italic heading of "Prostitution and child pornography". Government Amendments Nos. 147 and 152 rearrange the clauses so that Clauses 54 and 56 will now follow the interpretation clause at Clause 58. Government Amendments Nos. 155 and 158 make minor drafting changes to the interpretation of Clause 58 to make clear that it relates specifically to the child-specific offences that now precede it—that is Clauses 52, 53, 55 and 57. Should the House accept those amendments to regroup the clauses in that way, the italic title preceding Clause 52 will be changed to "Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography". That will be included in the print of the Bill prepared for Third Reading. I am advised that the italic title cannot be changed by way of amendment, but the changes that I have just outlined will be made by the Public Bill Office.

Clauses 54 and 56 by virtue of government Amendments Nos. 147 and 152 would then fall after Clause 58. They, along with the new interpretation clause, introduced by government Amendment No. 159 which will follow and explain the now relocated Clauses 54 and 56, form a new group relating to exploitation of prostitution, and the Public Bill Office will introduce a new italic title of "Exploitation of

9 Jun 2003 : Column 59

prostitution". I hope that that satisfies a legitimate concern which I fully share, producing a result with which we are all satisfied.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her support. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, if my probing amendment inadvertently removed words. That was not the intention. As it was a probing amendment no harm has been done. I have said that I am grateful for the Minister and his officials taking our concerns seriously. We have a result which moves a considerable way towards meeting those concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 145:


    Page 27, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 145 I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. I am pleased that the Minister has added his name to eight of the amendments.

All of the amendments delete the requirement to prove gain or expectation of gain as a component of the various offences covered by prostitution, child pornography and trafficking. I shall speak first to those amendments on which we have persuaded the Government of the merits of our arguments. Amendment No. 145 relates to the Clause 53 offence of causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography, Amendment No. 149 relates to the Clause 55 offence of controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography, Amendment No. 154 deals with the Clause 57 offence of arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography, and Amendment No. 156 is consequential. We are delighted that the Government have agreed to delete the requirement for gain for the offences. Proving gain was inappropriate. We are similarly delighted that the Government have agreed with us on Amendments Nos. 160, 161, 162 and 163 which delete the requirement to prove gain from the trafficking offences in Clauses 60 to 63.

That leaves my Amendments Nos. 146 and 151. They seek to remove the need to prove gain from the adult prostitution offences in Clauses 54 and 56. Many of us who spoke at Committee were convinced that the formulation of the offences in Clauses 54 and 56 was wide of the mark. They do not focus on the real ills surrounding prostitution which are not about making money from it but are about the use of force and coercion. I have tabled the amendments as probing amendments so that I have an opportunity to raise again the issue of the review of the law of prostitution that the Government have promised. In Committee the Minister said:


    "I am not in a position today to say precisely what the scope of the review will be, but I hope that when we come to the Report stage I shall be able to tell your Lordships".—[Official Report, 13/5/03; col. 187.]

9 Jun 2003 : Column 60

The Minister has an audience hanging on his every word. I beg to move.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I want to say how delighted I am that the Government are supporting several of the amendments. I hope that that will lead to more successful prosecutions.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the removal of "gain" from the prostitution, child pornography and trafficking offences. There is also Amendment No. 157, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, amending the scope of "goodwill" within the definition of gain. I cannot talk to that again, so if the noble Lord wishes to speak to the amendment he should do so now or forever hold his peace.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page