Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
starman

P&C bill, House of Lords 2nd reading

32 posts in this topic

The transcript of the debate can be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/05.htm

the Hansard record won't be available until 08:00 today.

Interestingly. most of the speakers, who mentioned the clauses realting to prostitution were opposed to those contained within the Bill; with several instances of the lack of examination of New Zealand's decriminialsiation being questioned, & it looks like this is really going to get a good going over in The Lords.

(One speaker even hinted that it may take so long to debate the Bill that they might not finish before the end of the Parlliamentary session.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

(One speaker even hinted that it may take so long to debate the Bill that they might not finish before the end of the Parlliamentary session.)

First committe meeting is scheduled for June 26

Recess 21 July 2009 -12 October 2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the speaches relating to clause 13 and 20

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: With regard to this Bill, it is sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Faulkner of Worcester:

The question that we should always be asking ourselves, when looking at any legislative proposals on this subject, is: do they increase or diminish the safety of the women who are involved in the sex industry?

It is in that context that I ask my noble friend to look again at the "controlled for gain" provisions in Clauses 13 and 14 and the penalties contained within them. These clauses were significantly amended by the Government just prior to Report in the other place. Originally, it was to be an absolute criminal offence for a man to have sex with a person "controlled for gain" whether he knew it or not. This was based on a wholly misguided attempt to criminalise the clients of prostitutes, and drew heavily on the experience of Sweden, which has attempted something similar and where the results are far less successful than some people have claimed. Many commentators and academics, as well as police officers, take the view, and I agree with them, that criminalising clients drives prostitution underground and increases the dangers that women sex workers face

In the new versions of these clauses, "controlled for gain" is replaced with "force, deception or threats", which is certainly an improvement. That is intended to help women who are trafficked or coerced into prostitution. I support what the Government are attempting to achieve here, because tackling the exploitation and trafficking of women and children is extremely important. I am concerned, however, that the offence will not help to tackle the problem of trafficking, and that it may diminish the responsibility of those who knowingly have sex with a trafficked woman. One of the main priorities in tackling human trafficking is targeting those people who orchestrate, control and coerce and, in doing so, profit from what is modern-day slavery.

The clauses as they stand provide for a person guilty of the proposed new offence only to be fined up to £1,000. Knowingly having sex with a woman who has been trafficked, and who is acting under coercion and not truly consenting, is akin to rape. The difficulty is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Viscount Bridgeman: On Part 2, I completely agree with noble Lords who have shown their concern at the growing number of women and children trafficked into prostitution in this country. More must be done to punish those benefiting from this disgusting trade, and those being exploited must be rescued. Once again, however, we are presented not with a comprehensive set of measures which will make a genuine difference to those who are suffering but with a policy that has run into such controversy that the Government have already been forced to make similar changes to their initial proposals and are likely to have to make several more before the Bill's proceedings are completed.

We are particularly glad that the Bill contains a much more precise definition of what being controlled for gain comprises and the associated question of strict liability. There are, as your Lordships have mentioned, other concerns about the implementation of this offence. For one, the penalty seems extraordinarily low for the crime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First committe meeting is scheduled for June 26

Recess 21 July 2009 -12 October 2009

It was actually one of those speaking with reference to the clauses relating to the Police; which also came in for a lot of criticism, which seems to indicate that there are a lot of clauses within the Bill that the Lords are expecting to take much longer to debate than the Government was hoping for.

This could present a situation similar to that encountered with the CJIB in which the Government is forced to start dropping the clauses that are being debated to an extent that they will delay the Royal Assent, in order to get those that they consider to be most important on the statute books before the recess.

This situation could be assisted; in respect of the porsitution clauses, by the fact that JS is on her way out. It really just depends on whether her replacement decides to adopt this as one of their pet projects, inthe same way that she did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone notice how Lord Sheikh and Lord Dholkia are keen considering their cultures tolerant arranged marriages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there are a lot of clauses within the Bill that the Lords are expecting to take much longer to debate than the Government was hoping for.

.

well Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: was talking about that in her speech

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we will table a lot of amendments to the Bill. The way in which the Government treated the Bill in another place on Report made a mockery of the democratic process. Issues of major principle were not even debated at all, including the retention of DNA samples, profiles and fingerprints

The Minister can be assured that we will join with the other opposition party here to remedy many of the deficiencies in the part of the Bill that addresses that incredibly important issue

This situation could be assisted; in respect of the porsitution clauses, by the fact that JS is on her way out. It really just depends on whether her replacement decides to adopt this as one of their pet projects, inthe same way that she did.

my impression was that the prostitution law review was Vernon Coaker's baby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: was talking about that in her speech

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we will table a lot of amendments to the Bill. The way in which the Government treated the Bill in another place on Report made a mockery of the democratic process. Issues of major principle were not even debated at all, including the retention of DNA samples, profiles and fingerprints

The Minister can be assured that we will join with the other opposition party here to remedy many of the deficiencies in the part of the Bill that addresses that incredibly important issue

my impression was that the prostitution law review was Vernon Coaker's baby

As a Home Office Minister, he would have been appointed by Smith; & it was Smith who actually produced the "report", not Coaker.

Probably a situation in which Coaker was given a tone of investigation to undertake, by Smith, HH, Bindel & co, & ran with it, whilst attempting to present an image of being willing to listen to all sides.

Problem is, we don't really know if Coaker is as firmly commited to this as his most recent statements would have us believe, or whether he was simply doing the usual politician's trick of saying what he thought his bosses wanted him to say & hoping this would bring him brownie points, for advancing his career (typically two faced individual, if you want my opinion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Telegraph (yesterday) did not mention Coaker as a replacement for JS. It has Alistair Darling, Alan Johnson, David Miliband and David Blunkett as potential candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Telegraph (yesterday) did not mention Coaker as a replacement for JS. It has Alistair Darling, Alan Johnson, David Miliband and David Blunkett as potential candidates.

http://www.hubdub.com/m43519/Who_will_replace_Jacqui_Smith_as_the_next_UK_Home_Secretary

and the Guardian wrote

Who will replace Jacqui Smith?

It is a mug's game to guess Brown's mind. He may not know it himself

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/02/who-will-replace-jacqui-smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it looks like everyone who spoke either disagreed with clause 13 in principle or had issues with the strict liability aspect.

Lord Faulkner, who has been part of the Anti brigade since the start seems to be tackling it in a more oblique way. Rather that tackling strict liability head on he's pointing out that the offence, as amended, now amounts to rape and that a £1000 fine is a bid odd for such an offence. Clearly it's going to be difficult for those in favour of the legislation to argue against raising the penalty, and the moment they do that and give it an appropriate sentence it will then be unthinkable that you could have strict liability where men are jailed without ever being able to know they were breaking the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Faulkner, who has been part of the Anti brigade since the start seems to be tackling it in a more oblique way. .

Lord Faulkner anti brigade?

it is the other way around, he was one of those behind the amendment to

legalize brothels, here:

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5227&highlight=insatiable

and did you read the first part of his speach, beginning at

7.04 pm

from this sentence and onwards

there has been no shortage of attempts over the years to reform the law on prostitution and sexual offences. I have raised these issues in the House on a number of occasions over the past eight years

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90603-0009.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OP means anti-criminalisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Telegraph (yesterday) did not mention Coaker as a replacement for JS. It has Alistair Darling, Alan Johnson, David Miliband and David Blunkett as potential candidates.

Alan Johnson new Home Secretary in Cabinet reshuffle

Alan Johnson, the Health Secretary who was tipped to take over from Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, is to become the new Home Secretary, sources say.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/5450485/Alan-Johnson-new-Home-Secretary-in-Cabinet-reshuffle.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Faulkner anti brigade?

it is the other way around, he was one of those behind the amendment to

legalize brothels, here:

http://www.punternet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5227&highlight=insatiable

and did you read the first part of his speach, beginning at

7.04 pm

from this sentence and onwards

there has been no shortage of attempts over the years to reform the law on prostitution and sexual offences. I have raised these issues in the House on a number of occasions over the past eight years

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90603-0009.htm

Sorry a little ambiguous there, I did mean part of the anti legislation brigade, and not anti prostitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with most of the blair babes gone i reckon the anti prostitution campaign will run out of steam IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
with most of the blair babes gone i reckon the anti prostitution campaign will run out of steam IMHO

Could do. Harriet Harman is still there but they've got some pretty major problems to deal with and even the most nazi rad-fem supporter is going to be looking to get rid of anything that might spell another defeat for the govt. Quietly dropping the prostitution clauses would be the least damaging course of action I think (hope)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Could do. Harriet Harman is still there but they've got some pretty major problems to deal with and even the most nazi rad-fem supporter is going to be looking to get rid of anything that might spell another defeat for the govt. Quietly dropping the prostitution clauses would be the least damaging course of action I think (hope)

Another option is that they drop any clauses from currently proposed legislation that could delay its passing into lawl which on the basis of the Lords debate could lead to the dropping of the prostitution clauses of this Bill.

Of course there's always the fact that those few remaining fanatics, HH, McTaggart & MacShane, push for this Bill to be passed as intact as possible; sort of as a means of leaving a legacy to the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another option is that they drop any clauses from currently proposed legislation that could delay its passing into lawl which on the basis of the Lords debate could lead to the dropping of the prostitution clauses of this Bill.

Of course there's always the fact that those few remaining fanatics, HH, McTaggart & MacShane, push for this Bill to be passed as intact as possible; sort of as a means of leaving a legacy to the nation.

Well MacTaggart and MacShane have no power at all really. In fact I think the pair of them have been more of a hindrance on occasion esp. MacTaggart. Long after everyone in real power had dropped the 80,000 figure and 18,000 trafficked women figure etc.etc she was still pedalling it and leaving herself open to embarrasment. I still chuckle with mirth remembering when she was on a radio show only a few months back and said that 80% of women in prostitution were pimped, and the host pointed out that this statistic, by her own researcher's admission, was sourced from a 1982 study on San Francisco street prostitutes.:D

HH is a threat, but if she wants to quietly drop the clauses FM and DM won't stop her for a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Written answers

Monday, 15 June 2009

House of Lords

Crime: Strict Liability

Lord Hylton (Crossbench) | Hansard source

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether since 16 April they have published evidence concerning the creation of a new strict liability offence, as provided for by Clause 13 of the Policing and Crime Bill; if not, why there has been delay; and when they will publish such evidence, in view of the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Lord West of Spithead (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Security and Counter-terrorism), Home Office; Labour) | Hansard source

The decision to introduce a criminal offence was taken on the basis of all the evidence considered following a public consultation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

more committee dates have been added

22.06.09

01.07.09

06.07.09

08.07.09

No date

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2008-09/policingandcrime.html

and more proposed amendments e.g.

Decriminalisation of associated workers in brothels

change of Definition of a brothel

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/048/amend/am048-d.htm

and here something which sounds like it's comming from Fiona Mactaggart

Page 15, line 36, leave out "used force, deception or threats" and insert "engaged in exploitative conduct"

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldbills/048/amend/am048-c.htm

what I can't see anywhere is who is in the committee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0