UK Parliament Watch

House of Lords Written Questions
10th June 2009

Question asked by Baroness Neville-Jones: To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord West of Spithead on 7 May (WA 143), why the Internet Watch Foundation's list enables internet service providers to block child sexual abuse images if they are hosted abroad but does not enable them to block websites hosted abroad promoting violent extremism and terrorism. [HL3607]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead): The IWF acts as a reporting centre for images of child sexual abuse, criminally obscene images and websites containing incitement to racial hatred. Of these, only child sexual abuse images are illegal to view, and therefore the IWF list comprises only those sites.

The Register inquired further: Could it be that the party most likely to form our next government plans to expand the IWF's mandate to blocking websites run by jihadis, animal rights lunatics and other extremists?

Well, according to according to Conservative HQ, maybe. The question was part of ongoing policy research into the IWF, it said. We're looking at everything, a spokeswoman added, declining to comment further.

There are several proposed amendments to the policing and crime bill to be debated in Lords Committee.

Baroness Miller Of Chilthorne Domer suggests a new clause decriminalising associated workers in brothels

33B Associated workers in brothels

For the purposes of section 33 and 33A, a person who is not directly involved in the provision of sexual services is not to be treated as assisting in the management of a brothel by reason only of being employed in a brothel.

She also suggests removing flats with 2 working girls from the definition of a brothel:

33B Definition of a brothel

(1) Premises shall not be regarded as a brothel where—
(a) no more than two prostitutes, with or without a maid, are working together or separately on any given day; and
(b) each prostitute retains control over her or his individual earnings from the prostitution carried out at the premises.

She also sensibly suggests that human rights should be considered before issuing closure orders on brothels

In making a closure order, the court must consider the effect of making the order on the human rights of any person who owns or resides in the premises, and anyone else likely to be affected by the order.

Planned laws to tackle prostitution could be considerably weakened by amendments tabled by Conservative frontbenchers in the House of Lords.

The Government proposes to criminalise men who pay for sex with women being exploited by someone else, whether they know about her situation or not. This is known as a 'strict liability' offence.

However, Baroness Hanham and Viscount Bridgeman have now tabled amendments which would significantly reduce the power of the new law.

Under the amendments, a man would only be guilty if he knows, or ought to know that the woman he had paid for sex was being exploited.

 The new amendments are expected to be subject to debate when the Bill reaches Committee Stage in the House of Lords later this month.

Policing & Crime Bill Part 2
Sexual offences and sex establishments
Prostitution

13 Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc: England and Wales

Add Section 53A to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 

53A Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc.

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)  A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a prostitute (B),

(b) a third person (C) has used force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services or which A has made or promised payment, and

(c) C acted for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).

(2) The following are irrelevant—

(a)  where in the world the sexual services are to be provided and whether those services are provided,

(b) whether A is, or ought to be, aware that C has used force, deception or threats.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4) For the purposes of this section “force” includes coercion by threats or other psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.

Christian Concern for our Nation is urging Christians to pray and act against a Bill passing through Parliament that could lead to the legalisation of assisted suicide and the removal of a free speech protection clause in relation to sexual orientation.

The Coroners and Justice Bill will be debated in the House of Lords on June 23 and may go to vote the following day.

Under current law, Christians have the right to discuss, criticise and urge abstinence from certain forms of sexual conduct.

CCFON has warned that if the Bill is passed, it will: open the door to police investigation of Christians for merely commenting on the Christian viewpoint on sexual conduct and thereby prohibit the preaching of the Gospel.

CCFON is urging Christians to sign its Life & Liberty, which will be delivered to the Queen, Prime Minister and Leader of the House of Lords. The petition asks them to protect the value of human life by opposing proposed amendments authorising state-sanctioned assisted suicide and to protect freedom of speech by retaining the free speech clause within the sexual orientation hatred offence.

CCFON is also inviting Christians to join in a prayer meeting in Westminster on June 22.

A group of cross-party politicians has been brought together to raise and discuss issues related to the UK videogame industry.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group will be chaired by Labour MP Bill Olner, with vice chairman roles being filled by film maker and politician Lord David Puttnam, Conservative MP John Whittingdale, who is also chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, and Conservative MP Philip Davies.

UK trade group Tiga will provide the secretariat to the group, helping to administer it and arrange meetings, but was also instrumental to initiating its establishment.

Olner, Whittingdale and Tiga CEO Richard Wilson, will be speaking at the House Of Commons on Monday for the launch of the Play Together initiative.

The Government has accepted an amendment to its planned prostitution law.

Last month the Government announced it was changing the wording of the offence from controlled for gain to subjected to force, deception or threats.

Mean minded women's groups said this was a watering-down of the offence.

Since then, the Government has accepted a clarifying amendment proposed by Fiona Mactaggart MP. Her explanatory clause reads: For the purposes of this section ‘force' includes coercion by threats or other psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.

During a House of Commons debate on the revised wording, Miss Mactaggart mentioned a meeting she had with Tim Brain, the Association of Chief Police Officers' lead on prostitution and sex crimes. Having initially said that the new offence would be too complex to effectively police, he now feels, according to Miss Mactaggart, that the offence is enforceable, even in its initial wording.

The Government's Policing and Crime Bill was introduced under former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. New Home Secretary Alan Johnson has yet to comment on the Bill's provisions.

Policing & Crime Bill Part 2
Sexual offences and sex establishments
Prostitution

13 Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc: England and Wales

Add Section 53A to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 

53A Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc.

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)  A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a prostitute (B),

(b) a third person (C) has used force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services or which A has made or promised payment, and

(c) C acted for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).

(2) The following are irrelevant—

(a)  where in the world the sexual services are to be provided and whether those services are provided,

(b) whether A is, or ought to be, aware that C has used force, deception or threats.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4) For the purposes of this section “force” includes coercion by threats orother psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.

British YouTube users are amongst the most sensitive in the world, executives at the site have claimed.

The company has reacted by introducing special Britain-only policies following a raft of complaints from users over gang-related videos.

Victoria Grand, head of policy at YouTube, told The Times: The UK is a big flagging country. We get a lot of videos flagged up in the UK because of issues that British people are concerned about which maybe aren't an issue in the US, such as the brandishing of guns.

Scott Rubin, YouTube's head of communication, said: In terms of outside regulation verses internal regulation, this is a very new world, so the people who are closest to that world are the ones who understand best. We have a vested interest in making this site a place that's safe for advertisers and good for the community. Regulators coming from the outside would not have this deep understanding.

Calls have also been made by internet safety groups across Europe for websites such as YouTube to be subject to the same degree of regulation as television channels, but Rubin rejected the demands: We are not a broadcaster.

YouTube representatives have been in Britain in the past week to meet MPs and officials from the British broadcasting regulator Ofcom to demonstrate new internal safety measures introduced to bolster the self-regulation.

The site has partnered with the British organisations Childnet and Beatbullying to introduce a Safety Centre where users, especially children, are offered advice on how to report and deal with people who are harassing or threatening them on YouTube.

YouTube has also signed up to the code of practice set out by the EU Safer Social Networking Initiative and is in consultation with the new UK Council for Child Internet Safety on how to protect and inform children of the dangers of viewing inappropriate content.

This still leaves user-led regulation as the main form of policing available on YouTube. Users can flag videos they believe to be in breach of YouTube's guidelines on violent, offensive, obscene or inappropriate material. These videos are then checked out by a team of reviewers who have received training, including from the FBI, on how to spot dangerous material on their site.

These measures have been introduced after YouTube conceded they could not hope to police the 20 hours of video being uploaded onto the site every minute. The site has, instead, introduced optional swear-word filters for user-generated text on the site and has updated its technology to allow its reviewers to police flagged videos more quickly.

John Whittingdale MP, chairman of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, said he was encouraged by the changes to the policing of the site, but vowed to remain watchful of the situation: It's something we will continue to monitor and if any further areas for concern arise, we will raise that with them.

A clear link exists between bloodthirsty films and video games and teenage knife crime, claimed Plymouth MP Gary Streeter.

He argued for an urgent review examining how to censor what youngsters watched at the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee. He highlighted fears of a knife arms race amid concerns that carrying the deadly weapons was becoming normal.

The committee says evidence to its inquiry also supported its view that violent DVDs and video games have a negative influence on those who watch and play them, contributing around 10% of any person's predisposition to be violent.

Streeter said: That's something we have to have a long look at. Are we allowing our young people to be brutalised by some of this dreadful violence we are allowing them to watch?

As part of the select committee inquiry, he was shown a number of video games, but he said he had to stop watching them as they were so sickening.

On the connection with knife crime, he said: There's a clear link for some young people. There's no doubt that for certain young people violent video games and films is a very serious negative influence.

British justice still reduced to a lottery

The prostitution lottery clause has now been amended on 3rd Reading in the House of Commons.

There was quite a long debate about this clause with sufficient dissention about the nasty concept of strict liability to at least cause a vote.

The expenses milking Denis McShane (Labour), Fiona McTaggart (Labour) and John Gummer (Conservative) led the nasty brigade.

An amendment to limit the offence to those that know, or ought to know that the prostitute had been forced was unfortunately defeated by 285 to 201.

Some notable names for the amendment were-

• from the Shadow front bench-Hague, Letwin, Duncan, Grieve, Green, Fox, Pickles
• Shadow justice minister Garnier, as well as David Davis
• interestingly, Brazier and Richard Shepherd
• Ruffley (Tory) from the crime bill committee
• Lib dems like Heath, Howarth, Cable
• from Labour, the likes of Diane Abbott, Glenda Jackson, Clare Short, and Kate Hoey.

The next debate is at the 2nd Reading in the House of Lords on 3rd June 2009.

The current state of the paying for sex clause is:

Policing & Crime Bill Part 2
Sexual offences and sex establishments
Prostitution

13 Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc: England and Wales

Add Section 53A to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 

53A Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc.

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)  A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a prostitute (B),

(b) a third person (C) has used force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services or which A has made or promised payment, and

(c) C acted for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).

(2) The following are irrelevant—

(a)  where in the world the sexual services are to be provided and whether those services are provided,

(b) whether A is, or ought to be, aware that C has used force, deception or threats.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(4) For the purposes of this section “force” includes coercion by threats orother psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.

The bill also contains the requirement that strip joints and lap dancing venues require a license from the local authority. This allows moral decisions to hide behind such justifications as being appropriate to an area. The clause excusing venues performances that are slightly less than monthly continues.

The UK parliament edged a step closer to repealing the archaic crimes of seditious libel and criminal defamation, as the House of Lords debated the government’s Coroners and Justice Bill on its second reading.

Liberal Democrat peer, Lord Anthony Lester QC, indicated his intention to table an amendment to the Bill that would abolish seditious and criminal libel, saying:

It took us 140 years to abolish the crime of blasphemy; I hope that this House will see fit to remove these crimes from our statute book as well. I hope that the government will support the amendments; indeed, there were straws in the wind indicating that they might do so.

Speaking at a meeting in Holborn, Dr Evan Harris said that he has heard supportive noises from the Ministry of Justice on this issue. Index on Censorship and English PEN will be lobbying the government to formalise this support, as soon as possible.

For campaigners, the abolition of seditious libel and criminal defamation in the UK would be an invaluable tool in the fight for free expression worldwide. In recent years, both Article 19 and International PEN have produced research on the widespread use of sedition and criminal defamation laws to silence legitimate political protest.

The Anglican Bishop of Leicester has called on the Government to outline what steps they are taking to deal with trafficking at the London 2012 Olympics.

Bishop Timothy Stevens raised the issue of trafficking labour and prostitution at question time in the House of Lords.

Lord Brett, for the Government, replied: We are on our guard: we are forewarned, we are responsible for the Olympic Games, and this matter is at the forefront of our strategy.

We have already been successful but it is still right to ask what we are doing.

The Metropolitan Police will have responsibility for this in the London area and we are strengthening provision for them in the next 12 months to ensure that they are prepared.

The Dangerous Cartoons offence was up for debate at the 2nd Reading of the Coroners and Justice Bill in the House of Lords on 18th May 2009. It didn't get much of a look in though.

There were a total of three references noted to the dangerous drawings offence and they are thus:

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff:

From 1997 to 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation achieved a 17 per cent fall in child pornography sites through monitoring. I am glad that the Government have included in the Bill provisions on pseudo-photography of children. That inclusion is essential for this work, as some really disturbing images are emerging, particularly out of Japan.

Lord Kingsland:

Clauses 54 to 58 deal with prohibited images of children. We entirely accept the necessity for these clauses in the Bill.

Lord Henley complained that there was no debate on the drawings offence in the Commons - but was part of a much larger complaint about the lack of debate on the whole Bill: he gave no opinion either way.

British justice still reduced to a lottery

Home Office ministers have made changes to legislation to criminalise men who pay for sex with women who are forced into prostitution.

Jacqui Smith, the expenses milking home­secretary, has backtracked little by narrowing the wording of the new offence so it covers women subjected to force, deception or threats rather than anyone controlled for gain by a third party.

A Home Office spokeswoman said it did not believe it would make the offence too narrow: Our amendments will ensure that they are and that the offence is much clearer, allowing it to operate more effectively to bring to justice those who exploit vulnerable women.

Ministers said they were responding to concerns raised by Liberal Democrats and Conservatives that the term controlled for gain could apply in wider circumstances than the new offence was aimed to cover.

The strict liability clause that men can be prosecuted even if there is no indication that a girl has been subjected to force remains. So the law is still a human rights abusing lottery. An amendment to remove the strict liability clause was defeated in a vote.

But even so the government assisted Poppy and Eaves had a good whinge in that the law doesn't cover so many transactions as they would like to see

Months after announcing his intention to work with the Obama administration to develop new restrictions on unacceptable material online, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham is still waiting for anyone in Washington to listen to him.

At the end of December, Burnham took to the airwaves and newspaper pages to decry content that should just not be available to be viewed . He also suggested international cooperation to create a system of cinema-style age ratings for English language websites.

But yesterday in response to a question from the Liberal Democrats, Burnham's junior minister Barbara Follett conceded that four months into the new US administration, no progress had been made on the plans. Officials in London were still waiting for someone interested to be appointed across the Atlantic, she explained.

I remain keen to discuss an international approach to areas of public concern about certain internet content and look forward to engaging with the appropriate member of the US Administration once the relevant appointment has been made, Follett said.

The House of Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport Committee has criticised that the Licensing Act 2003 for hampering live music performances, and is calling on the government to relax laws by reintroducing the two in a bar rule for unamplified gigs and implementing an exemption for venues with a capacity of up to 200 people.

The document criticised the legislation and its accompanying guidance for linking music with public order issues, and emphasised that music should not be treated as a disruptive activity which will inevitably lead to nuisance and disorder.

According to committee chair John Whittingdale, the government’s decision to scrap the two in a bar rule - which prior to the introduction of the licensing act had allowed venues to host performances by one or two musicians without the need for a permit – has had a damaging effect on live performances.

Launching the report, Whittingdale explained: An awful lot of pubs had live performances by one or two individuals on a Friday night, because of the two in a bar rule. When the licensing act came in [to force] and it required them to go through the cost and bureaucracy of obtaining a premises license, they just thought we are not going to bother. So the number of venues available for live performances reduced.

The committee hopes that the reintroduction of the rule will boost the number of venues offering live music, and will give young musicians more opportunities to perform. It has also recommended that venues with a capacity of 200 people or fewer be made exempt from licensing laws.

Meanwhile, Whittingdale also called for the Metropolitan Police’s controversial Form 696 - which requires venues to give details of performers and genre of music - to be scrapped.

He said: This [form] goes way beyond the provisions of the act, we can see no reason for it, and therefore we recommend that it should be scrapped. There was a feeling that it was being used to discriminate against particular forms of music, like hip hop, and it is a cause of resentment.

A Bill which aims to control the online sale of age-restricted goods will be presented to the House of Lords on 8th May 2009 for its second reading by Baroness Doreen Massey, Chair of the All-Party Children's group.

Baroness Massey's Online Purchasing of Goods and Services (Age Verification) Bill is calling for all online retailers who sell age-restricted goods to establish a system to allow them to determine whether or not a person purchasing the products meet the legal minimum age.

The main products which would be affected by the Bill are: knives; alcohol; tobacco; some video games and DVDs; solvents and spray paints.

The provisions of Baroness Massey's Bill are in line with the Gambling Act 2005 which has resulted in remote gambling operators now using specialist companies to carry out verification or online databases to verify the age of the buyer, rather than users merely ticking a box to confirm that they are over 18, as had previously been common practice.

House of Commons
26th April 2009

Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): Can I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that the circumstances that led to the photographs being taken in Downing street do not lead to further pressures on the rights of photographers, both professionals and amateurs, to take photographs in this country, especially as this event coincided with an incident in the past few days where somebody was allegedly challenged by a police officer for taking photographs of a bus garage? We need to learn lessons from the event and draw together the common-sense work being led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing to come up with the right code of practice to ensure that photographers can do their jobs and amateurs can take photographs with freedom.

Jacqui Smith: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, who has met the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing to discuss his concerns. I see no reason why the unfortunate events on 8 April should limit the ability of photographers to take photographs, and neither do I believe, as he knows, that some of the limits result from recent legislative changes that we have made, as has been suggested. There is more work that we can do to ensure that photographers are clear that their right to take photographs is protected in all cases where it is not causing a specific risk. That is certainly a right that my hon. Friend and I would uphold.

So presumably all the police officers so frequently preventing photographers from taking pictures are corrupting the law for their own convenience

The government's law to make the buying of sex a lottery where customers could be guilty of an offence without any reasonable chance of being able to ascertain whether the girl has been pimped or trafficked or not.

Now parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights said the offence is extremely broadly drafted and noted that it applies whether or not the person alleged to have committed the offence knew or ought to have known that any of the prostitute's activities were controlled for gain.

The report said the proposed offence raises issues about whether the interference with the right to respect for private life, which includes sexual conduct, is sufficiently certain to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights requirement that such interferences be 'prescribed by law'.

Home Office minister Vernon Coaker has insisted that the proposal is the most effective way of ensuring that those who pay for sex consider the circumstances of the prostitute who will be providing the sexual services. This is because it places the risk on the sex buyer of paying for sex with someone who is being controlled for gain.

But the committee said it was disappointed the government had not published any evidence to demonstrates the need for the new offence.

We conclude that the fact that the offence is one of strict liability will make it difficult for an individual to know how to regulate his conduct given that his knowledge is not an element of the offence, said the report.

We have concerns about the breadth of the new offence and its potential impact beyond the group that the government seeks to target.

In our view, the proposed offence has the potential to put women into more exploitative or unsafe situations, may not address the problem which the offence aims to target (namely exploitative prostitution) and may discourage reporting of such prostitution.

The report added that an absence of sufficient clarity about the circumstances which would be caught by the offence makes it difficult for an individual to know how to regulate his conduct so as to avoid criminality and, as such, the offence in its current form is overbroad and lacks certainty.

It welcomed a government agreement to consider a free hotline to report concerns about trafficked women, but questioned if those who used the services of the prostitutes would call the hotline if they would inevitably be admitting a criminal offence.

MSPs have heard an appeal that adults who indulge in consensual bondage, sado-masochism and similar practices should be exonerated from the threat of prosecution.

Patrick Harvie, the Green MSP, told a Holyrood committee the present law was an anomaly.

But he dropped a bid to change the law after Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, and other MSPs said lifting the threat of prosecution could provide a 'loophole' for those charged with domestic abuse and sex crimes.

Harvie made his plea when the justice committee scrutinised the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. If passed, the bill will radically overhaul existing law on rape and other sex crimes, and will redefine consent as free agreement.

Under Harvie's amendment, consensual BDSM acts between those over 16 carried out for sexual gratification would not be considered as assault if both participants agreed.

Harvies tabled the amendment to trigger debate and enable MacAskill to explain why a change recommended by the Scottish Law Commission was not included.