I’m getting a break today from the Lords, heading down to the South West with Monitor to visit NHS hospitals and authorities. So I got time to read a paper this morning. A wonderfully funny article by Libby Purves in the Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article6498709.ece) is really worth a read if only for light relief. When I read the recently published statement on House of Lords Reform I really despaired that the Government had any ideas left in its collective noddle. I’ve done 5 years in the House now and I’m beginning to think 5 years might be quite enough for my sanity. And as I zoomed between two committees last week, one in the Moses Room on the Welfare Reform Bill and one in the Chamber on the Coroners and Justice Bill, tabled at the same time by courtesy of the Whips office, I was reflecting that Lord Tyler’s recent blog which suggested there was not much going on in parliament didn’t feel like my life at all. See you when I get back…
Error in the url try this
On the legislation point it’s certainly very light on bill this last session(s) and what bills there are may be questionable. Do/did we need yet another criminal justice bill? The lords may be busy on bills but is that because they are vital and need much time or simply longer than war and peace and badly drafted?
I’m not sure about vital, Croft, but need much time, longer than war & peace and badly drafted, certainly. And of course another criminal justice bill’s vital – we’ve only had 66 since 1997, and created a mere 3,600 new criminal offences. That’s not even one a day! Are you all asleep in the Palace of Westminster or something?
If the Government doesn’t find enough excuses to lock the rest of us up smartish, we might vote, and then where would they be?
Seriously through, I can’t comment on the legislation in general, but if Part 2 of the Policing and Crime Bill is anything to go by, progress tends to be marred by past legislative (in my opinion) errors. For example, the Home Office first proposed to create an offence of arranging to have sex with a prostitute ‘controlled for gain’ but had failed to define ‘controlled’ in the 2003 Sexual Offences Act. Consequently the benign as well as the malicious get dragged into the net for controlling, so it’s now dropped ‘controlled for gain’ from the P+C Bill, but failed to amend the 2003 debacle.
Another common confusion surrounds use of the term ‘human trafficking’ (in this case for sexual exploitation). I don’t think this occurs in the Bill but is bound to crop up in debate. Amongst the public, the media and the world in general, this is defined by the Palermo Protocol. The courtrooms of England and Wales, however, go on a totaly different and very novel definition in the SOA 2003, presumably invented by some civil servant high on confiscated crack. These variations cause endless confusion in Hansard debates and further confound already complex guestimates of the numbers of victims.
When your Lordships settle down for further discussions on the Bill on June 22, I would advise that great benefits could be gained by starting by defining terms.
stephenpaterson: I do dimly remember reading some proposals to criminalise paying for sex with those controlled for gain in the P&C. My memory was that it was effectively an absolute offence. That you did not have to be aware or reasonably believe that they were controlled for gain to commit the offence which seem to presume mind reading to be a capability among the general public.
The bill doesn’t inspire confidence and seems padded with a fair amount of guff. Clause 1 anyone?
Croft: Indeed. If one looks upon prostitution as a market (for that is what it is), the absolute (or ‘strict liability’) nature of the offence makes the consumer responsible for the supply chain, which is absurd. Viscount Bridgeman & Baroness Hanhan have tabled an amendment removing the strict liability for the Tories. This is quite brave, and they’ve found themselves panned for being soft on prostitution by the Christian Institute and various radical feminist lobby groups (though their stance is supported by other radical feminists).
More worrying is the potential actual effects of this legislation – strict liability or not – on the ground. There is much evidence, for example, that prostitutes’ clients are a major source of intelligence on the whereabouts of Palermo trafficking for sex victims – I submitted some of it to the Commons scrutiny committee + you can see it on the Hansard site. How many ‘punters’ are likely to aid the rescue of such persons if faced with the prospect of heavy fines and having their mugshots all over the front of their local papers? Furthermore, the offence is for arranging sex – no sex need actually take place – so it is perfectly possible for the offence as currently drafted to be committed before the punter has actually met the prostitute, via email or phone, let alone ascertained her plight.
Imprisoned in clandestine brothels, who, exactly, is likely to rescue Palermo trafficking victims short of the off-chance of a police raid? The clause is also a blackmailers’ charter.
This whole area of law requires radical revision, with the accent on health and safety, but it would take a brave Government to do it, and this one is driven to panic at the mere thought of a lapdancing club.
I think I probably agree with everything you’ve said although the ‘health and safety’ argument does rather make me think the Victorian Contagious Diseases Act!!
On the basis I only have a limited quantity of exasperation to spare I’d better keep my powder dry for when we move onto the latest proposals over the DNA database 🙄
Croft: Well, I’ve looked at the amendments paper and it’s pleasing to see various Lords and Ladies have been hard at it attempting to turn the PCB pig’s ear into a silk purse. Microscopes have clearly been employed in an attempt to identify any babies to be rescued from the deluge of bathwater.
What I would like, as a mere pleb out here, is for a noble Lord to write a good meaty blog on the P+C Bill, as if I keep hijacking other blogs like this I’m likely to annoy Lord Norton with his moderator’s hat on (although ‘The House of Silly Ideas’ as a title does sort of invite hijacking, don’t you think?).
I’m in a group with no end of professors of this and readers in that who’d love to contribute to a blog on Part 2, and I’m sure other areas are also very worthy of debate. Though of course I don’t know whether the usual authors of the Lord of the Blog blogs have any particular interests in criminal justice.
I can’t imagine that we won’t hear more about the P&C as it’s bound to throw up some controversy – and so it should!
Baroness: Can you find any peers to blog on the environment orsciences so that links like these do not contravene the blogs T&C’s?
Take this for a spin but watch the overview first.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/SeaLevelViewer/seaLevelViewer.cfm
Perhaps a Parliament rooftop garden? No? Or maybe a weather station to comment about. Politics can be so boring during the summer season. Not even a reliable soothsayer to be found.
Medically speaking, understanding Solar Acne?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/17jun_jetstream.htm
How aboutsome Monty Python silliness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
Is there a Ministry of Silly Talks I wonder?
Senex, Thanks for lightening the load a little. Remember The Ministry of Circumlocution (I’m scratching my head to remember if it was Dickens or Trollop)? Well its certainly alive and kicking round here.
There is by the way a ladies’ loo on the second floor of the Lords which has a nice view over the roof, not much used by the way because only size zeros can actually get through the door.