Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 259, in page 58, line 42, leave out from 'if' to 'in' in line 43 and insert

'he uses force, coercion, or deception, or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability'.

The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the effects of the clause and ensure that it is effective. Anyone who has looked at trafficking in prostitution, not only in the UK but across the European Union, knows that it has grown on an alarming scale over the past few years. North London university carried out research on the issue for the Home Office a couple of years ago. A report by an NGO last year suggested that several hundred women and children are trafficked for prostitution every year in the UK alone.

In December last year, hon. Members were shown some disturbing examples of trafficking in prostitution, particularly near ports. In West Sussex, for example, social services have over the past few years identified 66 children—nearly all girls—who had been brought into the country and claimed asylum as unaccompanied minors. They had disappeared shortly after being taken into care by social services because of that claim. Traffickers had made contact with them. It is suspected in most cases that they were no longer in the UK but in other European countries, several almost certainly in Italy. Many west African women who end up in prostitution are brought through the UK to Italy. Quite a lot of the examples of the cases discovered in the UK involve women and children from eastern Europe. It is a nasty, and lucrative, business.

Everyone to whom I have spoken about the issue welcomes the fact that the Government are starting to do something about it. The provisions in the clause are interim ones, because many of the measures necessary

to deal with the problem would come under criminal justice rather than immigration and nationality legislation. When, in the not too distant future, we debate a new criminal justice Bill, I hope that this will be an important element of it.

The wording of the clause puzzles me. The UK is already signed up to the wording in the UN protocol for dealing with the trafficking of women and children. Some of the same words—''force'', ''coercion'', ''deception'', ''abuse of power'' and ''position of vulnerability''—are used in my amendment, and indeed in the EU framework decision on combating trafficking, which is due for formal adoption at a Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting within the next few weeks.

At the beginning of May, the Home Office wrote to Anti-Slavery International, pointing out that signing the UN protocol and negotiating the EU framework decision showed that the Government were committed to introducing legislation. In response to questions raised by Anti-Slavery International, the Home Office stated:

''Like you it is keen to ensure that the same definition of trafficking is used domestically and internationally.''

I therefore found it surprising when I saw the definition in the clause, which is not exactly the same. It could be argued that the effects will be the same, but that is to be established. The EU definition pinpoints the methods used: force, deception and preying on vulnerable people.

The amendment would also remove the phrase ''for purposes of gain''. The intention is to make it easier to prosecute: it would still be necessary to prove coercion and deception, but not additionally to demonstrate that the person had directly benefited financially.

I welcome the clause generally and tabled the amendment to satisfy myself that the clause will achieve what we want it to and that it fits in with the other definitions to which we are signing up in the UN protocol and EU framework decision. As I said, I remain puzzled about the different wording. I also want to ensure that people are prosecuted and to make it easier to progress the prosecutions.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The Committee owes you a collective apology, Mr. Illsley. I understand that you dashed from another engagement to chair the last two hours of the sitting on Tuesday, only to discover that we had completed the business ahead of time and nobody had thought to tell you. We all owe you a collective apology for that wasted journey. We are glad to see you in the Chair again. [Hon Members: Hear, hear.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is right to emphasise how seriously the Government take the issue of trafficking for prostitution. He is also right to remind the Committee what a vile but lucrative trade it can be. It is exploitative, and evidence points to the existence of trafficking routes from west Africa through the UK to Italy that may involve women and children. The police, working with immigration officials, have been able to disrupt those routes to some extent.

My hon. Friend is also right to want to make it easier to prosecute and I am pleased that he welcomed the clause. It is indeed an interim measure. The Bill has limited scope, so we cannot introduce a comprehensive measure against facilitating prostitution, trafficking for prostitution or labour exploitation. This is as wide as we can make the stop-gap protections by introducing this offence, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment.

We want to demonstrate first that we are determined to crack down on the growth of this evil trade, but secondly that we believe that it is worth starting to do so now. We can finish the job by having a much more comprehensive and wide-ranging offence that will be in either the sexual offences reform legislation, which we hope to introduce in due course, or the criminal justice legislation. Both offer us opportunities to put a more comprehensive offence on the statute book. That sends a clear message to those who arrange and profit from this activity that they are engaged in a serious evil and face severe consequences.

My hon. Friend is also right to work towards making this offence easier to prosecute. The victims often do not feel much like giving evidence. They are extremely vulnerable and frightened. Often they have been exploited so badly that they find it almost impossible to approach the authorities in a way that enables them to appear before a court so that we can get the perpetrators and put them where they belong, which is behind bars. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend's wording would make it harder to prosecute traffickers. The words

''force, coercion, or deception, or abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability'',

introduce additional evidential requirements. The words

''control, direction or influence over the prostitute's movements in a way which shows that he is aiding, abetting or compelling the prostitution''

are more general and require a lower level of coercive behaviour to be proved.

We have looked at this carefully and we think that the words in the clause make it easier for us to prove the offence than those in the UN protocol. The other advantage of using those words is that they are well known from existing law on sexual offences and courts are used to dealing with them. They are not a completely new formulation and are therefore more likely to be understood and successful before the courts. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that we are very sympathetic to his amendment, but we think our original wording is more effective for the purposes that we all share.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I am conscious that we want to finish this debate by 6 o'clock. I understand the Minister's argument. I remember from the distant past when I was a lawyer that the courts deal with these cases all the time. They are all too frequent in urban areas. There is a strong argument for seeking to have consistent legislative wording. The hon. Gentleman's words pick up both the UN words, which are universal, and the words that will be in the directive that has been agreed politically and is about to be agreed formally next

month. If we are to have a consistent Europewide approach, to pick up the Parliamentary Secretary's point in the earlier debate, we should ensure that we follow those words. The words in the clause may not be the right ones and might go too wide and pull people in unintentionally.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

The wording in the amendment includes elements such as coercion. As the Minister rightly said, there would have to be proof that that existed. I wondered whether that was not perhaps an important part of not criminalising individuals whose behaviour, however much one may disagree with it, should not be criminalised. Two individuals might be engaged in an enterprise in which one of them acts as a prostitute in another state where that is entirely legal. In some American states, people work together as a business partnership. One can have views about the morality of that, but the present drafting of the Bill would unjustly render that individual subject to criminal prosecution.

If there is no coercion, the arrangement is entirely voluntary and the prostitution is taking place in a state where it is legal, should that be rendered illegal? I understand the drive to make illegal the coercive behaviour, but whether uncoerced behaviour should be rendered illegal would not be a problem under the wording in the amendment, but it may be a problem under the existing wording.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

That is not an offence under immigration legislation, so to fall foul of the law, the hon. Gentleman's little arrangement in the US would have to be importing people into Britain.

This is a stopgap power, in advance of the much wider rewriting of the law on sexual offences and the arrangements that we expect to see in the forthcoming criminal justice legislation. The power is taken in this Bill, so that we can begin to deal with some of the current problems. I hope that hon. Members realise that we are committed to implementing the European Union framework decision, and that we will be looking to the wording in future Bills. For now we think that it is important to have an offence on the statute book that is understood by the courts, albeit that it is a stopgap measure.

Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)

I appreciate the Minister's point that this is a stopgap measure, and that we need an offence on the statute book. I hope, however, that when the negotiation is finished on the EU framework and we are considering future legislation, we will ensure that the wording is consistent. If we are trying to deal with this problem across the EU, as we should, it is pointless to negotiate wording and definitions at EU level and then not to use them.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 333, in page 59, line 4, at end insert—

'(6) A person who has been the subject of trafficking in prostitution shall be eligible to apply for exceptional or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.'.

This probing amendment deals with the other side of the prostitution debate—the victims. I am referring to the people who come or are brought here, who are subject to coercion and who may then be abandoned and left in a vulnerable position. The amendment is designed to discover the Government's view on whether people who have been victimised and horribly traumatised by being dragged across Europe or the world and then left will be allowed to apply for exceptional or indefinite leave to remain, on the basis that this may be the only place where some of them are safe.

Over the years, I have met African women at my surgeries who would find it culturally impossible to return to their original community. It is known that they were taken away for the purpose of prostitution. They may or may not have been married. In no circumstances can they contemplate returning to their community. I have met some women who were in an extremely desperate mental and emotional state, because they feared that they would be sent back to communities in which, for religious and cultural reasons, they would not survive. I put it as bluntly as that.

The amendment is designed to discover the Government's policy. If we can rescue people, as we hope to, from the grip of those who exploit them, and they have family here or another network of support, it as our obligation to work through with them the best way to proceed and, if necessary and possible, give them the opportunity to stay here. I do not pretend that the amendment's wording is perfect; it is merely an attempt to raise the plight of the victims of a trade that we are all keen to address. I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to the idea behind the amendment.

Mr Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow, Labour)

The amendment ties in with the question of how we encourage victims to give evidence. There has been a tendency, particularly in police raids in London in which women have been swept up from flats in Soho, for all those arrested to be deported. If that is the only consequence of giving evidence, it will inevitably be that much more difficult to encourage some victims to do so. Such evidence is sometimes critical in obtaining the conviction of those responsible. It may be asking too much for the Government to give a blanket agreement on such cases, because a wide variety of circumstances will arise, but I hope that they are prepared to consider victims' circumstances so that such people are not automatically threatened with deportation.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that his amendment is unnecessary, because there is nothing to prevent victims who have been trafficked

from seeking leave to remain. A procedure exists for victims of trafficking to be granted leave on a discretionary basis in appropriate cases that fall outside the categories and the immigration laws. We prefer to keep it that way, simply because we do not wish to create specific statutory protection for those who are trafficked, which might perversely lead to more people being trafficked in order to qualify for leave to remain. We consider sympathetically, case by case, whether someone has been a victim of that appalling trade. Such people may wish to give evidence or be unable to return home, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey from his constituency casework. We have the appropriate leeway to grant different forms of protection to enable victims to stay.

We are also working with other organisations to develop a best practice guide on trafficking for immigration officers, police and others who deal with perpetrators and victims of trafficking, so that they can treat victims more appropriately. We need to understand that the offence is not smuggling but trafficking for sexual exploitation, and that vulnerable, frightened and abused victims must be dealt with accordingly. I hope that with those assurances the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and to the hon. Member for Walthamstow for his contribution. I was not seeking to create a special category, and I agree that making one could have the perverse consequence of more victims being trafficked. I am grateful that the Government will continue to consider cases compassionately according to the individual circumstances. I hope that between we can us convey to victims, who have committed a criminal offence if they are prostitutes, that they may be exempt from prosecution if they come forward, and may be given personal support and possibly citizenship, nationality, entitlement to stay or protection, depending on their circumstances.

I am encouraged by the Government's position. All hon. Members want to work to overcome the problem and to assist victims as much as possible. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Given that the Minister said that the measure was temporary, I hope that it may be included in the sexual offences legislation, which is in the pipeline. That is the right place for it.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is not wide of the mark.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.