Clause 70 - Voyeurism: interpretation
Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for agreeing to think about this. The amendment was not meant to be particularly controversial: I was trying to ensure that the intention—which I fully understand—behind these clauses was met. The Under-Secretary has confirmed that ''a structure'' must have a roof and that it must be enclosed on all sides. I wonder whether the scope should be widened, because people are entitled to protection from voyeurs in other settings. The hon. and learned Lady referred to Hampstead heath. There are many other historic locations where traditionally it was permissible—even in Victorian times—for people to take off their clothes in single-sex company. Screens were provided, which could not reasonably be looked through unless someone made a determined attempt to do so. If it can be provided, there should be a measure of protection for such people, too.
While I appreciate the Under-Secretary's anxiety, I am much more comfortable with the fact that my proposal would not lead to the mischief that he is worried about. Indeed, given the other issues that are involved, I am even half persuaded by what the hon. and learned Lady said about the use of ''place''. However, I still want to think more carefully about that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing to think through the matter further. Clearly, we have a common purpose in what we want to achieve, but words matter in such a setting. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 99, in
clause 70, page 34, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
No. 100, in
clause 70, page 34, leave out line 13.—[Paul Goggins.]
Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.