David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)

May I say, Sir Nicholas, that although your voice might be slightly more hoarse than normal, it remains a very distinguished one here in Parliament and this Committee? I am sure that I speak for all Members on both sides of the Committee.

Clause 20 is important. It and schedule 2 insert a new provision in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 granting the courts the power to close temporarily

“premises used for activities related to certain sexual offences”.

A closure notice can be served by the police preventing anyone from entering or remaining on said premises, unless they regularly reside in or own the premises, until a magistrates court decides whether to make a closure order. If the court is satisfied that the relevant conditions have been met, it can make a closure order for up to three months. An application can be made to extend the closure order, but the total period for which an order has effect cannot exceed six months. That is the nub of the clause.

I know that all of us—not least you, Sir Nicholas—wish to make progress, but I have one very simple question: has the Minister made any estimate of the number of establishments that could be the subject of a closure, and if so what evidence does he have to support it? Before he shakes his head—he might wonder how that can possibly be known—I should add that the point is worth exploring, because it goes to the heart of the interests of many of the vulnerable people, overwhelmingly women, who might be affected by the clause, no matter how well intentioned.

This question is one that we have heard before—it is almost a leitmotif in our discussions of this part of the Bill. Will vulnerable women be driven underground? In other words, will they be moved from a place of relative safety—perhaps a brothel with some semblance of oversight—out on to the streets and into places with no oversight of any description? In shorthand, will the abuse, degradation and coercion of such women, some of them trafficked, be shoved underground? That is the simple question that I pose to the Minister. There is no question that the clause is well intentioned. It is a tough measure that, on the face of it, will clamp down on criminality; that is the result that we all want. However, has much thought been given to the question whether such activity will be driven underground, resulting in some of these vulnerable women having an even harder time of it?

See this speech in context