The three speeches/headings immediately before

1. 1 earlier: Denis MacShane

   I wish that I could join my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in congratulating the English Collective of Prostitutes, but that organisation has consistently opposed all campaigning efforts to slow down trafficking. Indeed, it was quite violently—I would almost say vulgarly—opposed to the propositions that have come back from the Lords, which are of huge significance.

   The House is empty because this is the last moment before Prorogation, but this is one of the most profound changes in our law that we have adopted in recent years. We are completely altering the whole approach to the abuse and dehumanisation of women. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) struggled over the word "objectification" and, like her, I have some difficulty in spluttering out that terminology. That is the whole purpose of the sex industry, however. It removes from women their womanhood and turns them into mechanical objects of sexual pleasure who accept a large number of penises every day to satisfy men's desire. This legislation now focuses on men, and it is extremely radical. The House of Lords had a very moving debate on this measure on Tuesday 3 November, and I am astonished that there has been absolutely no coverage of it.

   When I raised this matter on "Newsnight", a lady from the English Collective of Prostitutes and Mr. Jeremy Paxman rounded on me and abused me, saying that there were no trafficked women and that there was no problem of any sort. What world are they living in?

2. 2 earlier: John McDonnell

   Despite my reservations on strict liability, I also welcome these amendments. The phrase "engaged in exploitative conduct" in the amendment will give greater clarity to the interpretation of the law. I would have preferred it if the legislation could have included a definition of trafficking based on international definitions, but I think that we will revisit that some time in the future.

   I welcome the amendments that deal with brothels, but I urge the police, local authorities and others to use clear judgment in the exercise of these powers, as they might well be putting women at risk in exercising them. We have heard how women working in brothels are, at least in some instances, more secure than those working on the streets. In fact, the figures show that women working on the streets are 10 times more vulnerable to attack than women working together in a unit.

   I pay tribute to those who have enabled these amendments to be shaped, and who have encouraged a wide and open debate on these issues. I became involved in this issue more than 25 years ago, when I was a member of the Greater London council. At the time, I was involved in working with the English Collective of Prostitutes and dealing with issues around King's Cross. I also hosted the first Safety First Coalition meetings after the Ipswich murders. Those meetings were held in this House. As a result of the Government listening to the debates involving those organisations, we have now arrived at some amelioration of this legislation.

   I should like to place on record my tribute to the English Collective of Prostitutes, the Royal College of Nursing, the National Association of Probation Officers, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the GMB sex workers branch and the Zaccheus Christian trust, all of which were members of the Safety First Coalition, and all of which have briefed Members of Parliament extensively and worked hard to secure these amendments.

   I am sure that we shall revisit and review this issue in the years to come, but one issue that is reflected in the amendments is the fact that some women enter into sex work by choice. Whatever people may think about that, some women do—others do not do it through choice, however. I hope that the debate can now move on, so that we can focus more clearly on why women enter sex work other than through choice. The issues include how we tackle poverty and drug dependency, as well as mental illness and the vestiges of the implications of child abuse. Let us now look more thoroughly at the development of Government policy in those areas so that we can tackle the issue of forced prostitution. As I have said, I welcome these amendments, and I am grateful to the Government for listening to the stage of the debate that was encouraged by the coalition.

3. 3 earlier: Lynda Waltho

   I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, the Lib Dems in Stourbridge have supported my position on the issue and have worked with me all the way along, so I do not necessarily have the same issue with Lib Dem concerns as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). It is key that the Government's response now should be robust and allow local authorities to consult properly and effectively. The consultation will be a fallacy and a waste of time if it is just an advert in the local paper. We must ensure that those who are affected—the people who live in the streets where such venues are proposed; those who live next door; those who go to nearby colleges; those who have to walk past on the way to stations such as Stourbridge Junction or Stourbridge Town—are consulted. Young women who stay behind to do extra work or extra-curricular activities will have to walk past such venues. Indeed, they have already complained to me at my youth surgeries about catcalls and harassment. We must ensure that we consult everybody at every level, otherwise we will let them down.

   I am glad that the Government have responded to the concerns that Members from all parts of the House have voiced by committing to place a statutory duty on local authorities to consult on the adoption of the new powers and introduce an order-making power to allow the Secretary of State to tighten the exemption, if it is found to be exploited. I am happy with that. However, I would have been happier had the provisions been applied across the board, but hey, I am a nice lady and I want to get the legislation through. I am happy with 80 per cent. of what I want, rather than fighting for 100 per cent. and losing. The two measures that the Government have set out address concerns expressed from all parts of the House, but I wish that they had been a bit bolder. The Government need to ensure that the measures are as robust as possible and that they are implemented to their fullest extent.

   I felt a lot happier when I read Lord Brett's strong reaction in the debate on the issue in the other place:

   "I commit to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to address concerns regarding the lack of a statutory duty on local authorities to consult with local people".

   He continued:

   "While the Government firmly believe that the exemption for infrequent events is a proportionate measure and should remain...I can reassure noble Lords that should it become clear that it is being exploited in a way that is obviously against the wishes of local people, they will have the power to tighten the exemption or remove it altogether."—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 449-50.]

   It is important that we underline that point.

   I support the change of name from "sex encounter venue", although I was worried at first. I can go along with the change to "sexual entertainment venue", if the Minister truly believes that that will afford the women who work in them a degree of protection and some status or dignity. Many of the current or previous performers whom I spoke to said that they felt that the term "sexual encounter" almost presumed that all the women in such venues would be available for sexual encounters with whoever visited. I therefore understand their objection and agree with the change of name.

   Before I conclude, I want to ask the Minister to confirm that clubs that have previously been granted permission to open, including another club in Stourbridge—Stourbridge appears to be becoming the lap-dancing Mecca of the midlands—will be subject to the legislation in the same way as new clubs. Permission in that case was granted more than a year ago. The club has done nothing about it, but it is now in the process of starting up. The owners believe that they will not be subject to the legislation. I want to make it clear that I believe that they will be, and I would like the Minister to confirm that for me.

   In conclusion, the campaign to stop lap-dancing clubs being licensed in the same way as cafés has played an important role in drawing public and Government attention to a deeply disturbing trend in British society: that of women and girls being portrayed as dehumanised sex objects. Lap dancing is just one manifestation of that culture. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has recognised that a culture of treating women as sex objects fuels violence against women. The UK is a signatory to the UN convention and is in the process of forming a cross-Government strategy on violence against women, so this legislation is an important step towards bringing our policy together in this area. It is crucial, however, that the Government recognise that these reforms to the licensing of lap-dancing clubs represent a good step, but only a first step, towards achieving the much broader goal of ending the sexual objectification—that word is hard to say—of women and, ultimately, violence against women. I urge Ministers to ensure that issues such as lap dancing and the media representation of women are central to the cross-Government strategy to end violence against women once and for all.