'(1) Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (failure to comply with notice relating to encrypted information) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (5A)(a) after "case" insert "or a child indecency case".

(3) After subsection (5B) insert—

"(6) In subsection (5A) "a child indecency case" means a case in which the grounds specified in the notice to which the offence relates as the grounds for imposing a disclosure requirement were or included a belief that the imposition of the requirement was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting an offence under any of the provisions listed in subsection (7).

(7) Those provisions are—

(a) section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (showing or taking etc an indecent photograph of a child: England and Wales);

(b) Article 3 of the Protection of Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1047 (N.I. 17)) (corresponding offence for Northern Ireland);

(c) section 52 or 52A of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (showing or taking etc or possessing an indecent photograph of a child: Scotland);

(d) section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possessing an indecent photograph of a child: England and Wales);

(e) Article 15 of the Criminal Justice (Evidence, Etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1847 (N.I. 17)) (corresponding offence for Northern Ireland)."

(4) The amendments made by this section apply in relation to cases in which the section 49 notice was given after the commencement of this section.'.— (Mr. Campbell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4— Loitering: decriminalisation of under 18 year olds—

'(1) The Street Offences Act 1959 (c. 57) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) of section 1, after "prostitute", insert "aged 18 or over"'.

New clause 7— Protection of children (encrypted material)—

'(1) Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (failure to comply with a notice) is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection 5A, after paragraph (a), insert—

"(aa) where subsection 5C applies, five years;",

(b) after subsection 5B, insert—

"(5C) This section applies where—

(a) the offender has been previously convicted of a relevant sexual offence,

(b) an indecent photograph of a child as been found in his possession, or

(c) the court is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the protected information may contain an indecent photograph of a child.

(5D) For the purposes of subsection (5C)—

"relevant sexual offence" means an offence under—

(a) section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) (indecent photographs of children);

(b) section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33) (possession of indecent photographs of a child);

(c) section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (c. 2) (penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc) in relation to goods prohibited to be imported under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 (c. 36) (indecent or obscene articles), if the prohibited goods included indecent photographs of persons under 16;

(d) sections 48 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) (abuse of children through prostitution or pornography) where the victim was under 18 and involved in pornography;

"indecent photograph of a child" has the same definition as in sections 1 and 7 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) and for the avoidance of doubt includes a reference to a pseudo-photograph of a child or a tracing of an indecent photograph within the meaning of section 7(4A) of that Act.".

(2) In Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42), after paragraph 35 insert—

"(36) An offence under s. 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) where subsection (5C) applies."'.

New clause 25— Paying for sexual services of a prostitute known to be trafficked or coerced: England and Wales—

'After section 53 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) insert—

"53A Paying for sexual services of a prostitute known to be trafficked or coerced: England and Wales

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A makes or promises payment for, or uses, the sexual services of prostitute (B), and

(b) A knows, or ought to know,

(i) that B is the victim of trafficking.

(ii) that the sexual services have been provided through coercion of B,

(iii) that B has provided sexual services in order to gain access to controlled drugs, or

(iv) that a third party has influenced the activity of B by direction or instruction in circumstances where B does not freely consent to such direction or instruction.

(2) It is irrelevant where the sexual services have been or will be provided.

(3) In this section, 'trafficking' means the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.

(4) In this section, 'coercion of B' includes—

(a) violence against B or another person,

(b) threats against B or another person, or

(c) intimidation of B.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."'.

New clause 26— Paying for sexual services of a prostitute known to be trafficked or coerced: Northern Ireland—

'After Article 64 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 1769) (N.I. 12)) insert—

"64A Paying for sexual services of a prostitute known to be trafficked or coerced: Northern Ireland

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A makes or promises payment for, or uses, the sexual services of prostitute (B), and

(b) A knows, or ought to know,

(i) that B is the victim of trafficking.

(ii) that the sexual services have been provided through coercion of B,

(iii) that B has provided sexual services in order to gain access to controlled drugs, or

(iv) that a third party has influenced the activity of B by direction or instruction in circumstances where B does not freely consent to such direction or instruction.

(2) It is irrelevant where the sexual services have been or will be provided.

(3) In this section, 'trafficking' means the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.

(4) In this section, 'coercion of B' includes—

(a) violence against B or another person,

(b) threats against B or another person, or

(c) intimidation of B.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years."'.

New clause 37— Definition of a brothel—

'(1) The Sexual Offences Act 1956 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 33A insert—

"33B Definition of a brothel

(1) Premises shall not be regarded as a brothel where—

(a) no more than two prostitutes, with or without a maid, are working together or separately on any given day; and

(b) each prostitute retains control over her or his individual earnings from the prostitution carried out at the premises.

(2) In this section 'prostitute' has the meaning given by section 51(2) of the Sexual Offence Act 2003."'.

New clause 38— Decriminalisation of associated workers in brothels—

'(1) The Sexual Offences Act 1956 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 33A insert—

"33B Associated workers in brothels

For the purposes of section 33 and 33A, a person who is not directly involved in the provision of sexual services is not to be treated as assisting in the management of a brothel by reason only of being employed in a brothel."'.

Amendment 142, in page 15, line 25, leave out clause 13.

Amendment 211, in clause 13, page 15, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 16 and insert—

'"53A Paying for sexual services of a trafficked prostitute

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a prostitute (B), and

(b) B has been trafficked, and

(c) A is aware, or ought to be aware, that B has been trafficked.

(2) Whether A ought to be aware that B has been trafficked is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B has been trafficked.

(3) It is irrelevant where in the world the sexual services are to be provided and whether those services are provided."'.

Government amendment 46.

Government amendment 47, page 15, line 30, leave out from '(B),' to end of line 32 and insert—

'(b) a third person (C) has used force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services for which A has made or promised payment, and

(c) C acted for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).'.

Amendment (a) to Government amendment 47, in line 2, leave out 'of a kind likely to induce or encourage' and insert 'which caused'.

Amendment 235, page 15, line 31, at beginning insert

'A knows or ought to know that'.

Amendment 236, page 15, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).

Government amendments 48 and 49.

Amendment 237, page 16, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

'(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.'.

Amendment 215, page 16, line 4, at end add—

'(5) For the purposes of this section "force" includes coercion by threats or other psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.'.

Amendment 143, in page 16, line 5, leave out clause 14.

Government amendment 50.

Government amendment 51, in clause 14, page 16, line 11, leave out from '(B),' to end of line 13 and insert—

'(b) a third person (C) has used force, deception or threats of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services for which A has made or promised payment, and

(c) C acted for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).'.

Amendment (a) to Government amendment 51, in line 2, leave out 'of a kind likely to induce or encourage' and insert 'which caused'.

Amendment 238, page 16, line 12, at beginning insert

'A knows or ought to know that'.

Amendment 239, page 16, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).

Government amendments 52 and 53.

Amendment 240, page 16, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

'(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.'.

Amendment 216, page 16, line 23, at end add—

'(5) For the purposes of this section "force" includes coercion by threats or other psychological means including exploitation of vulnerability.'.

Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 16, line 32, leave out 'three months' and insert 'one week'.

Amendment 7, page 17, line 1, leave out clause 16.

Amendment 194, in clause 25, page 22, leave out lines 1 to 3.

Government amendments 54 to 59.

Amendment 199, in schedule 3, page 149, line 3, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.

Government amendment 119.

First, I want to deal with the matter of encryption keys. New clause 22 and amendment 119 are together intended to have the same effect as new clause 7, which was tabled by Sir Paul Beresford. I want to place on record our gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this area and for the way in which he has pursued this point.

New clause 22 and amendment 119 relate to the maximum sentences that can be imposed when people fail to comply with a notice relating to encrypted information issued under part 3 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Specifically, the amendments raise the maximum sentence on indictment from two years' to five years' imprisonment in child indecency cases. At present, the sentence in such cases is limited to two years. Given that sentences for child indecency offences can be far higher, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley has pointed out, we are proposing to raise the sentence for failing to comply with a notice to five years. In addition, the amendments allow individuals convicted of failing to comply with a notice or tipping off in connection with such a notice to be made subject, in appropriate cases, to a sexual offences prevention order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

We have adopted a slightly different approach from that proposed by the hon. Gentleman, because of the technical problems with the drafting of his new clause. We have also not included all the offences that were in new clause 7. That is not because they are not important offences, but rather because—in so far as they involve indecent images of children—they would be redundant. In other words, when they do not involve such images, the offences that we have included are the relevant offences so the higher sentence should be available anyway.

Our amendments will also make high sentences available in relation to specified offences in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and I should clarify that the Scottish Executive have welcomed those provisions. I want to conclude this section of my speech by repeating my thanks to the hon. Member for Mole Valley. I know that his efforts have been appreciated by members of the law enforcement community, particularly the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. I hope that he will feel that there is no need to press his new clause and that he and all hon. Members will be able to support new clause 22 and amendment 119.

The Minister will be aware that this is an issue that we highlighted in the Public Bill Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend Sir Paul Beresford will be pleased to hear that the Government have accepted the concept in tabling these amendments. Can the Minister give any explanation or guidance as to how the provisions will be rolled out? Is it intended that CEOP will take this forward, or will further broader guidance be given to police forces on the application of this new offence? Obviously, we hope that it will be effective in dealing with these pernicious paedophiles, who seek to hide away appalling images in computers and other systems in an encrypted form.

Of course, CEOP plays a vital part in tackling this hideous crime. It is important that police officers in forces across the country are aware of this criminality and are able to spot it and know what to do with it. We will bring forward guidance in due course.

I want to move now to the issue of "controlled for gain", which took a great deal of time to debate in Committee. The debate in Committee was positive and constructive, even though we did not always agree. Amendments 142 and 143 would remove clause 13 and clause 14 respectively and replace those clauses with a new offence that seeks to address some of the concerns that have been raised about those clauses as the Bill has progressed. First, they seek to clarify the scope of the offence. In Committee, there were concerns that that the phrase "controlled for gain" was too wide and not sufficiently clear. We have tabled our own amendments in response to those concerns.

We believe that our amendments are preferable to the approach taken by new clauses 25 and 26 and a number of amendments that have been tabled that relate to the definition of "controlled for gain" or the scope of this offence. First, we have used the terms "force", "threats" or "deception" as we consider them to be more precise than the word "coercion". Secondly, although there appears to be consensus that the offence should cover those who pay for sex with someone who has been trafficked, we do not feel that it would be appropriate to adopt the approach followed by using the term "trafficked" in the legislation. For that reason, we also have reservations about amendment 211.

Using the term "trafficked" would mean that if someone had been trafficked and escaped from their traffickers, but still chose to work as a prostitute, it would still be an offence to have sex with that person if the payer knew or ought to know about the prostitute's past. Instead, our amendment focuses on the conduct that is likely to have induced or encouraged the person to provide the sexual services to the payer.

Has the Minister seen the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on human trafficking, which was published last Thursday, and the concern that we expressed about the enforceability of what he is talking about? The evidence that the police gave us was that it would be very difficult to enforce. I welcome the shift in position. The Government have taken an important step forward in the few months since the publication of the Bill. Has the Minister been able to go back to the police to ask them whether this new proposal will be workable?

I welcome the report by the Select Committee and the interest that it has taken in such matters. Of course, we speak to the police regularly about a host of things, and not least the enforceability of the legislation. Let me say by word of caution that we have brought forward a new definition that we believe is more workable. However, I think that this is still a work in progress. I will be listening carefully to the arguments that are made today from people with all sorts of different points of view on the matter. It is crucial that we get this definition right. Of course we want the definition to be right as the Bill leaves this place and goes to another place, but I am sure that this point will be the subject of great discussion at a later stage.

I would modestly suggest that a definition that can satisfy everybody is all but impossible to achieve. There is a definition that covers anybody who employs a cleaning lady, for example, who might be an illegal immigrant. It is no defence to say, "I didn't know that she was an illegal immigrant." It is a crime under our law, decided by this House, to employ someone who is an illegal immigrant. Therefore, if someone has sex with someone who has been trafficked, it should be no defence to say, "I did not know that she was trafficked." [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend Keith Vaz says, "Ridiculous", but this is a profoundly important point. We have to send a signal out to the traffickers that if they bring girls into Britain and men pay for sex with them, buying that sex is a crime. Until we cut off some of the demand with tough measures we will never deal with the supply.

My right hon. Friend goes to the crux of the debate. I understand that there are different views, not only about the workability of this measure but about whether it was a good idea to embark on it in the first place. However, my contention in Committee, which still holds, was that this is a fundamentally important piece of legislation. We need to focus on the Government's intention when we set out. The intention has not changed, but we have learned lessons on how best we can define the way in which we can take this forward. As I say, the debate continues.

First, may I take this opportunity to welcome the fact that the Government have thought further about restricting the definition of "controlled to gain" to the language used in their amendment? It is probably equivalent to the way in which provisions are made in new clause 25, of which I hope to speak in favour if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We can recognise that that definition is work in progress, but the key issue concerns the strict liability and the fact that that is associated with a trivial penalty, even for someone who knowingly has sex with someone whom they know to have been coerced. That is what divides us still at the moment, and therefore that is what I think most of this debate will be about.

I intend to cover that very point. It is important that we have a workable definition that does the job we ask it to do, but it is also important that we have a proportionate response. I shall return not just to strict liability but to the penalties that flow from such offences.

We expect our proposed definition to cover most cases when a prostitute is still under the control of traffickers. We also expect it to cover most of the cases intended to be captured by the fourth scenario mentioned in new clause 25, whereby someone is directed or instructed to provide sexual services but the person does not consent to that direction, provided that they were not simply free to ignore it. In such cases, we imagine that such directions or instructions would be backed up by force or threats.

Our new clause will deal with the case of a prostitute who agrees to work as a prostitute because their pimp would otherwise refuse to supply them with controlled drugs. However, unlike new clause 25, it would not cover a person who decides to work as a prostitute and chooses to use the money to pay for controlled drugs. Although we accept that there are clearly desperate circumstances in which people provide sexual services to gain drugs or money for drugs, we believe that element of the proposed new clause is drafted too widely.

New clauses 25 and 26 would capture anyone who uses the sexual services of a prostitute who, under the definition, was trafficked, coerced or otherwise considered exploited, rather than just someone who pays for sexual services. There would be a danger that the offence would also criminalise consenting sexual relationships, such as those between the prostitute and their partner or spouse. It is payment to those who are controlling the prostitutes that fuels demand for them, so that act is the focus for our offence.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. It is useful for the House to discuss these points as he makes his critique, because we may never come back to them.

Is the Minister saying that the reference in new clause 25 to a person who

"uses...the sexual services of a prostitute" might be felt by the police and the courts to apply to the husband or wife of a prostitute? Is he seriously saying that that is a flaw in the provision?

We are saying that we have to be careful about the language we use. The hon. Gentleman may be dismissive of the fact, but someone who uses a woman who is a prostitute is different from someone who exploits them for gain. There is a clear distinction and as we are talking about moving to a better definition it is important that we get the language absolutely right, or as close as we can.

New clauses 25 and 26 seek to address the other significant issue that has been discussed in relation to the offence—strict liability. We cannot accept the other amendments that have been tabled on the issue and we have concerns about that aspect of the new clauses. We still believe that strict liability is the most effective way of ensuring that those who pay for sex are forced to consider the circumstances of the prostitute who will be providing the sexual services, and that it protects those who have not chosen to be involved in prostitution.

My next point about the new clauses goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman's point about penalty. The proposals would increase the maximum penalty for the offence under clauses 13 and 14, which is currently a fine of £1,000, to 14 years' imprisonment. Amendment 240 would have the same effect. We intend to continue to make the offence one of strict liability. In our view, it remains appropriate to maintain the maximum penalty as a fine. That is consistent with similar offences aimed at tackling the demand for prostitution, such as kerb crawling. If someone has sex with a person and they do not reasonably believe that the person consents, they should be prosecuted for something else—namely, rape.

Dr. Harris is shaking his head. I realise that the Members who tabled the new clauses and amendments will not be satisfied by all the aspects of our response, but I hope that our amendments to the scope of the offence will be of some reassurance and persuade them not to press the new clauses.

I am not sure that I have adequately understood what my hon. Friend said about the penalty. If someone knowingly or recklessly pays for sex with a person they know is subject to force, deception or threats, surely that is rape and a £1,000 fine is completely inadequate.

The crux of the matter is whether there is evidence. The point I made is that if there is evidence of rape, the person should be prosecuted for rape and the penalties would be considerably higher. We seek to introduce for the first time an offence, and a penalty, to deal with people who have until now been able to get away scot-free. It would cover situations when traffickers have been held responsible for the women who were victims. We know what to do with the victims, but the men were able to walk away. We are saying—indeed, I am strongly saying—that if there is evidence that can be used to prosecute another offence that tackles the problem, that is what should be done. We are talking about reducing demand by sending out a strong message, based on strict liability. The penalty that goes with that strict liability offence is compatible with other measures that we want to introduce, and associated action we could take, to press down on demand—whether that is kerb crawling or other areas. We are saying to men, "If you pay for sex with a woman, whether or not you know she has been trafficked, you will be held responsible and the penalty will be commensurate with that offence". However, I agree with my hon. Friend that if something else can be brought to bear in such circumstances, the authorities should use that offence.

It is difficult to get a conviction for rape, even in the starkest circumstances outside prostitution. I do not think that there have been any convictions of rape in prostitution and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether he knows of any rape prosecutions against the clients of prostitutes. Does he still agree with Home Office evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that there is no prospect of obtaining a rape conviction in the context of paid sex with a prostitute? If that is the case, that option is not an answer to Lynne Jones, so her proposal offers the better way forward.

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of making our case for us. The difficulty in holding people to account has led us to introduce the strict liability clause and although he does not accept it, the penalty we propose is proportionate because it corresponds with other actions that can be taken to suppress demand. He asks me for examples of prosecutions for rape. My understanding is that the figures would not be broken down in that way; if that is not true, I shall set out the alternative. We could not say categorically whether people had been prosecuted for rape in such circumstances, but we must not lose sight of the reality that the men we are talking about have not been held to account. Whether the evidence—in the view of some people—would be akin to rape or whether it was actually evidence of rape, men have walked away from their responsibilities. The offence is one of the measures that we are putting in place to hold them to account and it is an important step forward.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the Home Secretary and a number of Members, which deal with control for gain in relation to clause 13. Amendments 211 and 214 would narrow the offence under clause 13 by removing the term "controlled for gain" and substituting the word "coerced". Members tabled similar amendments in Committee and the matter was discussed at length. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and Mr. Steen and the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, which I have already discussed, would clarify the scope of the offence to ensure that it could not be used to prosecute men paying for sex with prostitutes who have freely consented to their involvement in prostitution, who work in a safe environment and who are directed, in a limited way, by a madam.

Our amendments would remove the term "controlled for gain" in light of concern about what would be covered by the word "control". We do not want to interfere with the way in which "controlled for gain" has been interpreted by the courts in relation to other offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 by attempting further to define the term in the Bill. We have instead replaced the word "control" in the offence with a requirement that the prostitute involved must have been subject to force, threats or deception. We believe that that is consistent with the aims of a number of amendments tabled in Committee and on Report. I note in particular that, by using the term "force, deception or threats", our amendments appear to have a similar effect to amendment 211, tabled by the hon. Member for Totnes.

Government amendments 46 to 53 would amend clause 13 to make it an offence to pay for sex with someone who has been subject to force, deception or threats from a third party of a kind likely to encourage the provision of sexual services for which payment has been made or promised. The third party must have acted for or be in expectation of gain for himself or another person. We believe that the term "force, deception or threats" covers the conduct that we have always been clear that we wish to capture—for example, paying for sex with someone who has been trafficked and forced to work as a prostitute—while clearly excluding circumstances in which someone chooses to work as prostitute entirely of their own free will. We have used those terms because we believe that they best respond to the concerns raised in Committee, while ensuring that we do not compromise the policy objective of tackling the demand for prostitutes who are being exploited.

On the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend Lynne Jones, we do not feel that the word "coercion" would add greater clarity to the offence, as it is still not clear what threats or other types of pressure it might cover. We have therefore chosen language that we consider to be more precise.

The Minister's proposed definition, which severely waters down the Bill's original intention, will not cover any of the poor women who were killed in Ipswich. They were not forced, deceived or threatened. They were killed, because they were prostitutes, by a man who would face absolutely no pressure from any police authority to stop him buying sex and then taking the women away to kill them. I urge the Government to look very seriously—if not here, certainly in another place—at the amendments that would introduce the definition in relation to forced marriages, because the Minister's definition would not have protected any of the Ipswich victims.

As I have tried to point out throughout my remarks, we believe that this debate will continue—it will do so this evening, and it will certainly do so in another place—but I reassure my right hon. Friend that I am not deaf to the remarks that I hope will be made from several quarters of the House tonight. We believe that we have alighted in the right place; but as the debate is continuing, we will certainly be open to it. I want to make it absolutely clear that our intention is not to water down severely the proposals.

I very much hope that the Minister will listen carefully, as I am the Member of Parliament in whose constituency two of those sad girls were found. I do not think that I can overstate the feeling locally that the proposals do not go far enough; nor can I overstate the fact that, when people are coerced by their providers of drugs, so that they are provided with drugs on terms in which prostitution is the only route that they feel that they can go down, to exclude the protection that they ought to have under the Bill is something that we feel very strongly about, and I hope that the Minister will listen to those who press him.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, because they go to the nub of why this is such an important part of the debate on an important part of the Bill. I have listened carefully to what he has said, and we must avoid in any way letting down his constituents or, of course, the individuals whom we are talking about.

The Safety First coalition, which developed following the Ipswich murders, is very much against many of the measures in the Bill, simply because it believes that they will make women more vulnerable to attack. That is the strong view of other interested organisations, such as Royal College of Nursing, and it has certainly been expressed by the Police Federation.

That illustrates the problem that I have in trying to get the Bill into the right form to satisfy as many Members as I can, if not all of them, while remaining true to the intention that we set out in the Bill. Very strong views have been expressed from the first day that the Bill was mooted, and I am sure that those views will continue to be expressed. Even when the Bill becomes an Act, a strong debate will continue, because, of course, there are strong and different views about prostitution per se. We have tried, and we are still trying, to ensure that the Bill addresses a particularly horrific set of circumstances, whatever one's view of prostitution. I hope to satisfy as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible.

Of course, to talk about force, threats or deception might suggest a kind of static process, but we expect that the offence would still be active when the sexual services were provided. If, however, someone was forced into prostitution by a pimp but later chose to continue to work as a prostitute on her own, it would not be an offence to pay for sex with her during that later period. We have also used the term "likely to induce or encourage" because we do not believe that it will be necessary to show the actual affects of the force or threats on the prostitute, as that would be more likely to give rise to the need for the prostitute to give evidence to show the particular affect of the force or threats on her.

My hon. Friend will know that I have tabled amendments designed to address that problem, which relates to the point about enforceability made by my right hon. Friend Keith Vaz. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be reassured by a meeting that I had just a few days ago with Tim Brain, the lead for the Association of Chief Police Officers on prostitution and sex crimes, who feels, having studied it more carefully, that the offence is enforceable, even in its initial wording. However, I have tabled my amendments as a result of speaking to lawyers who work in the magistrates courts and who believe that the phrase

"of a kind likely to induce or encourage" will provide another means to argue about whether an offence has taken place. We want a strict liability offence to operate in magistrates courts, but the complicating factor created by that phrase will make such offences harder to prosecute successfully.

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a matter for your discretion, but I hope that my hon. Friend catches your eye, because I want to listen carefully to her remarks, as I do to those of other Members. She has a great deal to say about the psychological pressure that women are put under in such circumstances and about the concern that our current definition will not address that, but let me make it clear—this goes back to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak—that we do not want to exclude any vulnerable woman in prostitution from the protection afforded by the offence. So we will be interested to hear views on this important matter if my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who want to express them are called to speak. I hope that my explanation has at least highlighted the difficulty of defining what we are trying to combat. I also hope that a constructive process continues, building on the work done in Committee. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their views.

I turn now to strict liability. Amendments 235, 236, 237, 238, 239 and 240 replicate amendments that were tabled in Committee and would remove the strict liability aspect of the offence. I am grateful for the dialogue that we have had, for the prospect of further amendments that will allow the debate to continue and to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its report on the Bill. We particularly note the Joint Committee's comments in relation to the offence's compatibility with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. However, we do not accept the Committee's conclusions. We are satisfied that the new offence complies with both the European convention and principles of common law. We do not accept that article 8, which is about the protection of person's private and family life, includes a right to pay for sex. In any event, we consider that any interference with a person's private life would be in accordance with the law and can be justified as necessary for the protection of health, morals and the rights and freedoms of others.

The JCHR has suggested that the offence is not sufficiently certain; we simply disagree. We believe that the clause is clear. A person will know that if they pay for sex with someone who is found to have been controlled for gain, they commit an offence. If someone who intends to pay for sex has any doubt as to whether the prostitute is being controlled for gain, they can choose not to pay for sex with that person. The amendments that we have tabled to clarify the scope of the offence will make clearer the circumstances in which it will be illegal to pay for sex with a particular person, and that should help people to regulate their behaviour accordingly.

I have noted the points raised in Committee by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and by a number of hon. Members, and I hope to be able to address all their concerns explicitly. None the less, we still believe that strict liability is the most effective way of ensuring that those who pay for sex are forced to consider the circumstances of the prostitute providing the sexual services, and of protecting those who have not chosen to be involved in prostitution. It is vital, and right, that we do not ignore the desperate and exploitative circumstances that affect some of those involved in prostitution. It will not be a defence to say, "I didn't know that this person was controlled for gain." That is the key aim of the offence—to ensure that sex buyers are held responsible for their conduct, and to ensure that we deal with those who fuel demand for prostitution. Strict liability is fundamental to ensuring that.

To clarify, when the Minister says that he wants strict liability in order to force men, if we can generalise, to consider the consequences of their actions, is he not saying that they should make inquiries as to whether the person is controlled for gain, or whatever the definition is? Yet under a system of strict liability, if men did make such inquiries, as we want them to, but were misled, or got it wrong, they would still be penalised, although they had made every effort to ensure that the person was not controlled for gain. That does not encourage them to make those inquiries, because whether they do or not, if they are misled, they will be caught by the offence. Does the Minister recognise that the measure will therefore not have the impact that he hopes it will? He certainly has not produced evidence that it would have such an impact.

I think that we have to take one step back from those circumstances. We heard in Committee, and in the evidence sessions, about men who had come forward to say that they believed that women had been trafficked, or were being controlled for gain. They had alerted the women about where they might seek support in order to exit from prostitution, but I think that we have to take one step back from that and say to men: "If you get involved in these situations, it is no good saying that you didn't know." One might say: "How do you not know something that you do not know?" but that is a risk that they take. The bottom line is that if a person visits a prostitute, and there is any suggestion or hint that the prostitute was trafficked or is controlled for gain, or if the question even is in their mind, the person should not go ahead. That is a choice that they can make.

To add to that, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will know, because he was on the Committee, there are circumstances in which men point women in the direction of support, but in every single example that the POPPY project cited, the men who pointed them in the direction of help and support had sex with them first. We are not talking about a simplistic, black-and-white situation; we are talking about a complex set of circumstances. The easiest and clearest way to put it is this: "If you don't want to get caught up in this offence, and there is any doubt in your mind, whether there is any evidence or not, just don't do it."

I want to turn to another issue that rightly took up the Committee's time: lap dancing. In particular, I want to speak about amendments 194, 198, 199 and Government amendments 54 to 59. Lap-dancing clubs have grown in number in recent years, and have become an issue of concern for many local communities, who do not feel that existing legislation is adequate to address the impact of such venues on a local area. We have brought forward measures in the Bill to reclassify places that provide lap dancing and other similar entertainment as sex establishments under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. That will give local authorities greater powers to control the number and location of lap-dancing clubs.

Is it the intention of the Government, under the Bill, to close down lap-dancing clubs that were opened, in good faith, under previous legislation?

The purpose is to give communities the opportunity to have their say. In some cases they accept lap-dancing clubs, but in many cases they oppose them. The measure is about empowering communities that do not feel that they are, or have been, part of the process to date. There is a concern that lap-dancing clubs have grown in number, and that they could continue to grow in number unless communities are able to have a stronger say. Under the changes that we propose, if a lap-dancing club is a well-established and well-run establishment, there is no reason why it would not continue in business. The measures address the deficit that there was in the past, with regard to what local communities were able to say about lap-dancing clubs, particularly new ones, in their area.

I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification, but do his proposals introduce any kind of grandfather rights for lap-dancing clubs that were opened, in good faith, under previous Government legislation?

We are currently working on that. The other debate on grandfather rights that I remember was on the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003. The reality is that lap-dancing clubs will, like other establishments, need to be licensed. If local authorities adopt the legislation, such clubs will, at some point, need to be licensed. We are not saying that the legislation will do away with lap-dancing clubs; that was never the intention, and it is not the intention now.

Does the Minister realise that there has been a rash of applications for lap-dancing licences, just prior to the legislation coming into force? If there were to be grandfather rights, would there be a distinction between those establishments that have been opportunistic and are suddenly getting in on the act, and others?

If establishments have rushed to apply for a licence before the legislation comes into force, thinking that they will thereby get some advantage in the long run when their local authority adopts the legislation, that view is misplaced. It would be short-sighted of them to do so. The reality is that they will be subject to the legislation, as will new lap-dancing clubs.

We understand that there are concerns about aspects of clause 25, including the decision to remove venues that provide infrequent entertainment of the type that we are discussing from the definition of a sex encounter venue. The purpose of the provision is to recognise that not all premises that provide relevant entertainment should be classed as sex encounter venues. An example is a pub that hosts a birthday party for which a strippergram has been booked; we do not believe that such premises should be regulated in the same manner as a lap-dancing club that offers adult entertainment nightly. We accept that not everyone agrees with that distinction, but we believe that the legislation needs to be both targeted and proportionate. In practice, under the provisions, any premises offering relevant entertainment nightly, weekly or even monthly will be required to obtain a licence. Only relatively infrequent or one-off performances of "relevant entertainment" will be permitted without a sex establishment licence; such entertainment will continue to be regulated under the Licensing Act 2003.

In Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho), and for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods), who have done so much to bring the issue to public attention, spoke plainly about their concerns that the provision would create a loophole that would be exploited by lap-dancing operators who wished to avoid tighter regulation. It is clear from amendment 194, which is in the name of my hon. Friends and Philip Davies, that those concerns remain. We take those concerns very seriously. It is not our intention to create opportunities for lap-dancing operators to avoid the impact of the reforms, but at this stage, the Government are not minded to remove paragraph 2A(3)(b) of schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which will be inserted by clause 25. Instead, we propose safeguards against potential abuse of the provision.

Government amendments 55 to 59 introduce a limited order-making power that will allow the Secretary of State or, in Wales, Welsh Ministers to tighten the exemption or remove it altogether if there is clear evidence that, following implementation, it is being exploited in a way that is obviously against the spirit of the reforms and the wishes of local people. That will allow us to monitor the situation further, and to respond to concerns quickly by limiting exemption powers, or removing the exemption entirely.

I am aware that my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge and for City of Durham have raised specific concerns that temporary event notices will enable lap dancing to be provided on a regular basis by a number of licensed establishments working in partnership to facilitate that. We do not believe there is compelling evidence that the problem is likely to occur, because that opportunity already exists, but we take these concerns seriously.

Since the Committee stage, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has published its report on the Licensing Act 2003, which considered a number of issues in relation to temporary event notices and made specific recommendations, including giving local councillors, as representatives of their local community, the ability to object to such notices. Before formally responding to the Select Committee, we will consider more fully all these recommendations and the impact that they will have on other activities covered by temporary event notices.

I know that hon. Members would like to see the exemption removed. I hope that the order-making power and the comments that I have made in relation to TENs will give them some reassurance and that they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Government amendment 54 will clarify the conditions that will allow venues to provide infrequent performances without requiring a sex establishment licence. The amendment makes it clear that in order to provide relevant entertainment without a sex establishment licence, three conditions must be fulfilled: no more than 11 events in any 12-month period, no event lasting longer than 24 hours, and at least one calendar month between events.

Amendments 198 and 199 would make schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, and by extension provisions introduced by clause 25, mandatory for all local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham tabled a similar amendment in Committee and I know that these concerns remain. Unless provisions are mandatory, my hon. Friends argue, local people will not be guaranteed a greater say over the regulation of lap-dancing clubs in their area.

Schedule 3 of the Act, which also deals with the licensing of other sex establishments, such as sex shops and sex cinemas, is currently optional for local authorities. It recognises that while the presence of sex establishments can raise particular concerns for many local communities, the issues are not necessarily universal. Many local authorities do not have lap-dancing clubs in their area.

We cannot be exact regarding numbers, but we estimate that under half of all local authorities have lap-dancing clubs or similar venues in their areas, so the Government do not believe it right to impose the legislation irrespective of need, especially in areas where there are no lap-dancing clubs, and therefore no means of recovering any cost, however small, of implementing the regime.

Does not my hon. Friend think that the system as he has just outlined it could create anomalies? In neighbouring local authority areas, particularly within a conurbation, there could be one regime in place on one side of a borough border, and another on the other side. That is no way to help regulate lap-dancing clubs.

The basis upon which we intend to introduce the legislation will give local people and local communities a greater say. I cannot stress enough the importance of localism in this context. The situation that my hon. Friend described pertains to the Licensing Act as well. A different set of circumstances pertain in the Bigg Market of Newcastle from those that pertain in the Esplanade of Whitley bay, yet local authorities are able to manage the situation as they believe best suits their local communities.

It is likely that the Suffolk Coastal district council would not have need for any of these applications, but I commend the Government for their way of looking at these things. I wish they would extend that to many other topics, but in this case I hope the Minister will rebuff those who want to be more universal. His position would be accepted and welcomed.

I cannot give an undertaking that this will be the norm for Government policy, but we believe that it is right on this occasion. Local authorities should have the flexibility to decide whether the provisions are necessary, based on local circumstances.

I welcome much of what my hon. Friend has said, but my difficulty is that Dudley has been particularly timid in using the current licensing law. For instance, when a club asks for a later licence, it is granted, then another and another, because the council is frightened to death of being taken to court. We have had so much trouble with lap dancing, particularly in Stourbridge, and my worry is that Dudley will choose not to take up the powers and my constituents will be in the same position as they are now, with no voice.

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this at great length. We do not share the same views, but we have the same concerns. When we went out to consultation, no shortage of local authorities clearly indicated that, were the powers available, they would take them up. Ultimately, my hon. Friend's constituents decide the fate of the local authority. A local authority or lap dancing club that thought it could set itself against a local community would be short-sighted. It is important that local people hold local authorities to account. If lap-dancing clubs are a big issue in their area, the excuses that my hon. Friend attributes to her local authority would not hold water with residents.

I shall move on to other important issues and try to deal with them properly and quickly, as I am taking up a great deal of time. On the decriminalisation of under-18 prostitution, new clause 4 seeks to amend the offence of loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution so that those under the age of 18 cannot commit the offence. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon tabled similar amendments in Committee. I want to be clear that the Government have a great deal of sympathy with the issue. There is a fine line between the positions held.

We recognise that children who have become involved in prostitution are the victims of a sexual offence and should be offered appropriate support. That is in our advice, "Safeguarding children involved in prostitution", which was issued in 2000 and which we will update along similar lines this summer. Since the publication of that guidance, the numbers of those under 18 cautioned or prosecuted for this offence have been very low. It is clear, therefore, that in practice, the offence is used extremely rarely in relation to under-18s, and that in most cases children are treated as victims.

The approach of treating children abused through prostitution as victims will rightly continue to be that approach that agencies take, but on balance—and it is a fine balance—we believe there are still reasons for retaining the current position on statute. First, decriminalising under-18s would risk sending out a message that we do not think it is acceptable for adults to be involved in street prostitution, but that somehow it is acceptable for a child or young person to loiter or solicit for the purposes of prostitution. If one child is deterred from getting involved in prostitution because they would be at risk of breaking the law, that would justify our position.

Secondly, abolishing the offence could encourage pimps to target children, as they would know that the police could not arrest child prostitutes if they were found loitering or soliciting. Thirdly, we are concerned at the risk that such a move would encourage the trafficking of women into street prostitution, having been briefed to lie about their age. This may be a particular risk as it may be difficult to establish the age of women trafficked form abroad. There may be exceptional cases where support from agencies has been made available but the child refuses to accept that support. At that point, criminal justice agencies may be important to push the child towards that support. Our approach is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service. On that basis we cannot accept the amendments.

With reference to persistent prostitution and orders requiring attendance at meetings, amendment 7 seeks to remove clause 16 from the Bill and prevent the Government from introducing orders requiring attendance at meetings for someone convicted of loitering and soliciting contrary to section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959. Following the publication in 2004 of a consultation paper, "Paying the Price", the Government published in 2006 a co-ordinated prostitution strategy that recognised the concern in communities not only about the nuisance that street prostitution can cause, but that there must be a way for prostitutes to exit prostitution should they wish to do so. Respondents strongly indicated that women who are involved in street prostitution have multiple and complex needs, and that our approach must recognise that complexity.

It is important that the offence of loitering and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution is maintained and used where appropriate, and we have also identified the need for some important reforms to ensure that the offence is used consistently. However, we want to help people to begin exiting prostitution—something that is difficult to achieve with a fine, which is the current maximum penalty. We intend to remove "common" from the offence of loitering and soliciting for the purpose of prostitution.

Is not the largest barrier to sex workers leaving the industry the stigma that is associated with prostitution? In what way will the legislation going through the House today help to remove that stigma?

I am not sure that there will never be a stigma associated with prostitution in some people's eyes, because it raises very strong feelings. However, we are looking for a series of practical measures to bear down on the demand for prostitutes when they have been controlled for gain and, in particular, when they may have been trafficked. We are offering a way out for prostitutes who wish to exit the sex industry, and, as part of that process, we believe that orders are very important.

Amendment 6 would narrow the definition of "persistence", so that the offence of loitering and soliciting could be used to protect those found loitering and soliciting only on two occasions in one week. We believe that that would be unenforceable in terms of police resources, so we cannot accept the amendment. If someone is found loitering and soliciting within a three-month period, which is a relatively short space of time, the police should have the power to take action against them. They may receive a caution or continue to receive a fine, but they may also be able to access the help that they need. That is why the new clause would introduce a rehabilitative penalty as an alternative to a fine, allowing someone convicted of loitering and soliciting to address why they were involved in prostitution, and helping them to exit street prostitution.

The orders should be tailored to individual requirements, and a series of meetings will take place as a gateway to their accessing the help that they need. If they breach the order, which will be a part of the process that the court puts in place, they should be held accountable for it. There is a misconception that the order would criminalise further those involved in street prostitution and that, as a result of making such persons subject to an order, they would face tougher sanctions, including imprisonment, for having breached it. That is not the case. If someone breaches an order, they will be brought back before the court, but its option at that stage will be the same as its option on conviction. The court will be able to impose a fine or a new order. In deciding what sentence to impose, the court will take into account the extent to which the offender complied with the previous order. A breach will not mean further criminalisation or the imposition of tougher sanctions.

One other issue that was raised in Committee is that the provisions allow an order to be imposed without the consent of offenders. Ideally, we want people to choose to engage with support services in order to leave prostitution, but persistent involvement makes some element of compulsion necessary. The strategy encourages a diversion from the criminal justice system towards support services and, ultimately, away from prostitution. If people relapse, they should get help, but they should be pushed towards accessing that help.

The orders are an important part of the development of the Government's prostitution strategy. I have outlined the reasoning behind its introduction and some of the major concerns that were raised Committee. I hope that hon. Members will reflect on my remarks and on what the Government intend to do, and remember that we are still in listening mode.

In the Government's response to the legislative scrutiny Committee, there is a statement about the process that my hon. Friend the Minister has set out. It says that a person will end up in police detention only as a last resort, and that the period of detention will be as short as possible. Is there any estimate of the numbers that will be detained? What is the shortest estimated time scale for detention itself?

I cannot give my hon. Friend any estimates off the top of my head, but I shall find out that information for him. He will know that when similar provisions were introduced in other legislation, a time scale of 72 hours was mentioned, but it was felt to be too long. We sought to introduce the phrase "as soon as practicable" to make the time scale shorter than 72 hours. In some people's eyes, it opens up the measure to an indefinite extension, but that is not what we propose. Given that a prostitute may be picked up on a Friday, with little prospect of going before a court until the following Monday, we believe that the measure is an appropriate response.

rose—

I had finished, but I shall give my hon. Friend one last chance.

It would be really helpful if we could get as much information as possible on those estimates, and if we could get on the record what the Government mean by "as soon as practicable", because, on some interpretations, it might elongate to 72 hours. Before the Minister finishes, I should also welcome any comments on new clause 37 and the definition of a brothel.

I undertake to find out that information, and I am sure that, if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will return to the other issue that he mentioned.

The Minister's speech shows two things: first, that we had good debates in Committee, because three Ministers were willing to take interventions and have a debate, and Government amendment 47 now demonstrates that willingness at least to listen and to consider the important issues; and, secondly, the fact that the Minister spoke for almost an hour shows that before us we have an enormous group of amendments, covering a huge number of issues. I therefore hope that we will have the opportunity to decide as many of those issues as possible at the end of the debate.

I shall restrict my remarks to two new clauses that have been tabled in my name and those of Back Benchers from all parts of the House. New clause 4 relates to the decriminalisation of prostitutes under the age of 18 and the decriminalisation of the victim. Given the Government's acceptance of the need to narrow the definition of "controlled for gain" in the strict liability offence, new clause 25 deals mainly with the question of whether we should have strict liability, and with the consequent low penalties for people—men—who have sex with prostitutes whom they know to have been, or are reckless as to whether they have been, trafficked or coerced into sex.

On new clause 4, the Minister just said that he thought that there was a fine line between our two positions, but that is difficult to accept, because, regardless of whether the line is fine, our distinction is fundamental. If one believes, as I and those organisations that represent children, their welfare and their best interests do, that criminalisation of under 18-year-old prostitutes on the street puts them at greater risk of exploitation and further from help, we have a fundamental difference. There is clear evidence for the position that I and other hon. Members who tabled the new clause hold—that criminalisation is detrimental to the welfare of children and fundamentally against their rights. Although the Minister tried to make the best fist of his case for continued criminalisation, he provided no evidence to support his contention.

We need to be very clear that children's charities and human rights organisations, including the United Nations committee on the welfare of children, have for a long time sought the decriminalisation of under-18s in prostitution. Back Benchers are divided on strict liability; Fiona Mactaggart, for example, differs from me and the other Members supporting the amendment on the strict liability provision. However, there is a consensus, including the hon. Lady, that decriminalisation of prostitutes under 18 is critical.

The Standing Committee for Youth Justice represents a number of organisations, including Barnardo's, the Children's Society, the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Howard League for Penal Reform, JUSTICE, Nacro, the National Children's Bureau, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others, and they generally support decriminalisation. Why is it harmful to maintain the power to prosecute in such cases? According to the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, although the levels of prosecution for child prostitution are very low, young people on the street are not aware of that. That is damaging. What they know, or what they will be told— [Interruption.]

Order. The level of conversation among Members who have just come into the Chamber is unfair on those who have been here throughout this debate.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that they have not come to hear this debate or me, but I hope to make progress on these important matters in nine minutes.

What young people on the street know, or will be told, is that prostitution continues to be illegal and that they are therefore at risk of prosecution. That alone will make them sceptical about seeking help from the authorities.

During a Joint Committee on Human Rights visit, the hon. Gentleman and I spent an evening that I will always remember on the Via Cristoforo Colombo in Rome; we were looking at the trafficked women there. If women have been trafficked into a country, does he agree that they are even less likely to understand the laws of the land and will be even more fearful of entering into any contact with authority?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We are talking about extremely vulnerable people, regardless of whether they have been trafficked; the idea that they could be arrested rather than assisted by a police officer will be the driving force. The Standing Committee for Youth Justice also points out that research suggests that continuing to criminalise these young people in this way actively assists the controlling influence of those who exploit them.

Obviously, pimps can exercise control over the children whom they pimp by saying, "If you cross me, I will report you to the police because what you do is criminal." The young people are not in a position to know the Minister's figures, which show that only one or two people have been prosecuted for such an offence in any given year; they are in a position to hear from the pimp that they are at risk of prosecution and had better toe the line.

The literature recognises that point in respect of domestic child abuse. Such threats, even when not founded on statute, hold huge sway with vulnerable young people and children, yet the Government continue to ignore the research base. They make their own pronouncements without a shred of published evidence, or even the pretence of evidence, to back them.

The Standing Committee for Youth Justice also tells us that fear of the police can result in young people taking health risks. Young people involved in commercial sexual exploitation are less likely to carry and use condoms. They fear that if they are found with them, that will give away the fact that they are on the game. That is a problem if we want to reduce harm. That is why there is so much pressure from human rights organisations and charities for the law to be changed. We thought that we had won the argument when, during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing acknowledged that children involved in sexual exploitation are victims and that he wished to give

"a clear message that child sexual exploitation is a grave crime that will not be tolerated, and that the child is always a victim." ——[ Official Report, Criminal Justice and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2007; c. 538.]

The child is not always the victim if on occasion they can be the criminal. It does not work for the Government to say that messages are sent out. This Minister has claimed that the decriminalisation of child prostitutes would send out a message that it was okay for children, but not adults, to be prostitutes. Again, that cannot be right without the evidence.

Order. Once again, I ask all hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber and who have not been part of this debate to keep their conversations at a low level.

For the Government to rely on the assertion that reversing the criminalisation of children who are victims of exploitation sends out such a message, evidence must be provided, because the evidence base is on the other side. Similarly, a Minister has argued that pimps will seek out child prostitutes because they will not be arrested and therefore be a shelter from the law, but that also has no evidence behind it. However, the issue underpins the importance of concentrating police and criminal justice efforts at the pimps, traffickers and exploiters rather than further criminalising the vulnerable people. Furthermore, I do not believe that children or older women would be forced into street prostitution and encouraged to lie about their ages. Pimps already encourage their prostitutes to lie—that is the nature of pimping. If the new clause is agreed to, we can protect children, and that is critical.

Many hon. Members are here, and I make a plea to them. When new clause 4 is moved at the end of the debate at 9 pm, as I hope it will be, I ask them to listen to the likes of JUSTICE, the NSPCC, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Children's Rights Alliance for England and to say, "Enough is enough. It is time to do what the Government undertook to do during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008." The Minister for Children, Young People and Families said as she gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that child prostitutes are always victims and never criminals. It is time to support new clause 4 on that basis.

The case has been made overwhelmingly, even before we consider the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Evidence has been collected from children who have been prosecuted and had to live their lives with that hanging over them; that relates to the issue of stigma, mentioned by my hon. Friend Lynne Jones.

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, whose contribution to this debate has been important. I am grateful to him and Back Benchers from all parties for their support on new clause 4.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights said:

"We are therefore unconvinced by the Government's explanation of the continuing need for the criminalisation of children involved in prostitution, which is in direct opposition to the conclusions of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In particular, we are not persuaded by the assertion that the criminal justice system may be needed to enable children to access support. The provision of revised guidance is insufficient to address our central point of concern. We recommend"— as I do now—

"that the Government reconsider its opposition to decriminalising children involved in prostitution and suggest an amendment to the Bill."

In the minute that I have left, I should like to turn to new clause 25; I imagine that I will have to come back to it after the Speaker's statement. The new clause is one of the key parts of the debate. [Interruption.]

Order. Yet again, I ask the House to come to order while the hon. Gentleman is on his feet.

The House is anxious to hear the statement, and I understand that. [Interruption.] If I do not speak, someone else will, so there is no choice.

I am talking about an important matter. Hon. Members will have been lobbied about the Government's proposal for a strict liability offence that meant that paying for sex with a prostitute controlled for gain will be a criminal offence whether or not the person was aware, or should have been aware, that the prostitute was controlled for gain. The fundamental problem with that approach is that the penalty for someone who is aware that they are having sex with a trafficked or coerced woman will be a maximum fine of £1,000. The offence that I am talking about is akin to rape. It cannot be right that the Government's provisions fail to capture a person who goes on to have sex with someone, against their will, who they know has been trafficked and coerced. It is clear that that person cannot be prosecuted or convicted for rape. The Minister could provide no examples of where rape prosecution would work in the context of prostitution. New clause 25, which is supported by official Opposition Front Benchers, Liberal Democrats and Back Benchers on both sides of the House, would provide for an offence that would suitably punish people in that respect.

After the Speaker's statement, I will set out why the Government's approach is wrong and ours is right. This amendment is supported not only by those who work in prostitution but by health service workers such as those in the Royal College of Nursing, who voted by 10 to one during their last conference to oppose deeper criminalisation of the vulnerable people working in prostitution. It is supported by organisations such as Justice and Liberty, which recognise that it is fundamentally against people's human rights to be hit with a strict liability offence that criminalises them, particularly in a private matter.

Debate interrupted.