(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Disregarding convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18(1) Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is amended as follows.(2) In the heading of Chapter 4, omit “for buggery etc.”(3) For the italic heading before section 92, substitute “Sexual activity between persons of the same sex”. (4) After section 94 insert—“Loitering or soliciting: under 18s
94A Automatic disregard of convictions or cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18(1) A conviction or caution is a disregarded conviction or caution if—(a) it was for an offence under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 (loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution), and(b) the offender was aged under 18 at the time of the offence.(2) Sections 95 to 98 explain the effect of a conviction or caution being a disregarded conviction or caution.”.(5) In section 95 (effect of disregard on police and other records)—(a) before subsection (1) insert—“(A1) Subsections (1) to (4) apply in respect of a conviction or caution disregarded under section 92.”;(b) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A relevant data controller must delete from relevant official records, as soon as reasonably practicable, any details of which they are aware of a conviction or caution disregarded under section 94A.”(6) In section 99 (appeal against refusal to disregard convictions or cautions)—(a) in the heading, at the end insert “for sexual activity between persons of the same sex”;(b) in paragraph (a), after “application” insert “made under section 92”.(7) In section 100 (advisers)—(a) in the heading, at the end insert “on applications under section 92”;(b) in subsection (1), after “case” insert “under section 92”.(8) In section 101 (interpretation)—(a) in the definition of “disregarded caution”, after “which” insert “is or”;(b) in the definition of “disregarded conviction”, after “which” insert “is or”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a conviction or caution for loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution, where the offender was under 18 at the time of the offence, to be disregarded.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 308 and 309 are closely bound with Amendment 313 tabled by my noble friend Lady Goudie. If the Committee will allow me, I will ask my noble friend Lady Ritchie to speak to her amendments and on behalf of our noble friend Lady Goudie, who is unable to be here tonight. That being the case, I will then respond to both the Opposition Front Bench and any comments made by my noble friends, given that the lead amendment is mine but is very much tied up with a range of amendments. In that case, I will sit down and allow the proceedings to continue. I beg to move.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I will address the amendments in my own name, Amendments 316A and 316B, relating to prostitution, and Amendments 310 to 313 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie. I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister.
Like my noble friend Lady Goudie, I wish to address the exploitation of women and girls. As she has outlined in the amendments, which have also been signed by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, women and girls are trafficked, exploited and routinely abused in prostitution for the profit of others. I fully support all her amendments, which would finally bring laws in England and Wales into alignment with those in Northern Ireland following the work of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, when he was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The other amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie are clearly needed, as they shift the burden of criminality from vulnerable women on to the men who buy sex, the traffickers, the pimps and the platforms that facilitate and profit from prostitution. Quite simply, my noble friend Lady Goudie has my full support.
I move on to address Amendments 316A and 316B in my name. Commercial sexual exploitation is a continuum. Women move from one form of prostitution to another. For example, a women may be involved in pornography production but moves to selling sex in person or vice versa. Women often go from in-person stripping to online camming sites. I hasten to add that I do not have any particular knowledge of this issue, but I am aware of it. I thought I would add that piece of information. While the location or act may change, what rarely changes is the exploitation of the women involved.
I will focus on just one aspect of this: online sexual exploitation via camming sites. These are websites where someone is requested to perform sexual activities in front of a webcam for paying subscribers. These content creators, as they are known—although I am reluctant to use the phrase, as it diminishes the exploitation—are usually women, and the subscribers are usually men; in other words, women sell sex, and men buy it. These sites come with their own specific dangers and types of exploitation.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I speak against Amendment 310 on the prohibition of pimping. According to the Member’s explanatory statement, it would
“make it a criminal offence to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person, including by operating a website hosting adverts for prostitution”.
Specifically, the amendment would create the offence of assisting or facilitating another person to engage in sexual activity with another person in exchange for payment or other benefit, where the assister or facilitator knows or ought to know that payment for sexual activity is taking place, whether or not the person assisting or facilitating gains in any way. It would also criminalise the publishing or display of any digital advertisement for sexual activity.
The amendment conflates consensual sex work with sexual exploitation and trafficking. Adopting it would cause significant harm to sex workers. In seeking to criminalise those who facilitate the exploitation of victims of forced prostitution, which is already a crime, it would instead make sex workers’ lives more difficult and dangerous by removing their ability to advertise their services online and seek assistance or support from others in carrying out their services.
I will take those two separate elements in turn. First, on criminalising those who assist or facilitate another person engaging in sexual activity for payment where the assister or facilitator knows or ought to know that such activity is taking place, the impact of this would be disastrous for sex workers and the organisations that support them. It would mean that anybody acting to help sex workers work safely, including safety service operators such as National Ugly Mugs, would be guilty of an offence. I am sure that the intention of Amendment 310 was not to catch that, but it does.
I launched National Ugly Mugs when I was a Home Office Minister to reduce the violence that sex workers experience. The principle behind the scheme was not controversial. When a sex worker experiences violence or a threat, they can report it anonymously online. Other sex workers are therefore warned about a dodgy punter. That information, often the only line of defence, has saved lives, prevented repeated attacks and encouraged people who would never otherwise go to the police to start trusting them again. The ability to post online about a dangerous client is invaluable but would be caught by Amendment 310.
Since I launched it in 2012, National Ugly Mugs has disseminated more than 1.17 million alerts to sex workers warning of risks. Whatever one’s view of prostitution, no one should be assaulted, raped or murdered for the work they do. National Ugly Mugs was never about endorsing prostitution. It was about reducing harm and preventing homicide. The evidence is clear that where harm reduction schemes exist, sex workers are better able to report violence, share intelligence and access justice. Where they are removed, people go underground and the violence gets worse, not better.
The argument often put forward is that the Nordic or buyer criminalisation model would make the scheme unnecessary. But if you look honestly at the evidence from Sweden, Norway and France, you will see that violence did not disappear. It went into the shadows and underground. Sex workers in those countries report being more isolated, less able to screen clients and more fearful of the police. We should not repeat those mistakes here. It is a dangerous illusion to think that by abolishing the tools that keep people safe, we abolish the reality of prostitution. We do not. We simply make it more dangerous.
Amendment 310 would also criminalise family members and the extended support networks that many sex workers rely on in order to carry out their sex work, and it would criminalise the many sex workers who support other sex workers in carrying out their services. It would criminalise any business—such as banks, mobile phone providers, taxi services or web hosting providers—that knew or ought to know that it was providing services to sex workers and was thereby assisting them in carrying out their activities.
Sex workers are already among the most discriminated-against groups in the UK, suffering appalling stigma. To take just one of the examples set out above, the Financial Conduct Authority recently warned financial institutions not to close the bank accounts of those they suspect or know are carrying out sex work because of the significant harm caused by doing so. Providing a sex worker with a bank account enables them to receive payment for sexual services, and this would clearly be caught by the Bill because it is facilitating or assisting the sex worker in carrying out their work.
The amendment would compel banks to close sex workers’ accounts and would perpetuate such harm. The net result of the amendment would be to shut sex workers out of the economy and prevent them accessing the services and support they need to work safely, pushing them into more dangerous and more difficult working environments. The displacement of sex workers away from the support services they rely on would make it more difficult for sex workers to survive and make it more challenging for those who care about and serve those communities to locate and to help them.
My second issue is the move to criminalise the publishing or display of any advertisement for sexual activity. This section of the amendment seeks to criminalise the operations of the adult service websites, ASWs, and make it impossible for sex workers to advertise online. In the modern world, most sex workers do use adult service websites to advertise their services, and working in that way means that sex workers remain in control of the services they offer and the environment in which they work, and can take steps to screen the clients they are planning to meet in advance of doing so. For example, they can take ID information and/or prepayment, and use online checking tools such as the National Ugly Mugs scheme, which I launched, to see whether the phone number or email address contacting them has previously been linked to violent or abusive behaviour.
Supporters of the amendment will argue that because traffickers also attempt to use these platforms to advertise those they are criminally exploiting, they should be outlawed. However, outlawing the means for sex workers to advertise would not remove the sex workers themselves. They would instead be forced to adopt new approaches to sourcing clients, and that would have four main effects.
First, as evidenced by outcomes in other countries, online advertising for sex work would still exist but in a different form. Rather than sex workers advertising themselves openly as providing sexual services, they would instead advertise non-sexual companionship or massage services in such a way as to give the website proprietor grounds to demonstrate that they do not know that sexual activities are being advertised. This would make it harder to identify and provide outreach and support to those who are, in reality, carrying out sex work, and harder for law enforcement to screen adverts and assess risk.
Secondly, it would mean that advertising would be pushed to less visible areas of the internet, such as private messaging groups, social media and the dark web, where it would be out of sight of law enforcement and those seeking to provide support services to sex workers. UK national policing agencies have made clear that for this reason they do not support the outlawing of adult sex websites.
Thirdly, some ASWs would instead move offshore and carry on business out of reach of UK policing. They would also stop providing evidential materials to UK law enforcement, making it harder for police to investigate and prosecute genuine cases.
Fourthly, it would increase the levels of danger facing sex workers by forcing them off the internet and on to the streets. On-street work is universally acknowledged as being far more dangerous than online. In this scenario, sex buyers would hold all the power in negotiations and those who seek to harm sex workers would have greater opportunities to do so.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the explanations of their amendments. I support the Government’s Amendments 308 and 309 for reasons that will be explained by the Minister. I go further and support the Amendments 312 and 313, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. It must be so difficult for social workers and charities to steer sex workers away to a better life if they have to admit to these offences when seeking legitimate or conventional employment, when they have not even been found to be dishonest. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, in her Amendment 316B for the reasons that she explained. This is yet another online problem.
I am afraid that I cannot support Amendments 310 and 311, which seek to make buying or organising the provision of sexual services illegal. I come at this from a similar position to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone.
In the recent past, and for centuries before, we erroneously thought that we needed to stamp out gay sex because we did not like it. Thanks to the effort of great campaigners, people like me now recognise that the policy was absolutely bonkers. We made otherwise law-abiding citizens out to be criminals, we turned patriots into security risks, and we made sure that around 5% of the population could never reach their full potential—and we hurt them. We made sure that gay people could not have stable relationships, which then caused a variety of health issues for both the gay and the straight communities. We do much the same with prostitution.
We have an especially nasty name for sex workers—we call them prostitutes or worse. However, quite a lot of people, mainly men, are happy to use them for a variety of reasons—some understandable and some not so good. We do everything that we can to make it a dirty, horrible, seedy, disgusting business, in the vain hope that doing so will reduce the problem. It does anything but.
We ensure that only criminals can engage in managing the paid-for sex business, just like the drug trade. Worse still, and just like homophobia, we create a health problem with sexually transmitted diseases, when we could minimise the problem if we so desired. The noble Baroness explained the logic behind her amendments. If the policy were successful, there is no doubt that it would be a great moral success. However, to be successful, the police would have to devote huge resources to absolutely stamp out prostitution in the UK, and I am not confident that they can.
I see considerable problems with these amendments. The first is around the safety of sex workers, and the noble Baroness touched on this. I would imagine that, very often, appointments are made via an ordinary mobile phone. If something goes horribly wrong with the encounter, no doubt the police can access the mobile phone records and use relevant detection techniques. Sex workers can currently identify regular, and therefore safe, clients. If these amendments became law, clients would not use their main mobile; they would surely use burner phones, regularly change them and turn them on only at railway stations and the like. Of course, this activity would no longer be a red flag; it would be quite understandable. If the booking is online, clients would use a website that might be far away from the UK, in authorities such as Russia or the Far East. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, talked with great knowledge about this issue. It would lead to significant cyber and espionage risks compared with sex workers using certain well-known UK sites.
One would hope that someone who acquires a sexually transmitted disease would be honest with the health professionals seeking to identify the source of the infection, particularly if it were hard to treat. If the amendment is accepted, very few clients would agree to reveal that they have paid for sex, where and with whom.
I can understand why the noble Baroness has sought extraterritorial jurisdiction. If she did not, we would be exporting our problems—if they are problems—to another country, which might be as close as Germany, for instance, which has for many years done what I am about to propose. If the police are given concrete evidence that this offence has been committed somewhere on the continent, are they going to go in hot pursuit? I am not sure that the police in Berlin, for instance, would be very helpful, given that it is not an offence there.
When certain state employees are security vetted, it is necessary to understand the applicant’s sexuality because it could obviously be a major vulnerability, but there is never a problem if the applicant is honest and candid, and the vetting team is not easily shocked. However, it would be a problem if the applicant admits to serious criminal offences. If they successfully lie to the vetting team, they make themselves a security risk.
Unlike the online problems that we have been discussing, we are talking about the world’s oldest profession. If we think that we have stamped it out, we may only have driven it deep underground, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. Those seeking paid sex would have to use dangerous IT solutions, which would leave them, and possibly their employers, much more vulnerable to cyber attacks and blackmail. The sex workers involved would be involved in a very serious criminal undertaking—not just, as at the moment, perhaps three girls setting up a flat together.
What is to be done to address the ills that the noble Baroness has so skilfully articulated? I do not disagree with her analysis of the problem and the evils. Hitherto in the UK, we have taken a priggish and prudish attitude to these matters and made things far worse, just as we did with gay people. The answer is that we should regulate, license and tax this activity, just as we do with alcohol. We should license establishments, whether large or small—the larger establishments could be discreetly located so that they do not interfere with the local community. We should ensure that sex workers never again have to give the majority of their earnings to an immoral criminal who will abuse them if they do not. The economics of the profession would be favourable for sex workers if there were no immoral parasites involved. We should ensure that criminals are not able to be involved in the business at all. We should license sex workers to ensure that they have not been trafficked and are not being coerced into the business. This policy would make it far more difficult to force people into the business and would drastically reduce the risks for sex workers.
If we went down this route, there would be significant benefits apart from the tax take, which would be significant. We could require regular health checks and make sure that any drug dependencies were properly managed. We could make this a condition of the personal licence. It is reasonable to argue that sex workers would not have to entertain so many clients in a day, and in any case, as I have suggested, it would be a far less sordid activity for all. If the Minister is cautious in his response to these amendments, I will gladly support him.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a thoughtful and at points sobering debate on this group of amendments. Each amendment has been brought forward with a genuine desire to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society, a shared goal among all of us.
On Amendments 308 and 309 in the name of the Minister, I of course understand and respect the intention that lies behind them, which is to ensure that individuals who were exploited as children, often in circumstances of profound vulnerability, are not burdened in adulthood by convictions or cautions that arose from their victimisation. We share the Minister’s desire to protect children from such exploitation and absolutely recognise that those under 18 involved in prostitution can very often be victims.
The amendments as drafted would create an automatic disregard or pardon for every offence of loitering or soliciting committed under the age of 18. Will the Minister explain whether a blanket approach of this kind is the right mechanism? Young people under 18 can be convicted of a wide range of offences, many of which the law rightly considers on a case-by-case basis with great care and nuance. It is not immediately clear why this category of offence should be given automatic treatment when others are subject to a case-by-case consideration. I totally accept that that is a difficult question. While we are very sympathetic to the concerns that underpin the amendments, we hope to hear from the Minister a more detailed rationale for them.
Amendments 310 and 311, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, raise significant issues about the role of those who enable, promote or profit from prostitution, including through online platforms, and about the criminal liability of those who pay for sexual services. Again, we absolutely support the underlying principle that exploitation, whether offline or online, must be robustly tackled and that those who profit from the abuse or commodification of vulnerable people should face meaningful consequences. The growth of online facilitation has created new and disturbing avenues for exploitation, and we support efforts to ensure that our legislative framework keeps pace with these developments.
However, the approach that the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, has suggested through these amendments, which is effectively to repeal the current offences in the Street Offences Act and replace them with the new offences in her amendments, is a very wide-ranging change to the law. Such a sweeping and significant alteration to our legal framework should not be undertaken, in our view, without a serious consideration of the impact and should be the subject of a serious examination, consultation with the police and other groups and the publication of proposals by the Home Office. It is not a change that we can simply make on a whim.
Finally, Amendments 316A and 316B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, concern the rapidly evolving landscape of online sexual exploitation. We share the noble Baroness’s concern about the ways in which digital platforms can facilitate harmful or coercive practices and about the need to ensure that those who profit from the exploitation of vulnerable individuals are held to account. We recognise the seriousness of the issues that she has raised this evening and the need for continued work to ensure that offenders cannot simply exploit technological advances to evade scrutiny or sanction. I hope the Government will consider these amendments very carefully.
There is clear recognition of the need to strengthen protections for vulnerable people and to ensure that those who exploit them, whether in person or online, are met with the full force of the law. I look forward to continuing discussions with the Government as the Bill progresses and to hearing from the Minister tonight so that we can ensure that the legislation is robust and proportionate and delivers the protections that victims so clearly deserve.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the problem of prostitution has been around since biblical times. I can understand why the noble Lord might not be very supportive of Amendments 310 and 311, but does my noble friend on the Front Bench not offer any solution to the problem of prostitution?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for that question. I have made the position of the Front Bench clear and think it is now for the Minister to answer such a testing question.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick for commencing this discussion and debate. A number of views have been expressed in Committee today and some go wider than the amendments that are before us. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, raised a number of issues which go beyond what is before us. My noble friend Lady Ritchie also touched on the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie. It is clear that there are differing views in the Committee—from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, on the Front Bench opposite—which tells me that this is a truly complex area where there are very different legislative options open and where the Government need to consider very carefully what needs to be done.
The Government are absolutely committed to tackling the harms associated with prostitution and sexual exploitation, including where it takes place online. This is an important part of our work on tackling violence against women and girls which, as colleagues in the Committee will know, is a top government priority, and about which we will be saying more shortly. But we need to look at the evidence. We have limited evidence as to what will most effectively reduce demand for prostitution and disrupt exploitation without—and this is the key point that came out of some of the contributions—unintentionally causing harm to victims and survivors and making life more difficult for those who choose that lifestyle. I say to my noble friend that the Government are not in a position to accept the amendments today, but I want to make it absolutely clear that we are in the business of taking steps to tackle sexual exploitation and to gather evidence to inform further interventions in the future.
Amendment 310 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie would make it an offence to assist, facilitate, or control the prostitution of another person, regardless of whether the individual secures any personal gain from this facilitation. The broad wording of this offence could—and again this echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, said—have an adverse consequence for people who choose to be engaged in prostitution, for example, by criminalising professionals such as healthcare support workers, charities which provide sexually transmitted infections testing or those providing contraception or safety planning. The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, made a compelling case around some of the issues that the Government have reflected on in relation to that amendment. My noble friend Lady Goudie’s amendment would also make it a criminal offence to operate a website hosting adverts for prostitution, and I will come back to that again in a moment, if I may.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie, in Amendments 316A and 316B, would introduce new criminal offences to tackle the sale of personalised sexual content online, including audiovisual and visual content. Amendment 316A would make it an offence to own, manage or facilitate one of these online platforms, while Amendment 316B would create an offence of causing or inciting an individual to sell personalised sexual content on these platforms. It would also introduce a duty on the online platform to remove personalised sexual content within 24 hours if an individual is convicted of the offence and if an individual who is incited to sell the content has requested its removal.
The Government recognise very strongly that we need to take action to tackle these websites. The so-called pimping websites need to be addressed and tackled. However, I would argue that criminalising those websites may have safety implications for people who sell sex and may result in displacement to on-street prostitution, which is more dangerous for individuals. It may also disrupt policing operations. The police can scan adult service websites for signs of vulnerability and exploitation and to gain data to support criminal investigations.
I accept that members of the Committee might want government Ministers to say that, but Changing Lives, an organisation supporting people who have been sexually exploited, also advocates against criminalising adult service websites. Instead, it is calling for stronger regulation, more referral mechanisms and more funding to support people affected by exploitation.
Amendment 311 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie would make it an offence for an individual to pay for or attempt to pay for sex either for themselves or on behalf of others. The Government have looked in detail at this approach in other countries which have taken it and have seen indications that the law can be misused to harass and victimise people engaged in prostitution. Again, that is a matter for debate and discussion, but that is the view the Government currently take.
Amendment 312, in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie, would repeal the offence in Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 which criminalises a person aged 18 or over who persistently loiters or solicits
“in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution”.
Amendment 313 would disregard prior convictions and cautions. There may be some common ground here, because I absolutely recognise the concern that this offence may criminalise vulnerable individuals and restrict their opportunities for employment. However, I am also mindful that on-street prostitution can have an impact on local communities, and it is important that we consider their views.
My noble friend Lady Goudie, were she able to be here, would say that the criminal law rightly evolved in 2015 to make it clear that children cannot be prostitutes and that any child who is paid in exchange for sex is clearly a victim of child sexual exploitation. Therefore, I would argue that it is long overdue that individuals issued cautions or convictions for the offence in Section 1 of the Street Offences Act before 2015 have their criminal records expunged.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked for details. I simply repeat: children cannot be prostitutes. Children who are paid in exchange for sex are clearly victims of sexual exploitation. The records currently in place provide significant barriers to the employment and psychological rehabilitation of those who are now adults. It is important that we look at the long-term consequences of those incidences and help support them in rebuilding their lives. That is why we have tabled government Amendment 308, which will disregard convictions and cautions for Section 1 offences issued to under 18s. Amendment 309 will provide pardons for such convictions and cautions.
In each case, what we have tried to do—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will reflect on this—is to ensure that the disregard and pardon are automatic. We do not want to retraumatise victims and survivors of childhood abuse by requiring them to go through an application process. I asked today in our internal Home Office discussions how many individuals this could impact. We have looked at the figures for the last 30 years and assess that 350 to 352 individuals would fall under the auspices of that. Someone aged under 18 30 years ago is now approaching their 50s. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that for that person an offence committed as a child would still be on their record. Something they maybe did not have responsibility for at the time would therefore impact upon their employment and life chances. Therefore, I would welcome his support for that repeal.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I entirely support what the Minister is putting forward. Is it the intention of the Home Office to track down these 350 or so individuals and notify them of the consequences of this legislation when it is enacted?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We will reflect on that, but, as I said, the disregard and pardon will be automatic, so it will happen if the Bill receives the support of both Houses and Royal Assent. I will reflect on what the noble Lord said, because there may be an opportunity to consider that. However, I do not want to commit to it today, because we do not necessarily know where someone who was that age in 1995 is now—the address, contact details and so on might all be different. The key point is that this is an automatic disregard for those individuals, so if publicity is given to this new clause and the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will potentially lift a burden for those who were under 18 at the time.
The Government cannot share in the support for repeal of the Section 1 offence for those over 18, and I can give reasons for that. We will consider in future, if the Section 1 offence is repealed in its entirety, whether the disregard and pardon should be extended to adults, because that is a separate issue. However, today I wanted to focus on those under 18.
Earl Attlee (Con)
Will the Minister consider separating the disregard and the pardon?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am trying to think how that would impact upon the issue we are talking about today. In effect, the disregard and pardon will be automatic for people under the age of 18. I will look at what the noble Earl said and discuss it with Home Office colleagues in that context.
As I have rejected the amendments in the name of my noble friend, I reassure her that there is a range of ongoing work to tackle sexual exploitation, and our intention is to continue working with the police, charities and those affected to ensure that we take action. It is important that we draw attention—as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, did—to online platforms’ legal duties under the Online Safety Act 2023, which came into play on 17 March. That Act sets out priority offences that platforms must take additional steps to tackle. In addition, I hope it will help my noble friend Lady Ritchie to know that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence to cause, incite or control prostitution for gain. Those offences, together with human trafficking offences, are priority offences under the 2023 Act.
As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, indicated, platforms should now already be completing risk assessments and implementing measures to mitigate against the risk of their services being used for illegal activity and having illegal content present. Ofcom is providing recommended measures for compliance through the illegal content codes, and platforms must be able to demonstrate the measures they have taken to comply with their duties. Very significant fines of 10% of global revenue are in place, or, in extreme cases, business disruption measures.
To show that we are not ignoring the issues my noble friend has raised, I also point out that we have introduced provisions in Schedule 13 that will enable law enforcement agencies to apply to the courts to temporarily suspend for up to 12 months IP and domain names used for serious crimes such as sexual exploitation. We are also working closely with the police and other law enforcement partners to ensure that the laws we already have are effectively enforced.
Through our law enforcement partners, we are running a pilot whereby adverts are referred to the Home Office- funded Tackling Organised Exploitation Programme to consider if offences have been committed on adult service websites. In addition, as my noble friend has mentioned, our law enforcement partners are working closely with Ofcom on the issue of adult service websites to ensure that the right measures are put in place to identify and remove illegal content and safeguard people from sexual exploitation.
It may help my noble friend to know that we are providing £450,000 to the National Police Chiefs’ Council this year to pilot a national law enforcement intelligence and investigation hub for sexual exploitation, collating information on victims and perpetrators. We are also providing £475,000 to Changing Lives to provide support to those affected by sexual exploitation.
I hope the Committee can reflect on this difficult and challenging topic. I commend Amendments 308 and 309 to the Committee. I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed—
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Picking up what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said about licensing sex workers, I wonder whether the Minister knows what goes on in Holland, where each individual woman is licensed as an individual business. I walked through the red-light district of a small town and saw women in all the windows, and I was told by a local Dutch councillor that all of them had pimps. They were either on the phone to their pimp or the curtains were pulled. So I suggest that licensing does not stop pimping.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for that. As I said, the Home Office has examined and looked at a range of alternative methods of regulation and legislation from other countries. The issue of licensing is outside these amendments and the legislative proposals in the Bill, so I do not wish to go down that route today. But obviously we look at all experiences. Our main objective is to ensure that we support, and protect the safety of, individuals who choose to involve themselves in this work, and at the same time to ensure that no harm comes to wider society as a result of those actions. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this today, but it is not an issue that I can explore at this moment, for the reasons I have outlined.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Pardons for convictions and cautions for loitering or soliciting when under 18(1) The Policing and Crime Act 2017 is amended as follows.(2) After section 165 insert—“165A Pardons for convictions etc for loitering or soliciting when under 18: England and Wales(1) Subsection (2) applies in respect of a person (whether living or deceased) who—(a) was convicted of, or cautioned for, an offence under section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959 (loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution), and(b) was aged under 18 at the time of the offence.(2) The person is pardoned for the offence.(3) Expressions used in this section or section 167(1) (so far as relating to this section) and in Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have the same meaning in this section or (as the case may be) section 167(1) as in that Chapter (see section 101 of that Act).”.(3) In section 167 (sections 164 to 166: supplementary)—(a) in subsection (1) for “or 165” substitute “, 165 or 165A”;(b) in subsection (2) for “or 165” substitute “, 165 or 165A”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for pardons for persons convicted of or cautioned for loitering or soliciting for the purpose of prostitution when they were under 18.
Baroness Brinton
“Commencement of the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act(1) Section 4 of the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) Leave out subsection (3) and insert—“(3) Sections 1, 2 and 3 come into force on the day that the Crime and Policing Act 2025 receives Royal Assent.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause automatically commences the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 when the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent, removing the need for regulations to bring the Act into force. The Act criminalises the public harassment of individuals where that harassment is based on an individual’s sex.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 315 seeks to do something very simple but long overdue: automatically commence the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 when the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent. The Act requires the Government to pass a statutory instrument to commence its provisions. We have been waiting two years now for this SI, so the Act is not in force. Of the four sections in the Act, the only one in force is Section 4, on the extent, commencement and Short Title of the Act.
As with other groups this evening, this amendment has a cross-party background. It is worth noting and giving credit to Greg Clark, the former MP for Tunbridge Wells, because this was his Private Member’s Bill, sponsored by him and given time by the then Conservative Government. Greg said he had heard some harrowing experiences of school students in his constituency. It is really shocking that one in three girls reports being sexually harassed while wearing a school uniform. In our society in 2025, that is unacceptable. The 2023 Act creates a new specific offence of harassment on account of an individual’s sex.
The amendment to this Bill was tabled in the Commons by my honourable friend Mike Martin MP, who is now the MP for Tunbridge Wells. Like Greg Clark, Mike Martin believes that the Government need to create the statutory instrument to bring it into effect, but there has been nothing other than warm words from Ministers—no action has happened. The Act criminalises harassing, following, shouting degrading words or making obscene gestures at women and girls in public places with the deliberate intention of causing them harm or distress. This offence will carry a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment and under the Government’s new proposal would clearly still come under the magistrates’ courts, whereas in the past it would have not been able to, but would have had to go to a Crown Court. As Mike Martin MP said in the Commons debate, sexual harassment is a blot on our society.
The statistics are damning. Some 71% of women in the UK have experienced sexual harassment in public; this rises to 86% among women aged 18 to 24. The lack of action from this Government on ending the sexual harassment of women, especially young women, is not good. Mike Martin MP tabled a Written Question on this back in the spring, and the Government said then that they would publish their next steps. However, more recently, the Government said that it will be done in due course. To be honest, this sounds as though it is further away than the next-steps offer made earlier this year. The amendment says that now is the time.
Greg Clark’s Private Member’s Bill had cross-party support and this amendment also had cross-party support when the Bill was debated in the Commons. I worry that this Government cannot deliver on their manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls when they will not take this straightforward first step to challenge and prevent the appalling sex-based harassment that continues to be so evident everywhere in the UK. I look forward to the Minister’s reply but, above all, I urge that now is the time for action on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness’s amendment for the reasons she gives and for a further reason, which is that I deprecate the practice of Ministers of all Governments of not bringing into force legislation which has been enacted by Parliament. Parliament intends legislation to come into effect; otherwise, we are wasting our time debating and approving it. Parliament enacts legislation to address a mischief, as, in this case, the mischief that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has identified. Of course, I understand that sometimes time is needed to prepare for the effects of legislation, perhaps because implementing regulations are needed, but after two years, it is high time for this legislation to come into force.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this amendment exposes the indefensible gap between Parliament’s clear intent and women’s lived reality. The new offence was deliberately framed to capture deliberate, targeted and deeply damaging conduct, with a suitably serious maximum penalty, but without commencement, there are no consequences for offenders and no visible progress for the public. The Government’s delay sits uneasily alongside their stated ambition to halve violence against women and girls, particularly given previous assurances that implementation would follow swiftly as part of their wider strategy.
From these Benches, the message is simple: Parliament has already done the hard work in legislating; what is now required is immediate commencement, not further consultation or prevarication, so that this cross-party achievement can finally begin to offer real protection on the streets and in public spaces.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for moving this amendment, which, as she says, seeks to accelerate the commencement of the 2023 Act. The intention behind the amendment is clear and wholly understandable: to ensure that victims of sex-based harassment benefit from protections that Parliament has already approved, and to do so without further delay.
Without doubt, there is a shared desire across this House to see individuals, particularly women and girls, better protected from harassment in public spaces, and while I entirely understand that commencement provisions often involve important practical and operational considerations, including the readiness of policing and guidance frameworks, and that there has to be an explanation of the implications of altering the timetable set out in the original Act, we on these Benches recognise the motivation behind the amendment and the concerns that it seeks to address.
If the Government do not agree with the amendment, we look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress there has been towards commencement and whether the approach proposed here would assist the effective implementation of the Act’s provisions.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising the important issue of public sexual harassment. As has been discussed, Amendment 315 seeks to automatically commence the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 when the Crime and Policing Bill receives Royal Assent. I remind the Committee that this Government have been responsible for periods of activity since July 2024, not for two years. As members of the Committee will know, tackling public sexual harassment is an important part of the Government’s mission to halve the levels of violence against women and girls in a decade.
As the Committee knows, and as I have said on numerous occasions, including today, the new violence against women and girls strategy is to be produced as soon as possible. It will include a range of actions to tackle sexual harassment. I reassure the noble Baroness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, that the measures we are developing within this to address sex-based harassment include options for commencement of the 2023 Act.
I echo fully the sentiments of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and agree that timely implementation of legislation is an important principle to follow. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that, if we pass legislation, we must look to introduce it. The Government have heard what noble Lords have said: namely, that we need to set a timeline for the commencement of the 2023 Act. It is important to fully consider the issues of implementation of the new offence, including engagement with the police and operational partners. We want to ensure that, when the offence comes into force, it is used often and well.
I assure all noble Lords who have spoken today that the Government intend to commence this offence as soon as is reasonably practicable. By bringing the provisions of the 2023 Act into force through the usual commencement regulations, we can ensure that this can be timed so that the police and others are ready. Accordingly, I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary. I ask the noble Baroness to be patient and wait for our violence against women and girls strategy, which will appear in short order. In the meantime, I hope she is content to withdraw the amendment.
I say that because we are looking at options to commence the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023. We believe that it will tackle this issue and ensure that women feel safer on our streets. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as with all primary legislation, we need a preparatory period, but my officials in the Home Office, along with my ministerial colleagues, are working through the next steps. We are taking the time to get this right. I assure noble Lords that we will provide an update in due course and that they will not have too long to wait.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am struggling to get what I have just heard right. Earlier this evening, we discussed a number of amendments in which we were not supported because we expect to see the strategy on violence against women and girls. This is completely different. There is legislation that is on the books but has not been commenced. Can the Minister explain why it cannot be commenced now? It is a completely different issue from what is going to be in the strategy, where there may be surprises. The Minister has told us that it will be commenced. What is the delay?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are looking with police and other partners at the stage at which we wish to commence the legislation. We have been in office since July last year; my honourable friend Jess Phillips, the Minister for Safeguarding, is undertaking a considerable amount of work to pull together the strategy, which we expect to be able to announce in very short order. As part of that strategy, we are looking at a range of measures, including harassment. I accept that that is on the statute book now, but it is important that we produce a package of measures that is whole and includes a range of things, which I am not at liberty to talk about today but are in genesis for the violence against women and girls strategy that we will publish shortly.
We are now in Committee. Report will happen at a later stage in this Session. I very much expect that by then we will have published our violence against women and girls strategy, and I hope that at that stage the noble Baroness will not need to look at pressing this amendment further. For the time being, I ask her to give us time to consult further, make sure we implement this correctly and allow the violence against women and girls strategy to be published. I would be grateful if she would not push her amendment at this stage but reflect on what I have said. If not, we will return to this in due course.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his response, even if I am still somewhat bemused about the hierarchy of decisions going on in relation to this Bill when there is actually something on the books. However, I will hold him to his word. If we do not have clear indications of the VAWG strategy and when things will happen by, I will bring back an amendment on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Black of Brentwood
“Animal sexual abuse(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).(2) For section 69 (intercourse with an animal) substitute—“69 Animal sexual abuse(1) A person commits an offence of animal sexual abuse if they—(a) intentionally engage in sexual activity with an animal, whether penetrative or non-penetrative,(b) cause, coerce or permit another person (including a child) to engage in such activity with an animal, or(c) cause, coerce or permit an animal to be used for the purpose of sexual gratification, whether their own or another’swhether that animal is living or dead.(2) For the purposes of this section, “sexual activity” includes—(a) penetration, or an attempt to penetrate the vagina or anus by a penis or other body part as well as by the use of objects;(b) sexual touching or stimulation of an animal;(c) the sexual stimulation of a person through contact with an animal;(d) any other act undertaken for the purpose of sexual gratification of a person involving or directed at an animal.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the animal concerned and any dependent offspring, including—(a) depriving the offender of ownership of the animal and for its disposal, including by sale, gift, rehoming or destruction;(b) appointing a person to carry out, or arrange for the carrying out of, the order.(5) The court may also make an order under this section (a “disqualification order”) in the terms set out in section 34(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, prohibiting the offender from one or more of the following—(a) owning animals;(b) keeping animals;(c) participating in the keeping of animals;(d) being party to an arrangement under which they are entitled to control or influence the way in which animals are kept;(e) dealing in animals;(f) transporting animals.(6) A disqualification order under subsection (5)—(a) must specify the period for which it has effect, including for life, and(b) shall be treated for all purposes as if made under section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. (7) A court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may also order that the offender be subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of this Act.(8) Where a court decides not to make an order under subsection (4), (5) or (7) in relation to an offender, it must—(a) give its reasons for the decision in open court, and(b) if it is a magistrates’ court, cause them to be entered in the register of its proceedings.”.(3) The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is amended as follows.(4) In section 63 (extreme pornographic images), omit subsection (7)(d) and insert—“(d) a person engaging in sexual activity with an animal whether dead or alive, whether penetrative or non-penetrative,”.(5) In section 67(5)(a) (penalties etc. for extreme pornographic images), after “63(7)(a)” omit “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (d)”.(6) After section 67(5), insert—“(6) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 63(7)(d), the court may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the animal concerned and any dependent offspring, including—(a) depriving the offender of ownership of the animal and for its disposal, including by sale, gift, rehoming or destruction;(b) appointing a person to carry out, or arrange for the carrying out of, the order.(7) The court may also make an order in relation to an offence under section 63(7)(d) (a “disqualification order”) in the terms set out in section 34(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, prohibiting the offender from one or more of the following—(a) owning animals;(b) keeping animals;(c) participating in the keeping of animals;(d) being party to an arrangement under which they are entitled to control or influence the way in which animals are kept;(e) dealing in animals;(f) transporting animals.(8) A disqualification order under subsection (7)—(a) must specify the period for which it has effect, including for life, and(b) shall be treated for all purposes as if made under section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.(9) A court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under section 63(7)(d) may also order that the offender be subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.(10) Where a court decides not to make an order under subsection (6), (7) or (9) in relation to an offender, it must—(a) give its reasons for the decision in open court, and(b) if it is a magistrates' court, cause them to be entered in the register of its proceedings.”.(7) In section 34(10) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, at end insert, “and section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and section 67(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands and clarifies two distinct but related offences: 1. Animal sexual abuse offences – covering direct acts of sexual abuse or exploitation of animals; and 2. Offences involving images of animal sexual abuse – covering the creation, possession, and distribution of extreme pornographic material depicting sexual acts with animals.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 316 stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. They are all passionate supporters of animal welfare and I have had the pleasure of working with them on a number of important issues in the past. I am delighted to be able to do so again and thank them for their support. I am very grateful to the Animal Related Crime Working Group of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences for all the work it has done on this subject, along with other animal welfare charities including Cats Protection and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home.
Animal sexual abuse—to which, with apologies to my good friends at the Advertising Standards Authority, I will for ease refer to as ASA—is not an easy subject to address. It takes us to some dark places, evil crimes and some of the most depraved aspects of humanity. But it is vital that we discuss it in the context of this important Bill and take the opportunity to clarify and toughen the law.
We should do so in part because of the animal welfare issues. Animals subject to ASA often suffer terrible injuries or die. The lives of those that survive are damaged and they are scared and alone, with the perpetrators of these wicked crimes often those who should be caring for them. To harm a defenceless animal is one of the most terrible acts of cruelty imaginable and deserves to be dealt with by deploying the full force of the law. But it would be quite wrong to think of this as just a niche animal welfare matter, crucial though that is. The unpalatable and often unspoken truth is that this is a far more widespread issue about safeguarding, sitting four-square at the intersection of sexual offending, child protection, coercive control and domestic abuse.
Before I come on to the position of the law and why and how it needs to change, it is crucial to set out the background, because the evidence of the links between ASA and other serious offending, often involving children, is deeply disturbing. While evidence from the UK is sparse because of the difficulty of collecting data under current legislation, international studies underline the seriousness of the issues involved. A major study of ASA arrests over four decades in the United States found that nearly a third of animal sex offenders had also sexually offended against children and adults. Over half had prior or subsequent criminal records for human sexual abuse, ASA, interpersonal violence or related offences. A scoping review in 2024 found similarly consistent evidence that animal cruelty frequently co-occurs with intimate partner violence and child maltreatment, reinforcing the point that ASA is often part of a wider pattern of family violence.
Here in the UK, the charity Naturewatch Foundation has analysed prosecutions under Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which covers the possession of extreme pornographic images. It found that in the two years of 2019 and 2020, on 73% of occasions where child sex abuse had occurred, ASA was present in the same case. Its written evidence to an inquiry by the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee summarises research showing that animal abuse occurs in around half of households that are affected by domestic abuse where there is also an animal on the premises. In one study, 71% of domestic abuse victims reported that the perpetrator also abused pets. That is sickening.
There are significant concerns regarding the use of extreme pornography, which has already been widely debated in Committee and which I have discussed with my noble friend Lady Bertin, who is supportive of this amendment. Here, a study reviewing FoI data provided by police forces across England and Wales and by the CPS found that nearly three quarters of extreme pornography cases involved ASA.
This issue is therefore clearly not just one about animal welfare, vital though that is. As a predictor offence, a red flag for broader sexual and domestic offending, it is about serious harm to often very vulnerable groups of people, and the law is currently not dealing with it effectively or comprehensively, or with the gravity it deserves. That has to change, which is why I have brought this amendment forward. To be legislating as we are on sexual offending and public protection without addressing these known gaps on ASA would be a serious missed opportunity, and in my view negligent on our behalf. It fits naturally with the structure of the Bill, as Part 5 deals with sexual offending, digital harms, sentencing and offender management, all covered by this amendment.
Let me say a word about the law as it stands. Currently, there is no clearly defined crime in law of animal sexual abuse, including under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Offences are covered by two separate pieces of legislation. Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 relates to intercourse with an animal, but is limited in scope, covering only penile penetration. The maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment on indictment. In the last full year, according to figures that the Minister kindly let me have in reply to a Written Question, there were no cases proceeded against and only one the year before. Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 covers the possession of extreme pornographic images. These cover acts of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, whether dead or alive, and non-consensual penetration of a person’s vagina or anus by an animal.
In short, existing legislation is fragmented, imprecise, ineffective and incomplete. It is far too narrowly focused, failing adequately to reflect the range of behaviours encountered in modern police investigations, with many sexual acts falling outside of scope. Image-based offences are prosecuted under legislation designed for a very different digital age from the one we live in. All that causes real problems for the police, the CPS and the courts, which do not have the certainty and powers to investigate, prosecute and sentence. As a result, far too many heinous crimes are inevitably going unpunished. Even more importantly, far too many vulnerable people are being left at risk of sexual offences or domestic abuse because red flags and predictor offences were not registered and managed properly.
To deal with all this, my amendment would create two linked offences. First, it would create a comprehensive offence of animal sexual abuse, which would cover penetrative and non-penetrative sexual acts, including acts committed for sexual gratification whether or not there is physical penetration, and situations where children or others are involved or made to witness the abuse. The maximum penalty would be five years’ imprisonment, which is proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and aligned with comparable sexual offences.
The second is a separate offence relating to images of ASA in line with the structure and sentencing framework of Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, carrying a maximum of three years’ imprisonment. This would close the gap where images of ASA sit at the margins of extreme pornography, despite clear overlap in practice with child sexual abuse material.
The amendment would also equip the courts with: safeguarding tools that are already familiar in other sexual offending contexts; disqualification orders under Section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, preventing future ownership or control of animals where appropriate; deprivation and disposal powers in respect of animals used in the commission of the offence; and the application of the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, so that the most serious offences can be monitored in the same way as other sexual offenders. All those would be discretionary—rightly preserving judicial flexibility—but crucially, they would ensure that, when the courts identify a pattern of offending, they have the tools they need to manage the risk to children, partners and animals.
The heart of the amendment, which is based on peer-reviewed research and evidence to Parliament, is about improving protection for both animals and vulnerable people. In line with existing sentencing and notification frameworks, it would ensure that those who commit these heinous offences can be properly prosecuted, monitored and managed. It would prevent so much suffering. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. If the Government have any concerns about the wording, perhaps the Minister will be able to work with me and colleagues across the Committee to ensure we achieve robust modern animal sexual abuse provisions and include them in the Bill.
Finally, I will briefly say a few words about Amendments 316ZA to 316ZE, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, from whom we will hear in a moment. I know that he is a great champion of animal welfare, and it has been a pleasure to work with him in the past on important legislation. He is a great campaigner and champion. I know that he agrees with me on the principles involved here and the substance of the amendment; the issue is simply about terminology and the use of the word “bestiality”. He raises an important point, and I am glad that we will have the opportunity briefly to discuss it.
From my own discussions, I understand that the veterinary forensic and safeguarding communities have very deliberately moved away from the term in favour of “animal sexual abuse”, for a number of reasons. First, and most importantly, because of the evidence firmly establishing the links between ASA and the abuse of children, using the language of sexual abuse ensures that those shared risks are recognised consistently across disciplines and that we are talking about these behaviours in a way that supports safeguarding. Secondly, “bestiality”, sadly, is frequently misunderstood as pertaining only to farmed animals; in reality, we see such offending across a range of species, including companion animals, fish and even reptiles and cephalopods. The terminology of ASA reflects that wider reality. On those points, I beg to move.
Amendment 316ZA (to Amendment 316)
Lord Blencathra
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to alter the wording of Amendment 316 to refer to “animal bestiality” rather than “animal sexual abuse”.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood on introducing his proposed new clause and on running through the sordid details, which we did not want to hear and do not want to think about, but had to hear if we are to have better legislation, which I believe his proposed new clause will introduce. His proposed new clause is far superior to Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, since it describes the abuse of the animal and not just the perversion of the offender. It links to all the other online offences we have in the Bill—where people are publishing dangerous and pornographic pictures of abuse, strangulation, et cetera—and animal sexual abuse needs to be included there too. Therefore, I strongly support his amendment, which has also been signed by other noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Coffey.
When I first saw his amendment, I was motivated to use the term “bestiality”, since I was brought up in Scots law, which had very robust words to describe illegal sexual activity—at least illegal a few years ago. Bestiality is still the term used in Scotland. I initially thought that the term “abuse” was milder than bestiality and that bestiality conveyed a more condemnatory stance of the filthy perverts who were doing this. However, after a discussion with my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, I now agree that bestiality is a more restrictive legal term focusing on the perverted behaviour of the man rather than the abuse of the animal. Abuse is the key word here. I accept that the terminology “animal sexual abuse” is a more contemporary term emphasising the act as cruel and exploitative rather than just a taboo behaviour.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, since the noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Blencathra, have said that this is not an easy subject, I remind the Committee of what happened when Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 on sex with animals was debated in this House in Committee on 1 April 2003. I draw attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said on that occasion:
“I hope that this matter is not something that most noble Lords come across. As we rarely have the opportunity to talk about such subjects, it seems right to ensure that any possible imperfections in the wording are covered, however difficult it may be to talk about them”.—[Official Report, 1/4/03; col. 1186.]
That wise advice applies today.
The prohibition of sex with animals has a long history. It was proscribed in Leviticus, chapter 18, verse 23. Coke’s 17th-century Institutes of the Lawes of England, volume 3, page 59, refer to the criminal offence by a “great Lady” who
“committed Buggery with a Baboon, and conceived by it”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Black, has explained, the limits of Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act, like its predecessors, are that it covers only some sexual activity—penile penetration of the vagina or anus of the animal or of a human being by an animal—and does not apply to sexual activity with a dead animal. The exclusion of sex with a dead animal is particularly odd, as the next section of the 2003 Act, Section 70, does make it a criminal offence to engage in penetrative sex with a human corpse. The amendment would extend the scope of the offence to cover all “sexual activity” with an animal or using an animal for sexual gratification.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, has sought to define sexual activity in this context with a degree of precision in proposed new subsection (2), but has also left room for debate by stating that sexual activity “includes” what is specified. Of course, sexual activity is as broad as the human imagination. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Black, that it would be preferable for an amendment to the law not to attempt a legislative Kama Sutra of possibilities but rather to adopt the approach seen in other sections of the 2003 Act.
The 2003 Act already uses the concept of “sexual activity”, for example in Section 4, and Section 78 provides a general definition of sexual activity. Sexual activity, says Section 78, means what a reasonable person would regard as sexual in nature, irrespective of the defendant’s purpose in relation to it. There is a slightly different definition in Section 71 relating to sexual activity in a lavatory, and I confess that I have not fully understood why Parliament in 2003 used a slightly different definition in that context. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Black, that it would be better to have a portmanteau phrase, “sexual activity”, so defined, which is already the approach that the 2003 Act takes in Sections 4 and 78.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will not pursue his original wish to substitute the term “bestiality”. My understanding is that, as a matter of law, bestiality is confined to penile penetration of the vagina or anus, which is contrary to the admirable intention of the noble Lord, Lord Black, to broaden the scope of the legislation.
It may also be helpful to include a definition of an “animal” in the new clause by cross-reference to other statutory definitions. As the Committee will know, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides by Section 1 that it applies to vertebrates other than man, but there is a power by regulations to extend the protection to cover classes of invertebrates. The Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 covers, in addition to non-human vertebrates, molluscs and crustaceans. I doubt—the noble Lord, Lord Black, may have broader knowledge than me —whether sexual activity with a mollusc or a crustacean is a mischief which the Bill needs to address.
I have one final point. As was mentioned, this amendment would increase the maximum sentence of imprisonment for the Section 69 offence from two years to five years. I am doubtful about that. I would expect that defendants who are found guilty of the sexual abuse of animals nowadays are, as they always were, sad, pathetic individuals who need help rather than a lengthy prison sentence of more than two years. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister whether in any of the cases under the current Section 69 in the last few years any defendant has received a sentence of two years, or whether any judge has complained that the current sentencing powers of a maximum of two years are inadequate.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 316 from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just taken my entire speech away from me, so I will not quote Coke’s. I thank him for what he has said. He is a lawyer and he has tried to help with this.
On the point of this amendment—I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the APPG on Cats—the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, has our support on animal welfare, and indeed he has been driving this for a number of years via a number of APPGs. So the essence of what he is trying to do is right. The comments that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made are helpful: perhaps when we get to another place, we will have a better-worded amendment that carries more support.
For me, the reason I am supporting this is because of the animal side, but there is evidence that the abuse of animals leads to abuse of children. That link is clear, and there is evidence from everywhere that that is where it starts, but it ends with children and young people.
That is why this amendment, difficult as it is to speak about, is vital. When the evidence is there of a cause leading to a different cause that is worse, the amendment should get the support of this House and the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is right; he is trying to right a wrong and he understands the points of law. His principle is right: this does need resolving, and it is an important issue to animal lovers. Lots of animal lovers in this country have no idea that this is going on around them. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, may be right, in that some of the people in question are poor people who are not part of society; but there are also those who kill animals for videos and live feeds, to be watched for money. That is going on all around the world; it is not just an English problem.
There is a bigger picture. This is not just about an unfortunate person abusing an animal; like everything else in today’s debate, it is a wider society problem. I hope that people approach this with the gravitas it deserves. Animal abuse is one thing; but transferring that to children and young people is equally important. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments reflects the realities that the police, the NCA and child protection agencies now face, with children being coerced online into self-abuse, harming siblings or even abusing their family pets under pressure to provide images or live streams as proof. The overlap between child sexual abuse—as the noble Lord, Lord Black, has so clearly demonstrated—offline offending and animal cruelty is now recognised in safeguarding and law enforcement practice. It comes alongside a wider surge in online animal abuse content, in which abuse is staged, filmed and shared for attention or gratification. Strengthening the law on animal sexual abuse so that it reflects how this behaviour is perpetrated and disseminated online is therefore necessary and overdue.
Two points are critical. First, terminology matters. Animal sexual abuse is now used in policing and safeguarding precisely because it captures a wide range of exploitative conduct that is formed, traded and used to control and terrorise victims, including children. Narrowing the language risks opening loopholes that offenders will exploit. Secondly, these reforms need to go hand in hand with better investigation, data sharing and sentencing so that the growing volume of image-based offending against children and animals results in real accountability rather than just statistics.
The sexual abuse of animals and the use of such material within wider abusive networks, which is reprehensible, must now be treated with the seriousness the evidence demands.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black for his contribution this evening and for his amendments. I welcome the moving of Amendment 316.
As others have said, animal sexual abuse is one of the cruellest acts imaginable. It sees the taking advantage of defenceless creatures, often by those who are expected to be caring for them, and shows complete disregard for living, conscious, feeling creatures who frequently become damaged, traumatised and often die as a result of ASA. I wholeheartedly agree with all noble Lords that it is an offence that deserves to be dealt with using the full force of modern law. The amendment would ensure that the law reflects the severity of the crime. As has been outlined by other noble Lords, applicable legislation is currently fragmented and often parochial. At present, too many offences fall outside the scope of prosecution and the legislative framework is not reflective of the current reality.
I will not repeat all the statistics presented in my noble friend’s excellent opening speech, but it is worth emphasising a couple of his points. The first is the connection of ASA with child sexual abuse offences, general sexual offences, domestic abuse and coercive and exploitative behaviour. As was demonstrated, there exists empirical evidence that proves this correlation. In the United States of America, for example, nearly one-third of ASA offenders have also sexually offended against children and adults. In the UK, 71% of domestic abuse victims have reported that the abuser also targeted pets. There is clear evidence that certain offenders commit similarly related crimes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think anyone could disagree that this is a deeply troubling and uncomfortable issue. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Black, for moving his amendment, and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for their contributions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for sharing a copy of his speech with me yesterday—it was helpful and informative.
The Government are committed to protecting animals and holding to account those who abuse animals. I listened with care to the concerns raised by the noble Lord. These are horrible offences. That said, we believe that the criminal law as a whole already provides sufficient powers to tackle the sexual abuse of animals as well as the robust offences to tackle child sexual abuse and domestic abuse.
I pause here to say that while this is not a laughing matter in any way at all, I shall long remember the striking description of the Kama Sutra of sexual offences against animals given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I will have to write to him about the sentences imposed for animal abuse, although I am rather minded to agree with those noble Lords who spoke about the fact that there are pathetic individuals but there are also some really wicked ones out there as well.
As the noble Lord, Lord Black, has said, sexual abuse of animals causes them suffering. It is therefore possible to prosecute sexual acts involving animals under broader animal cruelty offences, which bring with them additional powers for the courts to impose orders on offenders.
As the noble Lord said, this is in addition to Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The latter two offences are listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, meaning that if convicted, individuals are automatically subject to the notification requirements, which is colloquially known as being on the sex offenders register.
We acknowledge that the law in this area is set out across a number of different offences. However, we believe that, taken together, these offences ensure that there is sufficient coverage of the sexual abuse of animals in criminal law. We are not persuaded at present that these amendments would substantially increase protection for animals or for people who are victims of sexual abuse. There is plainly coexistence of the two groups of offences. We are less sure that there is evidence for a causative link between the two.
Having said that, I welcome the evidence that the noble Lord shared in his speech. To that end, I would welcome a discussion with him in the coming weeks to look at the issues he has raised; first, in relation to the need for specific further offences and, secondly, the evidence in relation to the possible causative links between the two groups of offending.
My notes say that I will now turn to Amendments 316ZA to 316ZE, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but I shall not turn to those, as the noble Lord does not intend to press them. I am grateful to him for his temperate and constructive comments on this issue.
I was going to say that I would be happy to meet with either or both of the noble Lords to discuss any evidence suggesting that there are gaps in the law. That offer still holds good. In the meantime, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Black—
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. Does she not agree, however, that it is arbitrary in the extreme that Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 addresses sex with animals, but that it covers only specific, very limited forms of sexual activity? If you are going to have a specific offence, surely it should cover a wider range of sexual activity with animals, not just the limited categories that we have discussed.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The Government are satisfied that, when looked at as a whole, all the possible offences here cover the conduct complained of. However, I am conscious that there are ways of committing sexual offences that have not necessarily occurred to the draftsmen of earlier legislation. The best that I can offer the noble Lord is that I will reflect on the matter. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Black, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is always good to move an amendment when there is a unanimity of view across the Committee; it does not happen to me terribly often. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, both for reminding us of the wise words of my noble friend Lord Lucas—that we do not get to talk about this horrible issue very often so, when we do, we need to make sure that we take the opportunity to tighten the law where necessary—and for his suggestions on the wording of the clause, which I will look at. His point about a portmanteau definition is a very good one.
I am grateful to the Minister for the offer of a meeting on this. I would like to take her up on it, perhaps with colleagues from across the Committee. I do not think it is satisfactory that the law is a patchwork and one has to take an overall view of it to ensure that these terrible offences are properly covered. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made is right: the scope of the existing law is far too limited to capture the whole range of offences that are taking place, particularly online. Much of this law was written at a time before that was happening. So I would like to come and see the noble Baroness, perhaps with some of the charities involved, to talk further about this and what might be done. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.