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

I want to make my position absolutely clear: I do not in any way approve of prostitution, male or female, and I think it a tragedy that people are driven to it by poverty or greed, or for any other reason. It is a sad reflection on human beings, too, that they are driven to use prostitutes by their own failure to enjoy sexual relationships of a loving and caring nature. So nothing that I say today is meant to defend prostitution.

I am well aware also of the problems for people who live in red light districts, in areas where kerb crawling takes place and where people try to pick up prostitutes in pubs and clubs. In some cases, these activities leave people virtually prisoners in their own homes at night, and sometimes in the day, frightened to go out because they think they may be propositioned in the streets. These activities also cause major problems for people who run pubs and clubs and who try to discourage them.

I am also well aware of the absolute disgust felt by people who live in or near such areas and who find that the pathways are littered with used condoms and other rubbish. As I say, I am well aware of the extent of the problem.

However, I am also always a little worried when the House of Commons expresses horror, repugnance and disgust at the problem and assumes that it must take some action, but without first carefully weighing it up. It is all too easy for us to be stampeded into taking action that appears to try to solve the problem but which, in practice, does not solve it at all. A cosmetic approach is all to easy.

Sometimes when the House is stampeded into trying to solve one problem it just causes another, harming certain people or curtailing the civil rights of a particular group, and that is why I urge caution today.

I should have liked to table an amendment that called on the Government to review the whole problem of prostitution, but unfortunately that was outside the scope of the long title of the Bill. Although I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) to deal with the problem of kerb crawling, I believe that there is a much wider problem that must be dealt with at some stage. The idea of new clause 2 is to allow the whole issue to be debated, within the rules of order, and more particularly to discover the Government's thinking about the problems of prostitution and kerb crawling.

We ought to spend a minute looking back at the history of this legislation and at the continual complaints about kerb crawling that have been made to Parliament most of the time since I entered the House in 1974. Strong arguments have been advanced that something should be done to ensure that the men, not the prostitutes, involved in kerb crawling are prosecuted. There have been various attempts to introduce legislation, and a Bill appeared in 1985. That Bill was hotly contested. It was argued that the major problem of kerb crawling had to be addressed. We also heard the perfectly legitimate argument that sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between a kerb crawler and a person who has strayed into an area by mistake and is genuinely seeking information, to find an address in that area or to find somewhere else.

Mr. Matthew Parris who was then a Member of the House and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) argued at that time that we had to be careful not to place an innocent person in a position where he could be convicted of an offence that he clearly did not commit. That was why the legislation contained the provision that the offence had to be a persistent one in a motor car and that clear nuisance had to be created either to someone who was being solicited or to people in the area. It was a general catch-all provision. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) advanced the case for civil rights.

Why should the compromise that was hard fought in 1985 be destroyed by the Bill? We need convincing evidence before we take out the words that were put in to achieve such a balance in 1985 in the "persistently" and "annoyance" clause. Is there overwhelming evidence that the retention of that clause is at the root of the problem? The police say that they have had the legislation since 1986 but that it has not worked because the onus of proof is too difficult for them, so they have not used the legislation. I am not totally convinced by that argument.

There are many reasons why the police have not dealt with the problem and even if we change the legislation I am not convinced that it will be solved. Will changing the legislation solve the problem without creating the possibility that a small number of people who are in no way involved in kerb crawling could be convicted for it? Worse still in some ways, could such people be prosecuted? It is stigmatising for people to be prosecuted let alone convicted. In theory, if someone is acquitted by the courts there is no stain on his character. However, almost every hon. Member present in the Chamber would accept that in such cases there will be nudges and winks and innuendo because people think that a person who has been acquitted in such cases was in some way involved. They take the view that the court was kind to him or that he was lucky to get away with it.

Can the Minister present overwhelming evidence to show that the police have genuinely tried to use the 1985 Act and have in practice found it impossible to use? Secondly, is there overwhelming willingness on the part of the police to use it if it is amended? What other action is being taken? I have the feeling that what is before the House is a placebo. It is a cheap solution to say that fines will be increased and prosecutions will be made easier so we can forget about the problem. The view is that it will be a terrible nuisance for people who live in such areas, but the legislation may solve the problem in the next three or four years. Meanwhile, it is said, nothing needs to be done about it.

9.45 am

We should be looking for a much more fundamental solution than the one suggested in the Bill. It will have no impact on people who apparently cruise around such areas. Cruising around in cars for such purposes is a nasty activity but the Bill will not stop it. If the practice of prostitution disappeared in an area there would be no point in people cruising around in their cars. Have local authorities with prostitution in their area looked at other ways to deal with it? I am told that in some areas pedestrianisation has stopped cars cruising about and that in some cases it has stopped prostitutes standing in the area.

There is considerable scope for traffic management schemes. The new clause suggests that in addition to increasing the chances of conviction, the Government, local authorities and others should look for other solutions. A traffic management scheme that makes it difficult for cars to remain in an area substantially reduces the problem. Most people want to drive through such areas as quickly as possible. Street lighting and general appearance have much to do with the problem. In some though not all cases, an improvement in street lighting and in the way in which streets are set out for parking will make the area less attractive for prostitution.

My next argument deals with the level of policing. I am assured by the police that the presence of police cars with lights can lead to a substantial reduction in prostitution. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what he thinks is the best policing practice in such areas. Is it quiet surveillance and attempts at prosecution or is it much more obvious policing? If the police aim for many prosecutions, they simply increase the notoriety of an area, whereas a fairly high level of obvious policing may well reduce the problem and use police time more efficiently. Much police time is taken up by bringing prosecutions. Police officers could be used more effectively on our pavements.

The new clause ensures a proper democratic debate about the problems in specific areas. I am greatly worried about the way in which our police force has developed. There is not much opportunity for democratic debate about policing in a particular area. Enforcement of the law is governed by decisions made by the chief constable, probably in consultation with one or two other senior police officers in his area. It is for the chief constable to decide on the level of resources to be devoted to combating kerb crawling and activities in red light districts.

Some chief constables seem to ignore the problem. They think that there are far more important issues to deal with and that it is not helpful to move the problem from one area to another. They prefer to know where such activities are going on and know about the side issues that they create, such as drug abuse. If one lives in such an area and keeps pressing the police to take action, it is extremely frustrating if official, although unpublished, police policy is to keep a low profile when dealing with the problem.

Other chief constables—for example, in the west midlands—give the matter a high level of publicity and hope that sending letters to people who have been seen in the area will deter them. Will the Minister tell us whether such campaigns have achieved the results for which the chief constable hoped, or have they simply increased the problem? A worrying factor is that some people get involved in such activity out of bravado and a desire to live on the knife edge, almost daring themselves to get away with it. Publicity about an area may simply attract such people to it.

Other chief constables want to take action quietly. They have a high level of policing in the area, warning or cautioning many people, but do not bring many prosecutions. Others want a high level of prosecutions because that makes their crime statistics look good.

I admit that I have put forward these approaches in very generalised terms, but I should like the Minister to tell us which of them is bringing the best results. What advice is Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary giving chief constables about how they should approach the problem? There is a strong case for making sure that there is a proper local debate about the appropriate action to take.

I realise that there are major problems with the new clause in that if an area is designated it immediately becomes stigmatised and the debate about it adds to the publicity. The other difficulty is that designating areas means drawing lines, with the absurd result that someone could be prosecuted for such activity on one side of the road but not if he was on the other side. Furthermore, one could simply remove the problem from one set of streets to another.

However, designation will force people to examine the problem of prostitution and weigh up the implications. Some people may argue that we should be getting rid of prostitution altogether. However, history shows us that, although all sorts of different regimes have been used, rather than getting rid of prostitution, they have simply driven it from one place to another. There must be local debate about the impact of simply moving the problem of kerb crawling from one neighbourhood to another. Those who have had to put up with the problem for many years will no doubt be delighted, and I do not blame them for that. If we stop kerb crawling, will we create another problem which may cause as great a nuisance? All these factors have to be discussed.

What is the Government strategy for dealing with prostitution? Do they hope that if the Bill is passed, whether amended or not, it will solve the problem? Are the Government giving guidance to local authorities about traffic management, pedestrianised areas, better street lighting? These are all changes that may help to deal with the problem. Do the Government believe that they can eradicate prostitution altogether? Will they be bold and courageous and say that, as they cannot get rid of it, they will regulate it? Will they go for the compromise of keeping prostitution illegal, but ignoring the problem and not insisting on enforcement of the law?

Designating areas will go some way to ensuring that the problem of wrongful arrest and charging will not spread. What guidance will the Government give the police about the use of these powers? There will be pressure to deal with people who ride around in cars and talk to people on the kerb, even though they are not picking up prostitutes. In my constituency, a fair number of young people cruise around the streets in their cars—it seems sad that they have nothing better to do [and stop and chat to other teenagers on the pavement, causing nuisance to older residents. Will the Minister make it clear that there is no intention of allowing this legislation to be used in such circumstances? Will he make clear the onus of proof?

I am worried about this aspect because it is not ideal to say that a court would not convict someone of the offence without clear evidence that he had stopped and spoken to a prostitute or had gone into the area without a legitimate excuse. If enacted, the Bill will switch the onus of proof from the police having to prove that someone was kerb crawling to the individual having to prove that he was not but was in the area for a legitimate reason, for example, to ask the way.

I hope that the Minister can answer at least some of these questions and that the hon. Member for Streatham can give a little more thought to the fact that he is taking not only the word "persistently" but "nuisance" out of the 1985 Act. He should at least consider, before breaking up the 1985 compromise, whether it would be sensible to retain a safeguard. We want to keep the safeguard for the individual walking along the street in that, to be prosecuted for attempting to pick up somebody, he has to do it persistently. The only reason for removing that proviso from someone who is in or close to a motor vehicle is that he might commit the offence in one street and then move on to the next street and it would be difficult for the police to bring a prosecution. I do not consider that to be an overwhelming argument. If it is reasonable to apply the word "persistently" to an individual who is walking down a street, it should apply to someone in a car.

I have spoken for far too long, therefore I shall now sit down and listen to other speeches.

Because of the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), I find myself taking a trip down memory lane, as I was the Minister dealing with the 1985 Act. Therefore I am well familiar with the arguments, and I come to the Dispatch Box buoyed up by the confidence of having predicted that, because of the words we were forced to insert into the 1985 Act as the price of getting the Bill through the House of Commons, the Act would thereby be rendered only partially effective. No doubt what I said then bears the test of time better than some of the other things that I said about various topics five years ago.

I hope that I shall have the attention of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), as it is important that we should reach sensible terms on the matter.

In 1985 Parliament listened to appeals from com-munities in different parts of the country that were fed up to the back teeth with having their neighbourhoods ruined and despoiled by the activities of prostitutes and their clients. Two distinct but related problems were identified: first, the awfulness of living in an area where one could not walk around without being made totally aware of what was happening and the fact that that was a serious public nuisance and detriment to the amenities of an area; and secondly, the fact that perfectly respectable women were unable to go out in the evenings without being the object of those appalling attentions.

Let me say straight away that this is not a party matter, thank God. The 1985 Bill had support from all sides of the Chamber, as does the Bill today. There is no partisan element, and I have nothing but praise for the way in which those on the Labour Front Bench have sought to get the Bill through. By an irony, last time we debated the matter two Conservative Back Benchers were responsible for the difficulties. One of them has now gone on to a higher plane in the sphere of journalism. I do not think that he has ever quite forgiven me for some of the things that I said about his campaign against that Bill. It is a cross that I now have to bear every time I see a reference to myself in his column.

However, it was a fight well worth taking on. If, in 1985, Parliament had failed to pass a Bill to give those communities some respite, it would have stood condemned by the public, so I am not ashamed or embarrassed at having fought for that Bill. But an Act is not enough in itself; it has to be effective.

I do not talk of these matters academically. Although, thank goodness, my own constituency of Putney is not particularly afflicted by such problems, the borough of Wandsworth, where I have my parliamentary constitu-ency, has had persistent problems for many years. The problems in Bedford hill in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) were among those most prominently described in 1985.

I respect the parliamentary skills of the hon. Member for Denton and Redclish, and I regret that he is an obstacle to the Bill's progress because I recognise him as a formidable obstacle and a parliamentarian well capable of making his opposition to any measure effective. As we proceed this morning, I shall try to assist him with any legitimate points that he raises. I am sincere in that, as I do not consider it a matter of shame that hon. Members are concerned about the civil liberties aspects of the criminal law. I am concerned about them too and I always have in mind that little tag, "Quin custodiet ipsos custodes" or, "Who shall protect us from our protectors?" and believe that checks and balances should always exist.

However, the hon. Gentleman should think long and hard before using today as an opportunity to prevent the Bill from making progress. In doing that, he would be denying not only the will of the rest of the House, which has been convincingly expressed in Committee and on Second Reading, but redress to decent folk who deserve it. He would also be failing to recognise the significance of the issue for women.

One of the most healthy developments in recent times has been a great narrowing of the gap between various parts of the Chamber on a number of key women's issues. I was glad to see it recorded in one of the Sunday papers —although I do not think that the author was particularly impressed—that a number of Opposition women Members of Parliament came to see me with researchers and experts on pornography and its impact on women, and we reached almost total agreement. There was a time when men regarded pornography as a bit of a laugh. Plenty of people now recognise that excessive porno-graphy is a threat to women and are prepared to be more sensitive to women's views.

Because the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is a man, if he walks down a road in his constituency, or even if he parades up and down Bedford hill every day for a month, it is unlikely that any kerb crawler would try to pick him up. But the fact that it would not happen to him is no reason for being insensitive to the rights of those to whom I can assure him it will happen if Parliament is not prepared to be rather more firm in its resolve than it was in 1985. Male members of Parliament—I know that the hon. Gentleman has at least one other ally—should think long and hard before putting a somewhat academic approach to the legislation before the practical requirement of sensible law enforcement. It is clear that the problem will not go away.

However, we need to demonstrate that we are as serious about private Members' legislation as we are about Government legislation. I am a great believer in private Members' legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) is here today. One of my happiest parliamentary memories is taking through the House of Commons with him his Bill dealing with the problem of video nasties. He worked extremely hard on the Bill, which is a monument to his work. We do not hear about video nasties any more. His was a complex and difficult Bill; it was properly argued and there were genuine points of dispute, but ultimately Parliament appreciated that something had to be done and that it was a good thing for Parliament that legislation of such complexity could be taken through by a private Member.

However, it did require certain Members who were not happy about the Bill to show some restraint and recognise that, although it was not everything they wanted it to be, it was something that the majority of Members wanted and which plainly addressed a real public ill. It was a real and genuine cause, not an issue which some hon. Members had invented.

It is unfortunate that, in recent times, private Members' legislation that has had a great deal of support has been blocked by only one or two hon. Members. That is a flaw of our private Members' system. I hope that the Bill, which deals with two important issues of criminal law, will not join the long list of private Members' Bills that have been blocked.

I say that so that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish knows what my view is from the outset. I am not saying that I do not want to deal sensibly with legitimate objections. Indeed, I am prepared to spend a long time doing so. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would be lightly forgiven, however, not least by other Opposition Members, if he were to take his opposition beyond the reasonable point of asking us sensibly to justify what we are doing and why we are doing it.

I understand all the arguments and the implied threats that the Minister is presenting. I remind him that, when the sus legislation passed through the House, it was a response to an outcry from outside that such legislation was required. We soon began to be aware of the resulting problems. That is the danger. I have made it clear that I understand that there is substantial concern about kerb crawling. We must be careful, however, that we do not produce a placebo to cause people outside this place to think that we are doing something but which does not attack the real problem. We must ensure that, in responding to a problem, we do not erode civil rights and cause some people to be wrongfully convicted.

The hon. Gentleman's intervention reveals that I was right to give him 10 out of 10 for sincerity but not such a high mark for accuracy. The sus law passed through the House in 1824, and was abolished in 1980. I was a member of the Committee that considered the 1980 legislation, and I was an ardent advocate of it.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Tooting has entered the Chamber. I should tell him that I have been talking about the problems of living in Bedford hill, for example, which he knows far better than I do. I ask the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to understand that this is not an academic matter that should be dealt with academically.

The sus law was abolished because it was seen to be oppressive. I put that as a battle honour on the escutcheon in proving that I am not interested in repressive or oppressive legislation. I dare say that every hon. Member who was in the place during the 1979 Parliament voted with a glad heart to abolish the sus law. I can say with certainty that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) did. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish chose a terribly bad example, and he was wrong to imply that the sus law was a recent invention. It was introduced a long time ago, and was rightly abolished in 1980. We are all glad about that.

One of the answers in an area where there is a problem of the sort that we are discussing is to pedestrianise it, but pedestrianising decent residential areas near a major thoroughfare such as Bedford hill suggests evasion rather than a policy. I cannot think of anything more ludicrous than inviting local authorities to become involved in millions of pounds of expenditure on pedestrianising because Parliament cannot nerve itself to pass a decent and effective statute. If the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) went to Bedford hill and said, "Listen chaps, we must pedestrianise it," I think that they would get the bird. I shall await their response.

10.15 am

As I have said, I am not aware that there are any prostitution or kerb crawling problems in Putney. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you live in Wimbledon, which is not far from my constituency. We are equidistant from Bedford hill. I do not think that you have any problems in Wimbledon. If we were to engage in some absurd designation process of the sort postulated in the new clause, offenders would soon be aware of it. They would say, "We cannot do it here, in these six streets, but if we move about a quarter of a mile down the road, everything will be all right." That would result in an absurd tag match, in which the authorities would be chasing offenders and trying frantically to extend designation to meet the spread of the problem.

That has happened before. When we began in Wandsworth to have a street robbery problem, it soon became clear that it was the result of the intensity of the action that had been taken on the Northern line to stop robberies. I am talking about the action that was taken a few years ago to deal with the problem in Brixton. Every mugger who was worth his salt said, "It is getting a bit tricky here, we'll move west a bit." As a result, Wandsworth faced a problem. For a brief period, street crime in the area increased.

I genuinely respect the parliamentary skills of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. If he is to be critical of the thought processes of those who have formulated the Bill, let him ensure that his thought processes are manifestly better. If the new clause is the best that he can do, he cannot produce an answer to anything.

My hon. and learned Friend has referred to street crime in south London. I remind him of another example which I think is even more pertinent—that of the drug industry. It is operated in a way similar to prostitution. People crawl along roads in their motor cars until they find someone who is prepared to sell them drugs. When the police in Notting Hill Gate cracked down on the activity in the All Saints area, the traders started to move on to the streets in SW6 and W6, including my constituency. In other words, the problem was transferred. I think that that is a perfect example of what my hon. and learned Friend is trying to say.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is a fellow inner-London Member and a parliamentary neighbour of mine. He does not approach the problem reeking of the midnight oil of academic study. He has practical experience and is aware of the nature of the problem. That is true also of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson).

I have not been inactive in the House this week, and might have thought that I could spend today pursuing some other cause, but I was not unhappy at the chance of being able to deal with the Bill. I consider that there is a problem that should be addressed. I shall not weary the House by going through what I said and did in 1985, but I am not ashamed of my words and actions when that legislation was passing through the House. What I said then has come true.

I said when I moved the new clause that, once an area is designated, problems are transferred. Does the Minister accept that that is one of the problems of legislative action of the sort proposed? If it is enforced, some areas will receive a substantial amount of police attention. If the desire of the promoter, the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton), is to be realised, the problem will merely be moved. The Minister must think about that. Will the Bill stop prostitution, or will it merely move it somewhere else? Will it spread the problem so that the chance of being accosted in the street will increase and spread over a wider area? Will that activity be moved to pubs or clubs, for example? If the problem is moved, I understand that those who are now facing it will enjoy relief, but the Minister must address himself to the wider issue.

There is a grain of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says. If policing focuses on one area, there is a potential problem that offenders will go to an area where policing is not so hot. I acknowledge that there are examples of that. The answer is not to make it impossible to deal effectively with the problem of prostitution, or kerb crawling, in chronic areas. The answer is not to say, "You must bear the prostitution equivalent of the white man's burden so that the rest of the neighbourhood in a city or county is not afflicted by it. If we take effective action in your area, it will only spread somewhere else. So tough luck for you, the residents of Bedford hill, King's Cross and Walthamstow."

That is not so. We need a simple, effective and straightforward law which allows us to deal with kerb crawling, whether it is a manifestation of a particular red light district problem or whether it happens in a leafy lane in an area hitherto untouched by the problem. A woman there may be walking home at night, as she is perfectly entitled to do in a free society, and someone may come up in a car and start making suggestions. I must point out to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish that that is one of the most desperately unpleasant experiences for a woman. A woman with whom I work was a victim of kerb crawling a year or two ago and she was desperately upset by it. It is an awful experience. That is why I am saying that we are not dealing with a problem that it would be nice to tackle, but which does not really matter very much. We shall fail in our duty if we do not deal with this problem and leave women without sensible redress.

I am well aware of the problem of people being accosted in the street in areas that are unlike those with which we are dealing in the Bill. Is the Minister saying that the Bill is designed to deal with that? If he looks carefully at clause 1, he will see that it is not designed to deal with that problem. It is a separate problem. He would worry many people if he suggested that the Bill could be used against any man approaching any woman along any road.

The Bill can be used in that way. Once again, with the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is not doing himself much credit. It would be bad enough if he knew the parameters of the matter and then took a different view. In fact, each of his interventions suggests that he does not know what he is talking about, which is sad but true. The essence of the Bill is that it gives relief not only to hard-pressed people in areas where there are a series of cases of prostitution, but to my wife, to the wives of other hon. Members and to female Members when they are walking down the street late at night and are accosted by a man in circumstances where it is not an unreasonable imposition to say that his action is not proper and that the man renders himself liable to prosecution.

There is a great gap in the present law. After sustained efforts by the police, the number of prosecutions reached about 600 last year. However, that is the tip of the iceberg. The reason is that the law is hedged around by qualifications which were included only under the most extreme duress, because it would not otherwise have been possible for the Sexual Offences Act 1985 to be passed. The qualifications were put in with a clear warning of what the consequences would be.

By one of those happy coincidences that make life so exciting, I found in The Times law report on page 38 today the case of Darroch v. the Director of Public Prosecutions. It was a case in the divisional court about the Sexual Offences Act. What does it reveal? First, although the man beckoned a prostitute in an attempt to get her into his car, and although the divisional court found that the magistrates were fully entitled to say that that was an act of solicitation, he was entitled to be acquitted because it happened only once. In such a clear-cut case, I cannot see the logic of making it not a criminal offence and of allowing people to do it twice. If I walk down the street and snatch a woman's handbag, people do not say that I had better do the same to another woman or it will not be an offence. For the life of me, I cannot see the logic in that.

Secondly—this is more pertinent to the concerns of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—the divisional court upheld the contention of those acting for the appellant that merely driving around a red light district was not an offence and that the magistrates were not entitled to see that in itself as an act of solicitation. I rely on that to prove a point to which I shall come later if the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish persists with his other amendments.

It would be wrong for any hon. Member to proceed on the basis that he believes that the authorities cannot be trusted with the law because it will inevitably be used oppressively. The Darroch case and the care it was given by the divisional court are a sign of how seriously the courts take even pieces of legislation with which, I dare swear, they are no more happy than we are. Nobody likes to see somebody escape on a relatively spurious technicality, but it was made quite clear, as it would no doubt be in any similar case, that the requirements of the law are for more than what one would call potentially innocent activities.

I got a bit bored in 1985 with the man who stops a lady merely to ask the way to the Dog and Duck public house—although I dare say that we may hear about him again in 1990. One may get bad directions once and one may approach someone else, but in the intervening five years, I do not know of many people who have merely asked for the Dog and Duck and have had their lives ruined by being arrested.

Those who say that the Bill is potentially oppressive have a heavy burden to come forward with some examples. The evidence is that the courts have taken their duties under the Sexual Offences Act seriously and have not hesitated to make it clear that, even in a good cause, the rules cannot be bent, and that firm and clear guidance is given in each case.

The consequence of the Darroch case was that somebody who was plainly soliciting—the divisional court said that the magistrates were entitled to regard it as an act of solicitation—and about whom there was evidence that he had previously been found in the company of a prostitute in a stationary car, was not convicted. What message does that send out about the seriousness of Parliament's resolve? This week—quite rightly, I dare say—we stood here criticising the football authorities for slapping with the inside of a glove when dealing with the problems of football hooliganism. The present state of the law on soliciting is barely even a slap with the inside of a glove. It is a wilful abdication of Parliament's responsibility to put in a coherent and cogent set of legal arrangements.

I will seek to meet the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish on some points. I have discussed that with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, the promoter of the Bill, and with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall). I shall be able to show him ways in which we can monitor the consequences of removing the word "persistently" to show our sincerity in not wanting to see the law used oppressively.

However, it is clear that, as long as the law contains the word "persistently", the areas that sought redress from Parliament in 1985 will come back to Parliament for redress because their redress will be at best partial. Some people can cock a snook at the enforcement of the law in a way that I seriously suggest should not lead us, especially after the relatively effortless passage of the Bill so far, to let the Bill become blocked on the whim of one or two hon. Members.

The Minister is misleading the House if he is saying that simply removing the word "persistently" will solve these problems. I ask him to think carefully. Some people who go into red light areas do so with the attitude of high risk, so it will not make a lot of difference if their chances of being caught are increased. It will simply increase their excitement to come to the area. I am also not convinced that greater policing will solve the problem. If the Minister said that by passing the Bill we should solve the problem of prostitution, I should have some sympathy for him. However, all he is saying is that we shall simply change the type of problem. I should have liked him to spend a little time addressing the question of what happens if we simply move people from one area to another. [Interruption.]

The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) represents an area that suffers from these problems. He is also an experienced solicitor of many years standing. His response to the hon. Gentleman's remarks was, "Rubbish." Alas, even I cannot improve on that description.

Of course, no law that Parliament passes can solve the problem of itself. It can be solved only if the law is properly and sensibly policed. The police will face difficult decisions about what resources to give, what tactics to use, how to deal with the problem of a spillover into other areas and so on. However, if we give them a simple, effective and fair law, at least they will have a good chance of success.

The police cannot opt out and say that, simply because Parliament has failed in its duty, so too can the police. They must at least try to offer some redress to those living in the affected areas. A clear, simple, straightforward law, which also has the virtue of being fair, will make it easier for the police because, for the first time, they will have an opportunity to deal with these people. If someone is an exhibitionist, I should be only too happy if he put on an exhibition for the local magistrates court, which could then deal with him. What is so wrong at the moment is that he can put on an exhibition every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and twice on a Friday and get away with it. That is not an ornament to the way in which we deal with these matters.

On the point about deleting the word "persistently" from the 1985 Act, I shall make the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish what I hope he will accept is a sensible offer of a framework within which we can consider these matters. New clause 2 is an evasion, not an acceptance of responsibility. Parliament will do itself no credit if it accepts new clause 2. I hope that, as the morning wears on, the hon. Gentleman will increasingly recognise that he is in a minority. Having raised the point and having, as I believe he will, received some substantive commitments about how we will proceed, there would be nothing disgraceful about him then retiring, thinking that he has done the best service that he can. If the Bill does not make progress today, it will be an abdication of responsibility by Parliament, and I should be thoroughly ashamed of that.

The notion of the criminal justice system being operated by a local authority is quite unacceptable to the Labour party. New clause 2 would mean that the Metropolitan police would encounter no-go areas in places affected by kerb crawling. They would have to consult a map to find out what parts of the London metropolitan area they could police. It could be that with a street falling between two boroughs, the police could pursue crime on one side but not on the other. New clause 2 is not acceptable. It would not allow the criminal justice system to operate in any logical and rational way. It would not allow the police the operational right to pursue crime.

I hope that the House will not spend too much time debating new clause 2. As the Minister said, this is not a party matter; it is one of great substance that has a profound effect on the lives of many people living in certain parts of London, and also in other parts of the country. The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) have strongly highlighted that. It is a problem of great magnitude. The Bill is part of the armoury we need to deal with the problem. I accept that local authorities have a role to play, such as erecting one-way-street signs. Unfortunately, the 1985 Act does not really work. If we retain the word "persistently" those living in areas affected by kerb crawling will be deeply distressed.

I well understand the two sides to the argument—first, that we need a law that works and protects people against kerb crawlers, and secondly, the preservation of civil liberties. I have considerable respect for the parliamentary skills of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). If he pursues new clause 2 and his other amendments, he could wreck the Bill. That would be sad and the Labour party would want to dissociate itself from that. I say to him, with all respect, that he has gone overboard on the civil liberties aspect. We should always be vigilant on civil liberties issues, but we must accept the Bill as it stands.

I welcome the Minister's suggestion—I do not want to be too specific, as I know that he is still thinking about it —that he can meet my hon. Friend's concerns. I imagine that he will write to the Attorney-General, perhaps suggesting that a circular be sent to the Crown prosecution service asking it to ensure that civil liberties are properly taken into account. The Bill is the best deal that we can get. I would be deeply distressed if my hon. Friend used his great skills—indeed, we are all at his disposal today—to block the Bill. I hope that he will not do so. I hope that he will accept the reasonableness of amending the 1985 Act by this Bill, so providing legislation that will work, but that will also protect people's civil liberties. If we can do that we shall have served our purpose as a House of Commons. If we reject the Bill women will be the major losers. That distresses me very much. I have discussed the matter with the leadership of my party and it is agreed that women could be the losers. That is not acceptable, certainly to the Labour party, to hon. Members from other parties, or to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish.

The 1985 Act and the Bill are not about prostitution per se but about kerb crawlers. They are about people who can put their hand in their pocket and pull out £100, or however much it costs to buy a prostitute for the evening. We are not discussing the merits or demerits of prostitution but the kerb crawlers who have damaged some areas in which people who are often on low incomes, although not exclusively, live. The places affected by prostitution tend to be poorer areas and it is the more middle class people with their big company cars and perks who have the cash to come in and cause such disruption. I hope that today we shall not pursue the matter of prostitution per se.

I hope that the appeal that I have made to the House will be heeded. It is the best deal that we can reach. The people of London, and other parts of the country where prostitution is at its highest will welcome the measure if it is accepted. I sincerely hope that it will be.

My credentials for speaking in the debate are that I was born in an area such as we are discussing and grew up there. My mother, who is over 80, still lives there. Also, the area is on the margins of my constituency, so it is not distant from me in any way.

I wish to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in a comradely fashion that kerb crawling is a serious problem that afflicts people living in Wandsworth and Lambeth. On another occasion he held up the Bromley London Borough Council (Crystal Palace) Bill which would have provided employment in my constituency. It had the support of the Bromley Labour group and was not opposed by either Southwark or Lambeth councils. He held up the Bill for about six months. If I held up Bills that affected his constituency, there would be some comradely distress, if not anger, about the behaviour of one hon. Member concerning the problems in another hon. Member's constituency or borough. I ask my hon. Friend to understand that we have a problem in my area and it needs to be addressed.

I do not dismiss the point that my hon. Friend made about civil liberties, which I shall discuss later. I hope that he understands that there is a serious problem for residents, and for women in particular. I hope that he will approach the Bill in that spirit. I hope that, if some compromise on civil liberties can be reached, he will find it acceptable and allow the Bill a reasonably rapid passage through the House.

So far, we have discussed the problem of residents, but there is also a problem for prostitutes. The life of the prostitute on the street is by no means a happy one. Frequently their money is taken from them at the end of the evening or the day's work. They are subjected to the most vicious violence. They are often drug addicts who are on the streets for that reason. Street prostitution, violence and extortion all go together. I believe that it is about time we shifted the balance to make the polluter pay, as it were. In this context, the polluter is the kerb crawler.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said that there were other ways of approaching the problem of kerb crawling, such as providing street lighting, traffic schemes and the like. Lambeth is charge-capped. Unfortunately, we have a great deal of crime other than soliciting for prostitution. We are entitled to judge where it is best to place our resources. A borough as hard-pressed as Lambeth, with problems of homeless-ness, cuts in education and so on, has better things to do with its money than pedestrianising Streatham high street and Bedford hill to deal with kerb crawling. We have better priorities for the use of our money and our police force. Therefore, I reject his argument in favour of the new clause.

10.45 am

The point about civil liberties must be borne in mind. Perhaps I could have the Minister's attention now. There is a risk that, without corroborative evidence—I moved an amendment in this respect in Committee—an innocent person could have his reputation ruined by a relatively trivial crime in the calendar of crimes. The Minister must address himself to that risk. There are several ways of dealing with it. I should have preferred to do it by building corroboration into the Bill. We went through that matter in Committee.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill has yet to go to another place. There is no reason why, in another place, they should not consider corroboration. That might be one way of reaching a compromise.

I agree with that. I want to see the Bill go to another place. Perhaps my hon. Friend will intervene again to tell me that he too wants to see it go to another place.

The right way to deal with corroboration would be for the Attorney-General to give advice to the Crown prosecution service about conducting prosecutions. The safest protection would be to provide guidance such as that given on prosecutions for possession of drugs as opposed to supply. A warning or caution could be given in the first instance to a kerb crawler, with a new offence where no corroboration is required and no persistence or nuisance has to be involved. A caution or warning in the first instance that, on future occasions, the person could not plead innocence by saying that he had merely asked the way of a prostitute in an area such as Streatham would deal with the problem.

As it is a matter of police practice, not a matter for me, I cannot undertake that that would be done. However, it is increasingly police practice that cautions are given when first offenders are arrested for relatively minor, though troubling, offences. That would be one option. When the moment comes, I intend to take the matter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to discuss guidance to the CPS. Guidance on when a caution should be given and when it is appropriate to take action is certainly a sensible point for me to explore with him. That suggestion has much merit.

I can conclude on this point. A process of warnings could be established in an effort to sieve cases before they come to court. Such a compromise should be accepted by the promoter of the Bill and those who have perfectly legitimate fears about civil liberties.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said, the majority of the House agrees that this is not a party issue. Listening to my hon. Friend, I was strongly reminded of the words of Cynthia Payne a week ago who made much the same point in a television debate in which I took part in Manchester. She said that prostitution was not a party issue. She had been raided as often when there was a Labour Government as when there was a Tory Government. As we have heard the vigour of my hon. Friend's condemnation of what has been happening in many parts of our cities, we can have no doubt that we all want to see it end. The point at issue is whether the Bill will achieve that. If I thought that it would, I would vote for it. However, no amount of silver-tongued oratory from the Minister of State will persuade me to vote for a Bill which I believe will fail to stop what is happening and may indeed make matters worse.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) I was born and grew up in Lambeth. As a child wandering around the streets at night with my mates I met and talked to the prostitutes. They were there a generation ago and I suspect that they were there two or three generations ago. When I became the GLC member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington there was an appalling problem of kerb crawling in Finsbury park. Once again that problem was not a party political issue. Sir Horace Cutler led a Conservative-controlled GLC at the time. I met members of his administration and with the backing of Hackney council, which was about 99 per cent. Labour at the time, we introduced an incredibly complicated road scheme to try to stop the kerb crawling. In the short-term there was some limited relief. However, I very much doubt whether that has continued.

We simply pushed the problem somewhere else. My constituents were happy for a while, but constituents elsewhere suffered similar problems. In London there seems to be a pattern of prostitution moving around a fairly regular circuit: Finsbury park to Tooting to King's Cross and to Shepherd market. I suspect that that route reflects the concentration of police effort.

After pressure of complaints in King's Cross, there was a major increase in policing the area and the problem moved elsewhere. Police pressure moves the problem around a city and we must be aware that attempts to resolve the problem in legislation have failed. We were told that the Sexual Offences Act 1985 would succeed, but it has not. We are now told that this Bill will resolve it. What will happen if it does not? What legislative measure will we take next?

The difficulty is that we are tackling the symptoms and not the cause. That is the Bill's failure. I want to see a society in which there are no prostitutes. I want a society in which no one buys sex and in which sex takes place between consenting adults and involves an act of love. However, that is not the world we live in and it will never be the world we live in. What should we do to mitigate the problems facing people in areas where kerb crawling occurs?

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is about kerb crawling and kerb crawlers rather than about the merits or demerits of prostitution?

rose——

Order. I was tempted to reproach the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) a little earlier, but I was reluctant to interrupt the flow of his speech. Hon. Members should address their remarks more closely to the new clause.

I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me the discretion to range widely in the same way as the Front-Bench spokesmen who managed to refer to video nasties and the situation 180 years ago.

New clause 2 is the widest amendment for us to discuss today. If my points could be resolved, I would be happy to support the Bill. No one would disagree with the provision in the Bill to remove the nonsense that someone under the age of 14 cannot commit rape. The Bill would have the support of all hon. Members in the House if that was all that it did. However, the Bill does more than that and we must consider civil liberties.

We must balance the liberties and rights of residents in areas where life is blighted by the curse of kerb crawling with the liberties of ordinary innocent citizens who may be entrapped in a conviction which could destroy their lives. I believe that the majority of hon. Members would claim that the organisation Liberty is one of the most important champions of liberty in this country. It is not a party political organisation and it has the support of hon. Members on all sides of the House. That organisation wrote to hon. Members saying:

"We accept the need for some effective legislation to protect women from unwanted soliciting for the purposes of prostitution or other sexual harassment in public places. However, we have consistently opposed legislation which creates offences capable of proof by police evidence alone."

That is the weakness of the Bill. The Minister begged us not to oppose the measure because we thought that it might be wrongly enforced. However, after the events of the past year, is that really a credible point to make?

I am not one of those people who believe that the majority of the police in our society are criminals who bend the law. That would be a travesty. The overwhelming majority of police officers in our society seek to do the best that they can, often in intolerable circumstances. However, they are not perfect any more than politicians are perfect. We are all aware of Members of Parliament and members of local councils who have been corrupt and broken the rules. That happens also among a small minority in the police. How can the Minister ask us to suspend judgment as to whether the Bill will be properly conducted in the wake of the scandal of the West Midlands serious crime squad?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the nature of the evidence. I have already said that I believe that I can make points about prosecution practice later that will be helpful.

However, with regard to the hon. Gentleman's central point about a conviction purely on the basis of police evidence, although that may be undesirable from the hon. Gentleman's point of view, it is sometimes the inevitable consequence of the woman concerned having no interest in the administration of justice and therefore an extreme reluctance to come forward. Under the present law, there is no prohibition on police evidence alone. If a policeman was minded to gild the lily he would only have to say that he saw someone approach two people rather than one. I understood the force of the point when it was made five years ago. However, as I said earlier, after five years' experience of the Sexual Offences Act 1985 and after more than 1,000 prosecutions, I am completely unaware of any suggestion that the Act has been used oppressively or that police evidence has been used to obtain corrupt convictions of people who should not have been convicted on the basis of police evidence.

The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) should not approach the issue as an academic point. If he cannot produce evidence to support his argument today, he should understand that his view is not an objection to the Bill becoming law.

I accept the Minister's argument that there will often be occasions when, in the effort to convict someone of a crime—perhaps a horrendous crime—there may only be police evidence. My basic presumption is that that practice should be reduced to the minimum and we should accept it reluctantly.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that under the 1985 Act the prosecution of kerb crawlers rests on police evidence only? The suggestion that "persistently" should be removed will not change that in any way. Police evidence alone leads to prosecution in such cases.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I object to a further extension of that. By removing "persistent" prosecution becomes easier. It seems that in the past decade there has been a massive shift in the nature of legal practice in Britain and increasingly we see convictions based not on forensic evidence, but on police evidence alone or on confessions obtained in cells.

Order. We must get back to designated areas, which are the subject of the new clause.

I am coming to that. I have not the slightest doubt that local government is much more in touch with its area than national Government. The hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) represents a constituency of 70,000 or 80,000 people; he keeps in touch with them, but not as well as the 15 or 17 local authority members who represent smaller areas, and whose reason for political activity is entirely connected with those areas. They are not diverted by foreign policy or macroeconomic policy.

11 am

The question of how best to defend an area is best left to a local authority. I say that as someone who came here reluctantly after my local authority was taken away. I always felt that I could achieve more for local people in local government than I could in central Government. It was only the erosion of the powers of local government that shifted my attention from a sphere in which it was no longer possible to achieve very much to questions of national Government.

I doubt that every local authority is fully up to the task of tackling the problem. However, I have no doubt that it is better for local government to make the decisions than for a national scheme to be imposed by centrally controlled legislation, monitored by the Government and covered by the Crown prosecution service. There will be differences, as there are differences in the areas of prostitution in London: for instance the pattern of prostitution in King's Cross differs from that in a constituency such as that of the hon. Member for Streatham.

I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, who suggested that this was a class issue and that we were dealing only with the rich. A detailed study of the pattern of kerb crawling and prostitution, carried out in the early 1980s in King's Cross, showed that, rather than rich men in their Rolls-Royces driving into a poor area, relatively poor men were using the services of prostitutes.

My hon. Friend may recall that on Second Reading points were made about the research that had been carried out into the "social structure" of people who kerb crawl. That research showed—my hon. Friend can get the exact quote from Hansard—that most people who kerb crawl are in the class that I have described, namely those on highish incomes who have a car and can spend £100 without having to blink too hard.

That merely confirms my earlier assertion that there could be different patterns of prostitution within the same city. My hon. Friend's point was not that identified by the study into prostitution at King's Cross. The hon. Member for Streatham looks puzzled. Let me jog his memory: that study followed the occupation of a local church in 1982 by a group of prostitutes who were complaining about police harassment in the area.

Everyone who has spoken so far has pointed out that this is a specific local problem. Most hon. Members do not face the problem of prostitution in their constituencies; those who do will have found that the problem existed long before they became hon. Members. Perhaps only two or three dozen constituencies contain areas like King's Cross or Bedford hill. The problem would be better tackled locally, because a local administration in touch with local thinking could balance the consequences of taking action to designate an area in this way.

I said earlier that a week ago I had been in a debate with Cynthia Payne in Manchester for Granada television. I found that some local people in Liverpool had made a firm decision, taken the law into their own hands and driven prostitutes out of the area. That has also happened in other areas. The new clause would allow that local understanding to be brought to bear.

I know that many people doubt the ability of councils in this regard, and perhaps some councils could not do it. There might be problems in a hung council, and a temptation for parties to compete and try to upstage each other in the pursuit of local votes. However, I believe that the majority of local authorities would approach that responsibility with the seriousness that it deserves. I believe that it is better to shift the balance of power away from Whitehall and devolve it to local communities, which will be much more responsive. I do not know what Lambeth's response would be if it were given the power that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish proposes in his new clause. I suspect that it would support the proposals being introduced by the hon. Member for Streatham, but, it might not and there could be a long period of discussion and debate.

In the upheavals around King's Cross in the early 1980s there were many massively attended public meetings where local people argued the issue. They spoke of the harassment of women in the area, not just by kerb crawlers: violent threats were made by pimps when members of the local community sought to defend themselves. What came out of those meetings was the importance of bringing together the interests of residents and prostitutes. Often there was no conflict, but they were all suffering from the pattern that had developed. I would like to see a more breathtaking but valid response to the problem. Instead of looking for an increase in repression and a widening of police powers, we should look to the social causes.

In the King's Cross study it was shown that there were two types of prostitutes operating: those who worked in the evening and organised by pimps, and those who worked during the day, who were basically "freelance". Virtually all the arrests were made during the daytime. There were some suggestions that that might show a degree of favouritism and bias by the police. Interestingly, the professional prostitutes, who had a much longer track record, referred to the new prostitutes—women who were just working one or two days a week in the afternoons—as "Thatcher's girls", because they had been forced into prostitution by a decline in income, lost jobs, or because their social security payments had not kept up with inflation. If the hon. Member for Streatham produced a Bill that tackled the social causes, we could perhaps end prostitution, but instead we are talking about a further scale of repression.

Local authorities have local knowledge. An authority that serves an area where there is a higher level of unemployment and economic distress will be much more sensitive and attuned to what is causing prostitution in its area than Ministers who issue statements, and who are isolated in London, surrounded by senior bureaucrats and cut off from day-to-day involvement with people's problems.

I once visited a society where women felt safe and there were no kerb crawlers. Conservative Members may find this unbelievable, but when I went to Cuba three or four years ago I found that no woman was frightened to be alone on the streets at night. That is not because Cuba has adopted the proposal of the hon. Member for Streatham or the new clause about putting prostitution under the control of local authorities. It is because in Cuba there is a different attitude to women. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members laugh.

I, too, have visited Cuba——

Order. We are not going around the world. This Bill applies to this country only.

rose——

Order. I do not see how Cuba can be a designated area. Let us get back to those areas.

The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish would be successful because a local authority would understand the problems of the area that it designated far better than central Government. The local authority may well reach the conclusion that social problems are the root cause of prostitution in its area and that it is better to tackle those problems. Therefore, it might decide not to designate an area. Local authority officials may decide to visit Cuba to adopt the methods used there that have done so much to make women safe on the streets. For a start, women's bodies in Cuba are not used to sell goods. There is a different attitude——

Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a not a Second Reading debate. The Bill has had its Second Reading and we are now discussing a new clause that deals with the power of local authorities to designate areas. We should return to that new clause.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When discussing the new clause, would it be in order to discuss also the problems that a local authority would face when deciding whether to designate an area, and such issues as the exploitation of women's bodies for commercial purposes?

The hon. Gentleman must not start to ask me what I might, in hypothetical circumstances, do about matters that may or may not be discussed. It is my responsibility to judge whether the content of a speech is in order or otherwise. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to encourage me to debate my ruling with him. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will heed what I have said.

I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want a society in which there is no prostitution—a goal achieved voluntarily.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has suggested that we can amend the Bill, but I believe that it might fail. I know that the hon. Member for Streatham seeks to do what is best for his constituents, but I am worried that he will raise their hopes with the Bill. In three years' time, when nothing has changed and just a few more pathetic men have been arrested, women will still be harassed. People will become embittered because they will believe that the Bill has led to no real improvement.

If I were convinced that the Bill would work I would vote for it. I believe that the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish would strengthen the Bill, but if we are to tackle the problem, there should be local control and a local understanding of it.

We have already spoken about video nasties, which are not directly relevant to this debate, and it is important to consider all possible alternatives to help solve the problem. If local authorities were given the power as set out in the new clause, they would be able to seek those alternatives.

Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that the kerb crawlers and most of the prostitutes in my constitency do not live there. Whatever social problems there might or might not be in my constituency or in Lambeth, they have no relevance to the problems of the kerb crawlers or the prostitutes who live in a different area.

That is exactly the point—the basic problem cannot be simply be solved by the Bill. There is a social cause that must be addressed.

In the past few years, prostitution has increased and I am certain that the hon. Member for Streatham is aware that the situation has worsened in his constituency. In an Adjournment debate in 1989 he said:

"Over the past few years, a plague—a pollution—has struck a part of my constituency."—

About certain streets he said:

"At night, they swarm with prostitutes."—[Official Report, 12 January 1989; Vol. 144, c. 1092.]

That was a clear acknowledgement from the hon. Gentleman that the problem has got worse and it will continue to do so until we tackle the social problem.

11.15 am

The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is the first step towards giving local government real powers to deal with the problem. After a brief time, however, I am certain that the local authorities would say that social problems cause the distress and that those problems must be tackled instead of extending the scope of legislation to reduce civil liberties. Such legislation also carries the possibility of destroying the career of someone innocently caught up in a prosecution because he happened to be in the area and, in the eyes of a police officer, was behaving in a suspicious manner.

It is important to remember some of the scandals that have occurred in the past year. The Minister has told us that we should work on the assumption that the Bill will be implemented properly and that we should put out of our mind any possible abuse. I cannot accept that. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot ask the House to assume that the laws passed by it are carried out perfectly. That is nonsense. Some of us have been leaders of local authorities. We sat at the top, issued edicts, but knew damn well that down at the grass roots they were not carried out in the way intended. The problem is even greater for central Government.

The Minister has told us that we should put out of our mind the idea that the Bill will not be properly implemented, but how can he reach that conclusion in a year that has witnessed the major scandal of the falsification of evidence by the West Midlands serious crime squad and the stunning decision to release the Guildford Four? Our policing system is not perfect any more than our political system. One cannot achieve perfection and the best that one can hope for is to strike a balance between the needs of the oppressed and the civil liberties of those people who may be caught up in a prosecution.

The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is a step towards ensuring the proper implementation of the Bill. Although I have reservations about the Bill, I am still prepared to vote for it, provided that some safeguards are introduced. The Minister echoed my concern as he assured the House that the pattern of prosecutions would be monitored because of the general worry that innocent people might be caught. If the Bill is so perfect, why must the Government monitor its implementation and ensure that it is not abused? It would be much better to get the Bill right and not accept something that is imperfect in the hope that we can rectify it later or rely on the Crown prosecution service to tidy it up. That is not good enough. We have a duty to ensure that the legislation we pass contains the checks and balances necessary to protect the individual. I accept, however, that it is every bit as important to protect people who are harassed daily on the streets.

I took action around the Finsbury park area of Stoke Newington to tackle kerb crawling and I believed that that would do the trick, but it failed. The traffic management did not work. At that time, I had the same ideas as the hon. Member for Streatham, that yet more controls, yet more laws and more policing would solve the problem. They do not. I failed to solve the problem in Finsbury park with that traffic management scheme. The traffic moved on, but from what I hear, the problem returned to Finsbury park as, gradually, the kerb crawlers learnt how to work their way around the new traffic management scheme.

Instead of constantly trying measure after measure that relies on extending the powers of the state and having more legal measures to tackle the problem, the House should consider going to the source of the problem, the social conditions that produce, not just prostitution, but those men who rely on prostitution and cannot develop fulfilling personal relationships.

The clause would push the debate down to local government and mean that the issue was being debated in council chambers across the country. Do we need more laws or should we consider social consequences? If that debate were taking place, I am certain that there would be a huge public consensus that considering social consequences was the way to tackle prostitution.

Earlier, the Minister of State referred to the growing consensus in the House about women's issues. I welcome that, but I do not think that it is growing fast enough. He talked about the need to protect women. It would be much easier to give expression to that belief if he were to come to the House with proposals to pass into law the ten-minute Bill that was the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to remove page three, that daily diet of pornography that creates the climate in which men feel that they can buy women because they are available for them as and when they want. Why do not the Government do that?

If the Minister wants to protect women—I see his interest is such that he is leaving the Chamber rather than respond—he should introduce real protection for women and change the climate. As I said, in Cuba, women's bodies are not used to sell goods and pornography is not encouraged in virtually every shop, as it is here.

I have believed for some time that the major cause of the increase in rape cases—I believe that there has been an increase—has been page three, which has meant that generation after generation of young men have grown up, seeing that filth and assuming that the degrading way in which women are portrayed means that women are available to them as and when they want. Those are the men who go on to become kerb crawlers, incapable of forming equal relationships with women or of developing loving relationships with them. They end up crawling round the streets of Streatham or Finsbury park making life hell for everyone there. Those are the issues that we should consider in tackling the problem.

I am certain that if the legislation were amended in that way so that local authorities were debating the problem, those are issues with which they would return to the House. Local authorities that had had the problem on their plate, had tried to tackle it and failed, would come back to the House asking us to do something about page three to reduce the social causes of prostitution. I believe that those local authorities would also say that they would like better sex education in schools, which did not include merely discussions on the mechanics of sex, but ensured that another generation of kerb crawlers was not produced, and boys grew up in society aware that it was not just a matter ——

Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman once again that his speech seems more appropriate to Second Reading. I hope that he will address himself to the issue of designated areas, as provided for in the new clause.

I am glad that you bring me back to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I was running through what conclusion I thought local authorities that were given the powers of designation would reach and what proposals they would make. Another aspect of designated areas is policing. Councils that have control over designation would also need to have control over policing and the ability to intervene to ensure that there was adequate policing in those areas. There would be no point in a local authority having the power of designation if it could not direct enough police resources into an area to ensure that the policy was carried out. In a sense, local authorities would take over the role that the hon. Member for Streatham and I carry out, as do all London Members. We pursue the police so that they provide the resources to tackle the problem.

I cannot remember whether it was on an Adjournment debate or Second Reading that the hon. Member for Streatham talked about the way in which the police had responded to his pressure, done their best under the present system and switched resources into the local areas, but it had not been enough. If we give local authorities the power of designation so that they are in control, we must also say to the police that they must respond to local authorities' decisions about the level of policing required.

I can talk only about London. Since the Government were elected 11 years ago there has been a massive increase in the numbers of police and in police pay in London. Sadly, there has also been a massive increase in crime and kerb crawling. In his Adjournment debate speech the hon. Member for Streatham identified that increase. Designated authorities may reach the conclusion that more local police are needed on the streets to prevent the problem.

In London there are more than 25,000 police officers, excluding the support staff who are not uniformed officers. I accept that they have to operate a three-shift system. No one would seriously want the police to work more than eight hours a day on average. In London we should have about five police officers available at any one time of the day in each ward of the city. If we had that and local authorities that had been given the powers of designation could say to their local police that they wanted them on the streets day by day, we could prevent the problem arising. It would be much better to prevent the problem by a visible police presence on the streets, as there was when I was a boy.

Where I grew up I did not go more than 10 or 15 minutes without seeing a police officer walking down the street. There was a constant police presence, and it deterred. It is no good dealing with a crime after it has been committed. A woman who has been scandalised by being approached by a kerb crawler is not cheered up very much by hearing that the character is going to be prosecuted and might be fined £100 or £500. She has been traumatised. In exactly the same way, heavier and heavier penalties for muggers will not bring back the joy that a pensioner has lost. The fear that lives with pensioners may mean that they never feel free to go on the streets again after they have been mugged.

Rather than constantly demanding more and heavier penalties, we should focus on prevention. Under the powers of designation, local authorities would argue strongly for a change in the pattern of policing. We should move away from the bureaucratisation of the police force so that the majority of local bobbies are on the street and prevent crime by their presence. That would be a much more effective way of tackling kerb crawling. If five or six police officers were available in each ward every hour of every day, the problem would not arise. We would not be merely pushing the problem to another area. If we moved to genuine community policing, we could change the pattern and stop the problem occurring.

After considering and debating the problem, designated authorities would see that it is not just a matter of pushing it somewhere else or dealing with the social problems, because that would take time.

Perhaps the first thing that designated authorities would want to do would be to decriminalise prostitution so that prostitutes were not forced to concentrate in certain areas and they would not then need their pimps. I am not arguing for legalisation; I do not think that designated authorities would. The idea of state-run brothels would fill me with horror. In Germany—

Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it does not satisfy the requirements of the Chair merely to keep inserting the phrase "designated authorities". I hope that he will recognise that this is a private Members' day and that we have another 16 private Members' Bills on the Order Paper. I have a duty to safeguard the interests of those hon. Members, so I very much hope that all hon. Members will bear in mind the rights and interests of other hon. Members.

I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In this debate it is important that we preserve the rights of people who might be entrapped by the new legislation and whose lives might thereby be destroyed.

I have said what I wanted to say about the new clause, and I hope to speak again on later amendments.

I am sorry to have Missed the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but I did hear his interventions later, and all the other speeches. I listened with great interest to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), but I must tell him that I am wholly opposed to the new clause, as I hope the whole House will be.

Those of us who represent constituencies in which kerb crawling has been a problem for many years know that the new clause contains nothing that will really tackle the problem. More importantly, the people who live in these areas, especially women, know that new clause 2 will offer them no protection. I hope that, if it is forced to a vote, it will be roundly defeated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East made great play of the idea of involving local councillors and local authorities, saying that they would know what to do. I have represented part of Wandsworth in this place for 20 years, during which control of the borough has been held by both Labour and Conservative parties. The problem of kerb crawling has been evident in this area since long before I became a Member of Parliament, and under councils run by both the major parties. The new clause refers to complaints from the public, to the police being satisfied that there is a problem of prostitution and of kerb crawling, and to all other reasonable steps having been taken to deal with the problem. However, I and other hon. Members who have represented the borough of Wandsworth over the years have frequently been asked by leaders of the authority to seek action here in Parliament to try to end the problem.

There is no doubt that there have been many complaints by the general public. One of the first speeches that I ever made in this place was about the problem of prostitution and kerb crawling in the Bedford hill area of my constituency, a subject that I have spoken about many times since. I served on the Committee that scrutinised the 1985 Bill and on the Committee that dealt with this Bill. I know that local authorities can help—for instance, by providing better street lighting, by introducing one-way schemes that will stop drivers persistently driving around certain areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East rightly said that we need more police on the beat, but ultimately Parliament has to introduce legislation that the courts of this country can follow, and no amount of consultaton with local authorities, local ward councillors and the local community will solve the problem by itself.

We have heard a great deal this morning about the problems in my constituency, in that of the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) and in other parts of London, but the problem exists in many other parts of the country too. I notice that the hon. Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) is in his place; he served with me on the Committee that looked into the previous legislation on this subject and he outlined the problems in his area. Kerb crawling does not go on only in big cities; it is a problem in small towns too.

Today we have the opportunity to introduce legislation to strengthen that which is already in place, because what happened in the other place to the 1985 Act has led to problems that continue to this day.

We have heard a great deal about people's rights, and I support such rights, but I give greater support to the rights of women who live in my constituency and who need to be able to walk home without continual harassment and abuse from people who come into the area that I represent and, I am sure, into that represented by the hon. Member for Streatham. These people do not live in our areas: they come in from outside. They cause all the problems from which our constituents suffer. I have often been told by women in my constituency that age has nothing to do with it. Young girls going home or going to school, or retired ladies going shopping or going to a day centre, when walking in certain streets in my area are regarded by kerb crawlers as potential prostitutes. What has happened to their rights? They need protection from such harassment, which is why I fully support this Bill.

The Minister spoke about the collaboration of witnesses, but I was not much impressed by some of what he said. Over the years I and other hon. Members who have suffered these difficulties in our constituencies have tried to get legislation on to the statute book to solve the problem, but we have always been told that a review was under way and that the Government could not anticipate what suggestions it might contain. So for years there was no action. Then, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) introduced her Bill in 1985. To those of us who had campaigned for years against kerb crawling, her Bill offered the first ray of hope. It gave the police some authority to take action against kerb crawlers who came into our areas.

It sounds good to say that there must be collaboration before action can be taken against a kerb crawler, but before the legislation was enacted, local community groups in my constituency tried protesting and hassling prostitutes and their minders off our streets. But they suffered a great deal of abuse; their cars were attacked, as was their property. Some windows were broken late at night, but no action could ever be taken against the perpetrators.

Of course we have to protect the individual's rights. The Minister quoted a report from today's edition of The Times. It appears that a person who has been convicted of kerb crawling can go to the High Court with an articulate barrister and be acquitted. By all means we should protect individual rights, but the Bill is about protecting the communities that we try to represent. It will certainly protect women.

I have discussed these matters with the local police and with a wide variety of people who live in the affected area of my constituency. They fully support what the Bill seeks to do. It ill becomes my hon. Friends to say in one breath that they want to protect the rights of women and then to point to things that happen in one country or another. Of course we have to look at such things, but the real test is whether my hon. Friends are concerned about the rights of women to walk safely on our streets. They should not attempt to insert this clause, and they should not try to talk out the Bill. If they do so, the wrath of the people that I represent and the constituents of the hon. Member for Streatham will descend on them.

This is an opportunity for us to tighten the legislation and all hon. Members should warmly welcome that. The Bill will tackle the problem of kerb crawling and the new clause would not do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said that the new clause would remove the guts of the Bill. If my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is truly concerned about the rights of women, he should not seek to delay or destroy the Bill.

I apologise to the House for not being present to hear the opening speeches in the debate. I was delayed on constituency business. I represent that part of the Finsbury Park area which is in Hackney. I also live in that area, and I am familiar with the problems of prostitution and kerb crawling and the harassment of women throughout that area. Those problems are frequently brought to my attention in my surgery and by correspondence.

We are debating the designation of areas. Based on experience, publicity, police records and attempted prosecutions, the Finsbury Park area would have been designated in the past—I am not so sure about now—within the meaning of the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Would designation of that area be of assistance or would it merely create a further problem? The local authority would be presented with the possibility of designating that area. There would inevitably be a great deal of public discussion, during which I can imagine the sort of reporting in which some of the more salacious newspapers would engage. I can also imagine the sort of discussion that would take place in some parts of the media.

In that period of discussion, the kind of voyeurism that exists throughout London at the moment and which is seen in other parts of Europe where there are no red light districts would greatly increase, as would the harassment of women. We have had such problems for a long time. Not long ago, a woman was molested while walking in the Finsbury park area. When the case finally came to court, the magistrate more or less said that she should not have been walking on her own at night in that area because she should have known that it was a sort of red light district. That approach is not helpful. In effect the magistrate was saying that people should not walk the streets at night when they know the sort of area that they are in.

11.45 am

What will be the effects of designation after the debate and furore surrounding it have died down? It could mean considerably more police activity in an area, but such activity could be increased anyway and does not require designation. Will a designated area be a kind of magnet for pimps, and will prostitution increase? It would probably make the situation worse. Public designation of areas such as King's Cross, Shepherd's Market, Finsbury park and some parts of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), as a result of newspaper reporting, has not improved the situation. It has increased the problem for women walking around those areas. The designation of an area is of no assistance at all.

When does one lift the designation? How does one decide whether an area is designated, and by what criteria are the statistics drawn together? The new clause says:

"An area may be designated by a local authority if

(a) complaints are made by the general public and

(b) the police are satisfied there is a problem of prostitution and kerb-crawling and

(c) all other reasonable steps have been take to deal with the problem."

I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by going wide of the mark, but we have had experience of legislation that made it easy to build up a case that was apparently based on the effective use of statistics showing that there was a problem to be dealt with and that legal action had to be taken. I think, for example, of the introduction of visas for people from Bangladesh coming to this country. Plainly, that was done using statistics that were based on the fact that immigration officers asked more people from Bangladesh than from any other country why they were coming to Britain. On that basis, it was deemed to be a problem. On what basis can an objective decision be made that there is a problem in a certain area?

There is also the matter of the objectivity of complaints from the general public. I do not doubt that prostitution is a serious problem in my constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members. I also know that a person who is having a dispute with his neighbour for goodness knows what reason may tell us at the end of the conversation, "By the way, the house is full of prostitutes and it is a serious problem." There is no way of checking that or of dealing with it. It is simply given out as a complaint. If it is referred to the police, it is probable that nothing could be proved one way or the other, but it is recorded as a complaint and is used as part of the statistics for building up a case for designating an area.

Legislation should be correctly drafted and able to achieve its intentions. It should not cause problems for people who should not be affected by the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) gave a good analogy in Committee of the way in which the Official Secrets Act passed through the House in 1911, when there was deemed to be a problem. There might have been, but there has been a far bigger one since. I want to see legislation that will protect women and that does not designate areas as red light or red line districts, thereby exacerbating the problem. I hope that we can succeed in that aim.

The new clause also says:

"Any designations shall remain in force for three years, but may be renewed thereafter."

Three years is quite a long time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East explained—at one time he was a member of the Greater London council and represented the area, so he is aware of the problems in Finsbury park—the traffic management schemes introduced on the Hackney side of the Blackstock road had a considerable effect. Few people could find their way into the area, and if they did, they could not get out. There is a permanent traffic jam there, with the result that there is no kerb crawling.

Unfortunately, the traffic management scheme moved the problem somewhere else—to the other side of the Blackstock road, to Stamford Hill and then on to other parts of London. Designation is not the way to solve the problem. It probably makes it far worse, for the reasons that I have outlined. Nor does designation solve the problems that lead to prostitution—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has said, commercial exploitation of women's bodies in advertisements. I know that Conservative Members apparently do not take these matters seriously, but I do, because the way that women are perceived in advertisements and so on has a knock-on effect and ends in the harassment of women in the streets by kerb crawlers and the like.

I have no sympathy for kerb crawlers—they are a menace—but it is important that legislation introducing prosecution of people scouting round London looking for commercial sex also protects the innocent. The protection of women is done no good if legislation is so badly drafted and incompetently presented that it amounts to the right to harass anyone who happens to be looking for the way. It is important to get these things right. If we get them wrong, we shall have done nothing to solve the problems of kerb crawling and prostitution but will have created a greater problem, affecting the right of individuals to walk or drive around streets unmolested. London has already experienced the sus law and I do not want to see harassment returning in another form through a quirk of badly drafted legislation.

I regret that I was unable to contact the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but I have been abroad with the Council of Europe and arrived back only yesterday. I should have wished to discuss these matters with him.

I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that new clause 2 is not the sensible way to proceed. Like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, I wish women to be protected, and designated areas will reduce protection. With them, a woman walking with her daughter along one side of the street would be protected by the criminal law while another woman walking on the other side of the street would not be protected. That must be wrong. Furthermore, if the House has decided that a certain activity is a crime, surely it is a crime wherever it occurs, not just in an area that happens to be designated by a local authority. I ask the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish to withdraw his new clause.

Since Second Reading, I have been inundated with hundreds of thousands of letters of support from individuals, from councils and from various organisations and bodies. The hopes of many people are riding on a successful outcome of today's proceedings. I ask the hon. Member and his colleagues not to talk out the Bill. I know that they can do that, and I would not be able to stop them, but they would disappoint not only my constituents but, for example, people in Merseyside. This morning, "Breakfast News" had a programme about the Bill, arid local radio stations are monitoring our debates. The attention of many families who are trapped in their homes by kerb crawlers, of women whose daughters are solicited and who themselves are solicited and who must be protected, is focused on us. These 14 amendments and two new clauses remove protection rather than adding to it.

At the beginning of our proceedings, I made it clear that I understand the strong feelings of people who live in areas subjected to such harassment. I make that clear again. Some solution to the problem must be found, but I am worried that a large number of people are pinning their hopes on simply making it easier to prosecute and on a small increase in fines. I am not convinced that that will solve the problems of kerb crawling and prostitution. We should not be raising hopes too high.

It is always dangerous for Members of Parliament to be so carried along in a wave of anger and disgust at a particular problem that they impose legislation that does not solve the problem. I still have to be convinced that this legislation will solve the problem. If we pass the Bill, we shall be telling people in the areas affected not to worry because it will solve the problem in the next couple of years. I am not convinced of that.

I am interested in what the Minister said about trying to meet the legitimate points made about civil rights. He made it clear from the start that he was worried about this, and he has far greater experience of this than we have because he served on the Committee considering the 1985 Act. He said that he would come up with something on a later group of amendments.

I am grateful for that conciliatory thought. As we know that that is the nub of the matter—far more than what we are discussing now—I would be only too happy if I were allowed to intervene briefly. I feel confident that, if the hon. Member were satisfied on that point, the progress on later amendments would be quicker and easier. If I could, with the leave of the House, speak again, it might speed the passage of the Bill.

I was about to suggest that we voted on the new clause and that, during the Division, we discussed informally what was being suggested. That may be the most helpful way to proceed. Therefore, I shall press the new clause to a vote.

With the leave of the House, I would be only too happy to follow up any suggestion, but this should be a public process, because we are in a publicly accountable institution. I understand the concerns that there will always be that, in our enthusiasm to convict the guilty, we should not put the innocent at risk. The record will show that my concern on this matter, as expressed for instance in my membership of the Committee considering the legislation that got rid of the sus laws, means that my commitment is more than rhetorical.

The requirement of persistence makes it extremely difficult to obtain a conviction in an otherwise clear cut case. That is why more than 9,000 women were arrested and convicted of soliciting, but only 570 men were arrested under the 1985 Act last year. It was predicted that that requirement would seriously handicap the enforcement of the law, and it has. I read out The Times law report of the Darroch case, which showed that a clear single act of solicitation was not enough to grant a conviction, because persistence was absent.

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend saw the television programme broadcast by London Weekend Television some 12 or 18 months ago, emphasising how difficult it was to achieve prosecutions in Streatham for that reason.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful point.

I am anxious to ensure that we pass effective law. If someone has committed a clear act of solicitation, there is no reason why they should be required to do it twice to be convicted, any more than there is a requirement for someone to snatch a handbag on two occasions before he can be convicted of an act of robbery. The concern is how the law will be enforced.

I realise that there have been one or two instances in which people have protested about the manner in which the law has been enforced, but they have been isolated cases and there is certainly no evidence that the uncorroborated evidence of police officers has led to any injustice. If there is concern that someone will gild the lily and invent evidence, it is just as easy to invent two acts of solicitation. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) made it clear that there is more concern about the framework in which the prosecution process is carried out.

I said in 1985, and I am happy to repeat now, that, wherever possible, the woman should come to court and give evidence. That is undoubtedly the way in which police forces go about their business. However, we have to bear in mind two problems. First, if the woman concerned is a prostitute, the last thing that she will want to do is give evidence to secure the conviction of one of her customers. It would not be in her interest to do so, and I can think of half a dozen reasons why she would not want to come forward. It does not discredit the police in any way that in those circumstances they could not enlist the support of the woman.

Secondly a woman who is not a prostitute, but is accosted as if she were, may be reluctant to come forward because of the disproportionate amount of publicity that she might attract. I hope that, in those circumstances, public-spirited women would come forward, but I can well understand why they might not. Therefore, it would not be right for Parliament to create a legal framework making it a necessity for a conviction that the woman concerned should give evidence. It is possible that other forms of corroboration might be available, but it is quite difficult to imagine who else would be on the scene.

However, I can make some helpful points about the framework in which we should set the legislation. After a week on the Broadcasting Bill, I would not be here unless I believed that the element of persistence in the offence is a major reason why the law has never been effective. I have no other interest in the matter. After all, I should have loved to believe that, by some miracle, the 1985 Act, on which I spent considerable time, would do the trick. In my heart of hearts, I knew that it would not, and five years on I can say categorically that it has not worked. However, I am not insensitive to the points at the heart of the debate.

I should like to make three points. First, I certainly undertake to find some way of monitoring acquittal rates to find out whether there was evidence of inappropriate cases being brought to courts. I understand the embarrassment being caused by the public knowledge that someone has been arrested. Secondly, I am prepared to explore with the Crown prosecution service the possibility of monitoring the proportion of charges in which it is decided not to proceed. That would ascertain whether too many people were being arrested. Thirdly, I will undertake to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General the guidelines applicable to the Crown prosecution service and ask him to consider whether they could sensibly be amended to reflect the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the possible oppressive use of an amended offence.

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that, as a result of one of the Bills in which I was involved, the creation of the Crown prosecution service has separated the business of investigation from the business of prosecution and has provided a filter. It is quite possible that that process will produce the decision that some cases should be dealt with by a caution rather than by going to court. It is quite clear that the Crown prosecution service should carefully vet arrests to make absolutely sure that proceedings are not brought if a case will not stand up to scrutiny.

I reiterate that, wherever possible, independent evidence should be brought forward, but we must recognise that that will not always be possible. I believe that we can create a framework for prosecution practice and a system of monitoring the use of the law that will allow us to know within a sensible period whether we had done the right thing—as the majority of Members believe—or whether we had gone one step too far.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no one's amour propre or ego is involved. I believe that we can create a framework that would allow us to determine whether we have got it wrong or gone too far. I would not have a leg to stand on if the evidence that I put before the House that can be elicited in parliamentary questions or in any other way were to determine that something had gone awry. But I am quite sure that the innocent motorist who merely stopped to ask the way would not fall foul of the law.

In practical terms, a court is unlikely to convict except in three possible circumstances, such as the presence of the woman to say what the motorist really said—if there was merely a conversation, no one would know what was said unless the woman came forward. If the man asked, "Which way to the Dog and Duck, darling? I'm lost and I'm a stranger round here", the woman has to say that he really said, "How much, love?"; or a policeman has to be so close that he can hear what was said even if the woman is a prostitute who is not prepared to come forward—an unlikely situation; or the individual concerned has to do it more than once. Even if persistence is not a requirement as a matter of law, it may be necessary to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour that clearly and unequivocally establishes a desire to solicit rather than an innocent question asking the way.

Now we are getting to the heart of the matter, I would be resentful only if it were to he thrown back in our faces. The record will show that all this is well-tilled ground and was predictable and predicted; nevertheless, we should take a proper view of the civil rights involved while offering affected communities much-needed redress. I hope that I have struck a balance that will help the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to decide what they want to do.

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 10, leave out

'and the words from persistently onwards'.

With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(2A) At the end of subsection 1(1)(b) there shall be inserted the words "in such a manner as to cause her fear.".'.

No. 5, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(2A) At the end of subsection 1(1)(b) there shall be inserted the words 'in such a manner as to cause her apprehension by physical harm.'.

No. 6, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—

`(2A) At the end of subsection 1(1)(b) there shall be inserted the words 'in such a manner as to cause the woman to fear that the man may insist on sex and rape or otherwise molest her.'.

No. 7, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(2A) After subsection (1)(b) of section 1 there shall be inserted

"Provided that an offence shall not be proved unless the person who has been caused nuisance or fear gives evidence that such nuisance or fear were caused".'.—

No. 8, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—

'(2A) After section 1 there shall be inserted the following section

I want to speak mainly to amendment No. 3. I listened with interest to the Minister's last intervention. He is moving a little in our direction, but he could move a little further. If he goes back over the arguments in 1985, he will see that there was a strong argument for putting the word "persistently" into the legislation. He has not established that there is clear evidence from the police that there are many prosecutions that they would like to pursue, but have been unable to. The Minister should tell the House if there is much evidence from the police that they have been hampered by the legislation as it was framed in 1985.

My hon. Friends have said with considerable passion that the problem has not been solved as a result of the Sexual Offences Act 1985, but I have yet to be convinced that the problem will be solved if we simply make it easier to prosecute. I am not convinced that the necessary police attention is given to the problem and part of my argument on new clause 2 was that there is a question about the resources directed to the problem. I suspect that if the police were directing a large proportion of their resources as many hon. Members who have spoken this morning would like, the 1985 legislation might have worked rather better than it has. I want the Minister to deal with that issue.

The Minister has said that he will consider administrative solutions. The difficulty with that is, as he must be only too well aware, Ministers come and go and Governments come and go. If we can achieve something by administrative guidance on one occasion and if we suggest that the Crown prosecution service and the police should deal with the problem in a certain way, what will happen if in 12 months', 18 months' or two years' time it is thought that the way in which the police operate the legislation and the way in which the Crown prosecution service brings prosecutions is not having the desired effect? There will then be further pressure for those administrative guidelines to be changed. Such pressure raises considerable worries. If the Minister is really saying that we must be satisfied that we are addressing the civil liberties issues raised by the Bill by administrative means, he must convince me that that will be enshrined in some way rather than being merely open for a Minister to change at a future date.

I realise that there are major problems. There is the question of the independence of the police from Government direction and of the independence of the Crown prosecution service from the police and from the Government, although it is under some direction from the Attorney-General. I hope that the Minister will address that point.

I should especially like him to consider whether the Government would be willing to look at the matter further in the House of Lords. I do not claim to have any background, but there are a fair number of practising lawyers and people with a great deal more experience of legal matters in the House of Lords than there are here. If the Minister promises a further look at the matter in the House of Lords, I could be persuaded that we might meet the civil liberties issues. I am not sure about the position of my hon. Friends and they may want to speak for themselves.

The Minister will accept that there are fears outside, whether justified or not, that there will be an erosion of civil rights and that the main contention—that something has to be done about kerb crawling—will not be addressed by the Bill. I shall listen with considerable interest to the Minister. I hope that he will reiterate the points that he made earlier, that he will look at the Bill again in the House of Lords and try to go a little further than simply putting his assurances into administrative guidelines. I am sure that the Minister will accept that they are subject to, and can be varied as a result of, political pressure on the Minister or even a change of Minister.

I shall deal with the points briefly, which may be for the advantage of the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for appearing to be willing to move on the matter. I want to help him as far as I can, but unfortunately I cannot get myself out of one difficulty by plunging myself into another. I shall explain what I mean by that later.

The hon. Gentleman's first point concerned the word "persistently". I am sure that I will have the support of all hon. Members who have studied the matter when I say categorically that it is the requirement for persistence that has prevented the Sexual Offences Act 1985 from being effectively enforced against people who have plainly committed acts of kerb-crawling solicitation from cars. The element of persistence has made it difficult for the guilty to be convicted. I do not see that the word "persistently" should have to be relied on as a way of preventing improper prosecutions.

There can be only two bases on which an improper prosecution can take place. People may invent evidence. If a person is prepared to invent evidence about one incident, presumably he is willing to invent evidence about two. Persistence is no protection against a willingness to invent evidence, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish was suggesting a systematic invention of evidence: he was concerned that it should not be too easy to secure a conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of a police officer.

It is clear that the courts, whatever Parliament says, will not be prepared to convict unless they are sure about guilt. The burden of proof is not that the courts think, "He is a policeman and the other fellow is not, so on balance, I prefer his evidence," if it is one against one. The court must be satisfied. I have outlined the way in which the system works—the pressure to get the woman to appear, the clear-cut nature of the police evidence that will be necessary to obtain a conviction, and the necessity for persistence, which I suspect will remain as a matter of proof rather than as a matter of law if a prosecution is to be successful.

The hon. Gentleman is obviously worried that, if an inocent individual asked the way, he could be arrested. He could be arrested only on the basis that someone could give evidence of the words used. The offence is not stopping a car and talking to a woman; it is soliciting for the purposes of prostitution. A policeman could be 50 yards away when he sees Lil, a regular prostitute in his area, being approached by a man in a car. He might be someone who, as well as simply losing his way, is not aware who the woman is. All he might say is, "Which way to the Dog and Duck?" The policeman would have to give evidence, or get Lil to give evidence, that words of solicitation were used. The mere fact that someone stopped and had a conversation is not sufficient. That is the important point.

The element of persistence is a major handicap to the effective administration of the law. The innocent but naive traveller who has lost his way, or the person who is the victim of someone willing to invent evidence, will not be adversely affected by the changes that we want to make—but a great many guilty people will be adversely affected, as they should be.

The Minister said earlier that, although the word "persistently" would be deleted, in practice the court would be likely to require evidence of at least one further approach. Can he explain the difference between section 1 of the 1985 Act, which this Bill seeks to amend, and section 2, which the Bill will not amend and which will continue to contain the word "persistently"?

Clause 2 is the presumption about a boy's sexual capabilities——

I was referring to section 2 of the 1985 Act, not clause 2 of the Bill.

Section 2 of the original Act relates to people on foot, which is a different point. It is not the nub of the problem. The Bill seeks only to deal with the particular problem of car-borne trade. It might have been possible to have altered section 2 also, but I do not think it is an argument against the Bill because we did not choose to do so.

I am not suggesting that it is an argument against the Bill: I am merely wondering how the courts will interpret the matter when they see that the word "persistently" has been deleted from section 1 but remains in section 2. They may assume that that runs counter to the Minister's suggestion that they should look for evidence of continued approaches rather than just one approach.

Quite honestly, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I practised in the courts for almost 10 years before I came to the House. Courts are used to dealing with offences that have different ingredients. That is their business.

I want to keep my eye on the main ball, which is car-borne soliciting. It is fairly straightforward. A man in a car approaches a woman and has a conversation with her. There are only three ways in which a conviction can be obtained: first, that the woman concerned gives evidence in court and is believed on her oath, as against whatever the car driver may say, that he sought to solicit her for the purpose of prostitution. Currently, even if the hon. Gentleman's wife, mother or daughter were to be grossly offended by a guy approaching her and saying, "How about 50 quid, love, for a quick one?"—[Interruption.] That is the sort of language that is used, and that is why innocent women are outraged. I am sorry if that offends my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), but we are not dealing with polite clubroom conversations. We are dealing with earthy approaches and women are revolted and disgusted by what is said to them.

Under current practice, even if the court believes the woman, because it is an isolated incident the man cannot be convicted. That is crying out for reform. There is no reason why, if the court prefers the evidence of the woman to that of the man, there should not be a conviction.

Secondly, there could be a conversation, but the woman concerned is not prepared to give evidence. The only way in which a conviction could be secured under those circumstances would be if another individual heard the conversation, gave evidence to the court and was believed on his or her oath. The police officer would literally almost have to breathe down the necks of the participants in the conversation for his evidence to be as strong as that of the person spoken to. In the nature of things, that is not very likely.

How can a conviction be secured without someone hearing the words or the woman coming forward? I suspect that it would be possible only if either the gestures, as in the case in The Times, were clear beckoning in and the prostitute then got into the car, or if a man had approached known prostitutes on more than one occasion so that the court was convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that he could not be doing anything else. Those are the only broad categories in which a conviction could be sustained.

We do not safeguard the innocent motorist asking the way by perpetuating the persistence requirement. However, we clearly fail to give redress to a woman who is deeply shocked and offended, and willing to give evidence. She may find that, although he would be convicted if he had snatched her handbag and the courts preferred her evidence to his, he is acquitted simply because he did not go 50 yards down the road and proposition another woman—even though the court accepted that he had propositioned her in a crude and disgraceful way for sexual purposes. That is why we are all here this Friday morning. We would not adversely impact on civil liberties by removing the persistence requirement.

Several points about guidelines have been raised. I remind hon. Members that Ministers do not, and I hope never will, determine who is prosecuted in this country. I cannot pick up the phone and say to the Crown prosecution service, "Prosecute X," or, "Don't prosecute Y." I would die in the last ditch and be almost as persistent as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish is being on the Bill to prevent that.

The CPS is accountable via the Attorney-General. He can with perfect propriety discuss the basis on which prosecution practice evolves. The great safeguard created in recent years is the separation of the practice of prosecution from investigation. It was always said that, if the police arrested people and decided to prosecute them, there was no check or balance and no opportunity to say, "He ovestepped the mark; we shall never secure a prosecution."

There are two ways of ensuring that the Act is not oppressively implemented. First, the police can offer guidelines to officers stating clearly, as at present, the need to obtain female corroboration wherever possible. I undertake that that will be examined. Secondly, the Attorney-General's guidelines can reflect the care that needs to be taken in determing whether a prosecution should proceed. That process is now wholly independent as a result of changes in recent years. A lawyer not employed by the police makes an independent decision. That is one reason why I remain convinced that it was right to make the CPS independent despite criticisms of it. Indeed, that reform was made with the assent of both sides of the House.

I shall speak to the Attorney-General and I shall write to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish on the police aspects. I assure him that I have no interest in the innocent being convicted. I want the guilty to be convicted; that is why I want the change to be made. However, I cannot issue directions myself, because that would be unconstitutional. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about a change of Minister and a different view being taken, I assure him that the police will tell officers to proceed or the CPS will proceed only after an operational decision by the chief constable, the director of the CPS or ultimately the Director of Public Prosecutions.

There is no question of interference by politicians. However, it is perfectly proper for us to raise the concerns felt by some hon. Members, and I undertake to do that. I cannot go further than that, because I would be behaving unconstitutionally if I sought to arrogate to myself powers which, thank goodness, I do not have, have never wanted and would never want anyone in my position to have, to determine the prosecution process.

The House of Lords is not in our pocket, and nor should it be. The House of Lords considers legislation and, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, the House of Lords is particularly well qualified to consider the matter because of the number of distinguished lawyers in that place. I am happy to undertake to ensure that the Minister who deals with this Bill in the Lords will raise and invite comment on issues that have troubled some hon. Members in this House. I do not find that remotely embarrassing. I undertake that Lord Ferrers or whoever acts on his behalf will state that there was concern in the House of Commons and that it would be helpful if their Lordships with legal experience could comment on the points. The Minister in the other place might say, "We don't think that there's a problem, but one or two hon. Members in the House of Commons did. What do you think?" That would be perfectly proper.

Am I right in thinking that the: word "persistently" was introduced in the House of Lords during the course of the debate on the Sexual Offences Act 1985?

Yes it was, but pursuant, as I recall, to one of these rather frantic Friday discussions during which it was not possible to include that word, but we undertook as a condition of allowing the Bill to proceed, that it would be introduced in another place.

I am not remotely embarrassed by this discussion. My only embarrassment comes from the thought that we might be deprived of the Bill, not that the Bill is not going to be properly scrutinised. If I could be persuaded that we had taken the wrong step here, I would be relieved, because at the end of today I do not want to feel that we have wilfully and without good reason deprived women of protection to which they are entitled by not accepting that these are straightforward, genuine and good-hearted reasons there for having confidence in the Bill.

I have done the best that I can and I have described the position as I understand it. I hope that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish will be satisfied with that. I know that he is a scrupulously diligent parliamentarian; I have spoken advisedly knowing that he will rightly hold me to account for what I have said today.

I do not have a legal background, but I appreciate that if we pass legislation in this place we must get the balance right. No legislation can be foolproof.

This debate is about balance. We must balance the genuine fear that legislation might affect civil liberties against the even greater fear and distress felt by innocent women who walk the streets and are preyed on by men who disrupt their lives, causing them great suffering and leading them to be imprisoned in their own homes. We must find a way of ensuring that innocent people who drive around our streets are protected and those who are guilty of kerb crawling are punished.

Many genuine fears were expressed in Committee about civil liberties and the Minister responded to them. The Minister has responded further this morning. His suggestions about guidelines for the Crown prosecution service and monitoring conviction rates are helpful and I welcome them.

I have received many letters from people who fully support the legislation. I have also received letters from groups who are concerned about the civil liberties aspect. I am concerned about some of the things that were said in those letters. There were misapprehensions about what the Bill contained. For instance there is nothing in the Bill about electronic tagging, but one group's letter implied that prostitutes would be electronically tagged as a result of the Bill. The Bill has nothing to do with prostitution. We could talk about the problems and the reasons for prostitution for many days, but it is not something that we shall solve, and some people would not want to solve it.

12.45 pm

The Bill is concerned with finding ways to convict criminal men who drive around our streets, harass women and make everyone feel guilty about being out on the streets at night. The Sexual Offences Act 1985 has not worked. The police and the local community know that there are cars which continually kerb crawl, but the police cannot convict those people because of the word "persistently". However, as the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) pointed out, even if the word "persistently" were taken out, there would still have to be proof before someone could be convicted. That makes it easier for the criminal element. There is a great deal of criminality associated with kerb crawling. It is not just a question of the odd man driving into an area—there is also the question of pimps, although I will not deal with that now.

The Bill is about balance—about dealing with the guilty people and achieving civil liberties for innocent women walking around our streets. I understand the views of those hon. Members who have tabled the amendment regarding the word "persistently" and I hope that they will be satisfied with the responses, as we all share their concern. However, I am concerned about the other amendments in the group, which attack women. It is appalling that some of the amendments would require an accosted woman to prove in court that she has been caused fear, or apprehension of physical harm, or that she has been accosted

"in such a manner as to cause the woman to fear that the man may insist on sex and rape".

The amendments would force women to go to court and give evidence in what is already a difficult situation for them.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

No, I will continue as I am the only woman to have spoken in this male-dominated debate.

The Bill will not be foolproof. I hope that, having listened to what the Minister has said, hon. Members will accept the checks and balances to ensure that innocent people are fairly treated are satisfactory.

I congratulate the Minister on the statesmanlike way in which he has dealt with the matter, and on his attempts to come up with a solution acceptable to all hon. Members.

There is no doubt that the Sexual Offences Act 1985—which was introduced as a modern piece of legislation, specifically designed to deal with the problem of kerb crawling—has not worked. The prime reason for its failure is that the evidential requirements were so stringent that it became impossible to bring charges and get convictions.

An article by Dr. Susan Edwards in the New Law Journal dated 25 December 1987 referred to the kerb crawling legislation as "a fiasco". That article is relevant to our debate. Dr. Edwards noted:

"The police see the main problem in the requirements of the Crown Prosecution Service. Officers in London…explained, 'The problem is the law…the law requires two overt acts. You can have a ten-page statement and have followed him for one and a half hours and he still can get off.' Another officer remarked, 'The law is so unworkable it has made our job very difficult. The main difficulty is this question of persistent soliciting.

The evidential requirement to prove persistence is high and the law difficult to enforce.'"

Dr. Susan Edwards, herself a lawyer, wrote:

"it is clear that the standards of proof required in law and by the Crown Prosecution Service leads to a low level of police enforcement; in short, it is a fiasco. It is certainly no deterrent, nor is it reducing the number of kerb crawlers or the visibility of the problem."

The current law demands such stringent evidential requirements and the amendments would make it even more difficult to implement that law.

Instead of simplifying the law and making convictions easier to obtain while preserving civil liberties, the amendments take us in the wrong direction.

A balance must be struck. The Minister's proposals on the framework and concerning discussions with the Attorney-General, who in turn might say something to the Crown prosecution service and the way in which steps will be taken to encourage a discussion on this matter in the House of Lords are consistent with ensuring that the law is workable and at the same time protects, as far as one can in the practical world, the civil liberties of innocent people on the streets.

The Minister has asked us to trust him that the provisions and the monitoring he has suggested will work. I am struck by how often parliament passes legislation and then, because of bad wording, or simple wilful misinterpretation, it is used for a different purpose than intended.

When I was the leader of the GLC, I represented Paddington in north Westminster. A mother came to see me because her son had been stopped five or six times a week while driving around the area, but never prosecuted. That went on for week after week; for some reason, one or two local police officers had got it in for that young man. He was harassed mercilessly every day, sometimes two or three times a day as he drove around the streets of north Westminster. He was stopped, proof of identity sought and his car inspected. He was never arrested for anything, until finally, after the harassment had gone on for several weeks, he took a swing at one of the officers. Parliament never intended that the legislation to deal with crime should be used in that way, so that, with pin prick after pin prick, one or two police officers abuse it. I accept that only one or two out of thousands of good police officers do so, but it is not good enough for the Minister to say, "trust."

To take a much wider example, nearly 20 years ago the House pushed through prevention of terrorism legislation, which the nation as a whole, like most hon. Members, felt was a measure to prevent acts of terrorism. But that is not how it has worked. As year by year has gone by, tens of thousands of people have been stopped and checked at airports, ports and points of entry, and detailed political records have been built up. Of those people who were actually detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, only one in 100 was successfully prosecuted. The act became a measure to collect political information about the movements of Irish people between Ireland and England. No amount of wonderful commitment from the Government will convince me that they have the power to ensure how legislation is carried out.

I was the leader of the Greater London council for five years. We often passed policies and discovered to our horror either that they were not being carried out in the lower reaches of bureaucracy or that they had been carried out in a way that we did not want. The best will in the world—which is certainly what the Minister has—does not work its way down through the massive bureaucracy of the law.

The Minister also asked us to accept that there is a bias against the police in our courts. I do not believe that for one minute. I believe that the majority of magistrates, both lay and stipendary, and the majority of jurors have an overwhelming predisposition to believe the police. Anyone who has been in court arguing against the police will have come away with the impression that it was an uphill struggle. I am not surprised at that. The vast majority of people in Britain who come in contact with the police find them courteous and helpful, and most people's complaint is that there are not enough around when they want one.

I understand that there may be a level of cynicism through which I cannot penetrate, but the hon. Gentleman should not be quite as cynical about what is said about the manner in which police operate and the prosecution process works.

Some five years ago at this Dispatch Box, I said that the police would, wherever possible, try to secure the attendance of the woman. I can only talk about the Metropolitan police, but I know that their orders include that instruction, and have done from day one. I know of no evidence to suggest that the police do not make a sincere effort in every relevant case to make women appear. For the reasons that I have given, which often have nothing to do with the integrity of the police, those women often do not appear. In order to meet objections, a statement was made by a Minister and was translated into action by the Metropolitan police. Some five years on, no one has so much breathed the suggestion that it was a 11 a lot of hot air and nothing came of it.

I urge the hon. Gentleman to believe that he has a choice—he can either accept what everyone else is saying, that there is a problem that they want to help solve, or he must be prepared to allow his cynicism about the way in which authorities operate to preclude him from allowing us to help solve the problem. I hope that he will draw back from that position. I think that we have offered a tight package to prevent abuse.

The Minister has perfectly analysed my policies. I am an incredibly cynical person. I start from the assumption that virtually all authority is subject to abuse, and that the state inherently infringes human liberty. In many senses my particular brand of socialism has many strands which classic neo-Liberals would identify with and like. As leader of the GLC, I felt that the bureaucracy under me was inimically opposed to human freedom. The Minister sits in what is the greatest bureaucracy in the state. I start from that assumption, and nothing has happened to me in the 20 years that I have been in various forms of public office to persuade me otherwise.

I have seen systematic abuse within bureaucracies, and I have also noticed that they tend to cover it up. So I am not persuaded of the good and impartial judgment of the courts and judiciary. Our judiciary is appalling. I know that there are rules about how rude we can be in the Chamber about judges; I do not know what they are, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will bring me to order if I step over the line, but there have been many appalling miscarriages of justice such as that which occurred in the case of the Birmingham six.

I cannot therefore honestly see our judicial system as the protector of the liberties of the people of England. It often infringes those liberties. The position adopted by Lord Chief Justice Lane on the Birmingham appeal amounted to a travesty of justice, and if that is the style set at the top, how can people work on the assumption that at the lower levels—of stipendiary and lay magistrates—justice will be better? I often come into contact with magistrates courts and find them overwhelmingly pro-establishment and pro-police and anti people whom they consider not to be part of the great British consensus.

1 pm

Police resources, about which the Minister spoke, are at the core of the problem. If those resources can be released for this reason, why cannot they be released on a much grander scale to provide the amount of community policing that will deter crime on the streets? As I have said, when I was a boy, the police were a regular presence on all our streets, and they deterred crime. If people know that a bobby will be passing along a street every five or 10 minutes, that dramatically curtails the incidence not only of kerb crawling but of mugging, robbery, burglary and rape.

I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit behind our amendments and, instead of pressing ahead with the original legislation, reconsider his responsibility for the Metropolitan police and ensure that they switch their resources to the sort of policing that I have described. Those resources have been increasingly absorbed within the bureaucracy of policing; more and more police analyse crime trends and are involved in all sorts of special task forces, while fewer and fewer of them are on the streets occupied in crime deterrence.

I level this charge not only against the police but against every bureaucracy. Local government, the BBC and many of our major private corporations are also guilty in this respect. Increasingly, resources are consumed by bureaucracy and administration, while less and less is spent on the delivery of services. To tackle the problem of kerb crawling, I want a major shift of police resources away from the bureaucratic structures that have developed in the Metropolitan police and on to the streets. If there is a police officer in Bedford hill every hour of every day, there will be no kerb crawlers there. The same must be done for all the streets of London; if it is, not only will we dispense with this problem but we shall remove the vast bulk of the crime that disfigures the capital.

I cannot say that I am satisfied with what the Minister has said, but I realise that there are occasions when some sort of compromise must be reached. I shall press this amendment to the vote to make it absolutely clear that I am worried about the removal of the word "persistently". I hope that, after the vote, the Bill will proceed on its way to the House of Lords, where I hope that their Lordships will finally lay to rest the fears that were legitimately expressed in the House today, in Committee and in the debates on the 1985 legislation.

What my hon. Friends do is a matter for them.

By leave of the House. Although I was critical of one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, I said at the outset that he was an experienced and capable parliamentarian. They were not weasel words. The hon. Gentleman has shown largesse of spirit by allowing himself to be satisfied, and for that he should be highly commended. I do not in any way resent what it has been necessary to do to achieve that end, because I am happy to see such safeguards erected. It reflects great credit on the hon. Gentleman to take that view. Obviously, he cannot guarantee the approach of his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, and we must take our chances with him. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish has made a big gesture, and we all appreciate I what he has done.

We now come to amendment No. 10, with which it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 16, leave out '4' and insert '1'.

Having heard the passions expressed in the debate, no one can doubt that people feel deeply on this issue. Sadly, hon. Members do not feel deeply enough for more than 45 of them to be taking part in the debate. I imagine that there will be much public speculation about which way the 610 Members who did not turn up would have voted.

It has been demonstrated that there are grave reservations about the Bill. I spoke earlier at some length about several issues which I could not develop fully because we were dealing with a series of rather restrictive amendments. We must now consider the Bill as a whole and see whether the assurances from the Minister—who is a man of integrity, although I do not agree with him—which have persuaded some of my colleagues with some reluctance that the Bill should go to the other place, are sufficient for us to give the Bill a Third Reading.

I did not hear the Minister's assurances. Will my hon. Friend let me know what they are so that I can make a decision on the Third Reading? Has the Minister made concessions which would go a long way towards satisfying the National Council for Civil Liberties? If so, I may decide to vote. Did the Minister say that he would make some real changes in the other place?

I should be happy to give way to the Minister if he would like to repeat those assurances in his own words. They were honest proposals, which basically hinged on instructions to the police and the Crown prosecution service about the way that the legislation should be handled. He gave a commitment to monitor its effects once it is in place. In reality, although I have the greatest respect for the Minister's integrity and intentions, I do not believe that it is possible, simply through a lofty declaration in this House, to guarantee that his assurances will be carried out at the lowest levels of the judiciary and the police force.

For five years I was the leader of the Greater London council. I had many lofty aspirations about what the council should or should not do. However, some months, or even years, later, I discovered, to my sadness, that my lofty aspirations had not percolated down to the lower levels of the bureaucracy. Some people may say that what happens in local government is not the same as what happens in Parliament. However, former legislation shows that the original intentions have not always been carried out.

It may not be the police officer who gets it wrong; it could be the highest legal officers in the land. A classic case was the 1969 legislation relating to London Transport. It gave the GLC the power to subsidise fares for whatever purpose. Yet the Court of Appeal and the judicial bench of the House of Lords—which know more about the law than anyone else—put a different interpretation on the legislation from that intended by the then Transport Minister, Barbara Castle and her opposite number, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), now the Prime Minister.

If legislation can be so misinterpreted by the highest and mightiest in the land that the will of Parliament is overturned, how can we be confident that the Minister's assurances will be translated into reality, right down to the lowest levels of police and judicial bureaucracy?

For five years I was the GLC representative for Paddington. I earlier cited the case of a mother who came to me because her son was being stopped once or twice a day, day after day, as he drove his car around the area. He was challenged, searched and asked to produce his licence. That continued for weeks. Eventually he lost his temper, took a swing at the police officer and ended up in prison. Parliament never intended that the various traffic regulations and laws should be used in that way by individual police officers. I am sure that such an officer in no way represents the average police officer in the Metropolitan police. He wanted to provoke that man so that he could be arrested. Of course, I do not know the events that had led to that.

I accept the Minister's honour and his good intentions, and I have no doubt that the legislation will be monitored. However, is it not weak that a Minister should have to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that the legislation will be monitored because he is not certain how it will be implemented? No hon. Member can stand up and say, with his hand on his heart, that if the legislation becomes law we can be sure that innocent people will not be entrapped.

Like the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton), I began with the idea that we could do something to help alleviate the problem, even if we could not solve it. When I was the GLC member for Stoke Newington, I introduced a traffic management scheme. I was an opposition member, but I worked in collaboration with the Tory administration under Sir Horace Cutler. I wanted to end the horror of kerb crawling in the Finsbury park area. Residents loved me for it. It was the most popular thing that I did for the people of Finsbury park. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), the problem simply moved over the border into his constituency. That is the flaw in the Bill. it seeks to deal with the problem by moving it on or arresting a few more people. Does anyone honestly believe that if the number of people arrested for kerb crawling increases by 100 per cent., 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. the problem of prostitution will be eradicated in our cities?

The core of the argument is that we should examine and tackle the social causes of prostitution. No amount 01 repression will stop it. In more extreme societies than ours, people can have a hand cut off for theft—yet theft continues in those countries. The only way to stop theft is to create sufficient fairness in society so that everyone has adequate wealth and does not need to steal. In some societies, adultery is punishable by death. People are stoned to death, but even that severe punishment does not stop adultery.

I am sure that the people of Bedford hill support the Bill, but even if the Bill became law in the form in which the hon. Member for Streatham has presented it, it will not stop the problems of prostitution and kerb crawling around Bedford hill, Argyle square King's Cross or Finsbury park. In Finsbury Park, kerb crawlers have learned the mechanics and devious ways of the traffic management scheme that I helped to introduce and found their way around them. If the House wants to stop the problem of prostitution, I beg it to consider the causes. I consider prostitution a problem. I should like to live in a world with no prostitution, where people have loving and fulfilling relationships and that is the whole basis of sexuality in society.

To do away with the need for prostitution, other things have to be done. During one of the Divisions I had a pleasant conversation with the hon. Member for Streatham. He took up my point about my visit to Cuba and my analysis of prostitution and kerb crawling there. He told me that he had visited Cuba three times—twice before and once after the revolution. He was amazed that what I said was true. Havana was an American brothel until the revolution. Americans descended on it and bought the women, boys and girls. It was a den of vice run by the mafia.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that I also suggested that the Cuban solution—a Communist dictatorship—would not be acceptable to my constituents and probably not to his constituents either?

I was not advocating the adoption of Communism to solve the problem of prostitution. I have also been to Moscow, where prostitution is rife and large numbers of prostitutes mingle with the tourists in Red square. There is no equation between Communism and the eradication of prostitution. Other aspects of Cuban society, not necessarily related to Communism, have led to a dramatic reduction in fear among women. When I arrived in Cuba, I was told that no woman in Cuba was afraid to walk the streets at night.

Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman was tempted by that intervention but I am sure that he will now return to the Bill.

My point is that if the Bill is to tackle the problem it should contain other clauses. It should include a clause which would translate the position in Cuba to our streets by stopping the use of women's bodies to advertise merchandise. One can drive around Cuba without seeing women's naked bodies draped over cars or used to sell merchandise. If we want to tackle the problem, the Bill should include a measure to tackle the issues which create the climate in mens' minds that lead them to kerb crawl and to seek prostitutes.

The House is in agreement on one issue and it is a tragedy that it is not included in the Bill. If it were, I would have voted for the Bill. In that case, on balance, the benefits in the Bill would have been greater than the detrimental effects on civil liberties. If the Bill included another clause to give expression to the overwhelming opinion of the House——

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Third Reading debates are restricted to what the Bill contains. Hon. Members had an opportunity earlier to say that other measures should be included in the Bill. Third Reading is a comparatively restricted debate on what is actually in the Bill now.

In that case, I will end my flights of fantasy about what I would like to see in a perfect world.

The Bill has not been amended. It is exactly as it was when first presented. Because of that, it will have considerable authority when it reaches the House of Lords.

When their Lordships considerd the Bill which became the Sexual Offences Act 1985 they added the word "persistent". That amendment is the core of this Bill in that it seeks to remove that word. As this Bill has not been amended, their Lordships may feel that their commitment to civil liberties which led them to introduce the word "persistent" in the first place is sufficiently strong that they should override the views and wishes of this House. Therefore, they might be prepared to endorse the Bill. That would be worrying.

At the end of the day, this Bill strengthens the repressive arm of the state. It gives further powers to the forces of law and order and I believe that it will shift the balance against an individual's right to travel freely on the streets.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) entertained us in Committee by giving an extreme example of what might happen. He said that there might be a by-election in Streatham. The local Conservative association might invite many leading Conservative Members of Parliament to canvass in the area and one of them might drive into the constituency. Not knowing the area very well, he might be in the vicinity of Bedford hill and have to stop, get out and ask someone the way. If that person was a prostitute, she might not know the area very well and she might not be able to assist the Conservative Member, who would then wander off and stop the next woman on the street. By that stage, the police would have all the evidence that they need under this Bill to arrest, convict and ruin the career of that hon. Member. That is the nub of it. Our debates have been about that basic position.

What is the balance between the liberties of an innocent individual who might be caught and the obvious appalling circumstances facing people who are plagued by kerb crawling? That is not a new problem and I am afraid that the Bill will not solve it. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood, I grew up in Lambeth and I remember prostitutes being on the streets when I was 14 or 15 years old. As my friends and I wandered around the streets on our bikes we would occasionally stop and chat with the prostitutes. Even then, the police would turn up and arrest some of them and take them away. Thirty years on, the problem remains. Over that period, a whole range of new police powers have been introduced and there has been a massive extension in police numbers, but it has failed to tackle the problem.

I do not doubt the sincerity of the commitments given by the Minister of State. Nor do I have any doubt about the integrity of the hon. Member for Streatham, but I believe that his constituents will be sorely disappointed and possibly embittered if the Bill is passed and there is no real improvement. Although I am sure that a few more kerb crawlers will be arrested, the problem will still be there. There is nothing in the legislation guaranteed to solve it. In this country—and across the world—legislators have tried for thousands of years to stop the problem of prostitution, although now it is called kerb crawling. I am sure that there was a similar problem in ancient Greece and Rome.

Some people have suggested that we should legalise brothels, but the thought of Brent council running a brothel service does not fill me with confidence, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Norwood did not include that in his Bill. The solution is not yet more repressive police powers and a further erosion of individual rights. However, the Bill is in line with the tradition of the past decade: its underlying ideology, like virtually all the law and order legislation passed by this Government, will result in an extension of police and state powers and an erosion of the powers of the individual. We have seen that in legislation affecting other issues such as the right of Irish people to move freely, and the right to silence is now under threat.

I support a different tradition of British justice—the basic presumption that the individual has rights. Conservative Members seemed surprised when I said that I was basically opposed to the state, which I consider a necessary evil: like Calvin Coolidge, I believe that the least government is the best government, and that we should do the minimum and have the minimum of regulations to ensure the smooth running of society. The Bill would extend the state and regulation, and result in a reduction in the traditional liberal values that one would expect a party committed to free enterprise to apply. A party that is broadly committed to free enterprise, however, has produced an increasing number of people in favour of quite rigid social regulation.

The Bill will lead to a further erosion of the use of forensic evidence to secure convictions. That is not new, and I do not blame the hon. Member for Streatham for it. During the past few years Bill after Bill has resulted in changing police practices, and it is now increasingly unusual for a conviction to be obtained on the basis of forensic evidence—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about Bill after Bill; he must restrict his remarks to this Bill.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing me to order.

The Bill does precisely that. It relies not on forensic evidence but on police statements, often uncorroborated. I have no doubt that 99 per cent. of our police are honest, decent citizens who do their best, often in impossible circumstances—like most hon. Members whatever their disagreements. The Bill, however, provides no safeguard agains the odd rotten apple in the barrel. What happens if something goes wrong and an innocent passer-by who stops to ask the way is arrested and convicted in some low-level court on the word of a police officer? Such people's lives could be destroyed by the ensuing press reports, which might result in the end of a marriage, the loss of a job and humiliation in the community. Those are terrible powers.

There have been many instances of the miscarriage of justice, although one of the good features of the past few years has been the increasing commitment to expose such miscarriges. The Bill increases the chance of such a miscarriage of justice. I would give anything for the Bill to give some commitment to provide proper counterbalance.

The Minister struggled to give the commitments to satisfy us. He managed to satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but he has not satisfied me. Words spoken in this House have no force in a court of law. Ministers come and go and a commitment given by a Minister carries little weight if his successor disagrees with it. That is extremely disturbing.

If the Minister had moved amendments to give force to the commitments that he sought to give, I would have voted for them. I regret I cannot vote for the Third Reading of the Bill.

We have heard many vague ideals and aspirations from the hon. Gentleman, some of which I support. He said that my constituents will be embittered and disappointed if the Bill goes through and does not achieve the desired result. If the Bill does not go through, not only my constituents but many other people will be embittered and disappointed because protection will not be given, not only to women who are molested on the street but to those who are prisoners in their houses because of kerb crawlers. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to talk the Bill out?

Yes, because I do not believe that it will provide protection for women who are prisoners in their homes because of the crime level.

In that case, can the hon. Gentleman tell us specifically what will provide that protection other than some magic formula that he has found in Cuba and the banning of page 3 photos? Tonight people will be molested on the streets—it happened yesterday and it will happen again tomorrow. Youngsters are going home carrying empty hypodermics and girls of 15 are solicited by kerb crawlers. That is all going on right now, but all the hon. Gentleman does is talk about Cuba and banning the page 3 girls. They are airy-fairy aspirations. If the hon. Gentleman intends to talk the Bill out in the remaining minutes, can he at least suggest what he would like to see done?

I have already said that I believe that there should be a massive shift of police resources on to the streets. When I was leader of the GLC I argued for community policing. I examined the figures and found that we have 25,000 police in London. Given that 25 per cent. of them are needed to administer the bureaucratic machinery, even working three shifts, that still means that at any one time one could have five police officers walking the streets in every ward of London. Their presence would act as a deterrent. If we have police officers walking around Bedford hill every day it would help to solve the problem. I am not suggesting that those police officers should be stationed in Bedford hill alone, as that would move the. problem elsewhere, but there should be a massive shift in police resources. Such a shift would not require legislation. The hon. Member for Streatham is a member of the party which governs Britain and which, through the Home Secretary, has direct and immediate day to day responsibility for the Metropolitan police.

The hon. Gentleman must he aware that the amendments that he supported would have resulted in a kerb crawlers' charter. Even if there were 100 police on every street corner they would have been powerless to arrest a girl if the area was not designated. The hon. Gentleman should pull himself together, look into his mind, and decide exactly what should be done other than what we are suggesting. If the Bill is talked out, I shall do my best to ensure that those interested in this matter are aware of what he has done.

Order. We must stick to the rules of the House. I remind the House again that Third Reading debates are very narrow and restricted to what is in the Bill. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) would be out of order were he to go beyond that.

I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to respond in more detail to the hon. Member for Streatham because the Bill is bad enough already. It represents once again a massive extension of police powers and the potential risk for massive upheaval and destruction of individuals' lives if they are caught by the provision. There are many good things in the Bill. What I regret most about it is that I would like to have been able to vote for the provision which removes the nonsense that a boy under the age of 14 cannot commit rape or have sexual intercourse. It is wise to include that in the Bill. As with the debate that we had on embryo research legislation, where a completely different matter was introduced, I do not understand the direct connection between the two issues.

Although both issues are in the Bill, kerb crawling and the measures in the Bill to try to restrict it bear no relation to the Bill's other major aspect—the removal of the presumption in law that a boy under 14 cannot commit an act of sexual intercourse. We all know that that is nonsense. There have been instances of nine-year-old boys sexually molesting girls and that is something which should be stopped. That aspect should have stood on its own. If that were the only provison that the legislation contained I have no doubt that it would have been unanimously agreed to in the House. That is why I put my name to a series of amendments to remove the other part of the legislation. I want to vote for the good and wise measure that removes a ridiculous anomaly in British law.

I shall be happy to justify my actions to my constituents because they will look at the legislation in the context of other laws that have been abused. My constituents have often been subjected to the abuse of legal procedures, either in the courts or by the odd police officer who has completely misused legislation. They will see the Bill as another step in that direction and as legislation which removes their civil liberties. I should be happy to invite the hon. Member for Streatham to have a debate in my constituency about my actions because my constituents, while they would be happy and delighted to welcome the provision relating to removing the presumption in law that a boy under 14 cannot commit rape, would be extremely worried about extending existing law further to include kerb crawling. They would take the view that the Bill would not solve the problem.

If I had been persuaded, either by the hon. Member for Streatham or the Minister of State, that the Bill would solve the problem. I would have voted for it. If I had been assured that the legislation would drive kerb crawlers off the streets while protecting innocent people I would have been happy to support it. But while we have heard many good protestations of the best intentions, we have not had the firm, specific, legal amendments to make the Bill safe legislation.

Therefore, I draw attention not to the clause with which I agree relating to boys under the age of 14, but to the Bill's core which has caused dissension. I do not think that today there has been more than a passing mention of clause 2. I regret that the Bill is almost like a composite of bits and pieces and does not achieve the response that we would like, which would have been the House unanimously agreeing to clause 2. Clearly, there is not unanimity

Looking around the House, I note that for legislation which has invoked such passion among those present, it is surprising that more hon. Members have not turned up to debate it. There are about 650 hon. Members, but there has not been a vote here today which has registered the presence of more than 45. If this is such a major issue for people like me who worry about its impact on civil liberties or for people like the hon. Member for Streatham—or my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood who represents the neighbouring constituency—who are on balance more worried about kerb crawling, it is surprising that the Chamber has not been packed. On a couple of votes we came close to not being able to muster the requisite number to allow the subject to continue to be discussed. I suspect that the Bill deals with a narrow area of law and with a small part of the country where the problem of kerb crawling is admittedly an abomination. I was born and brought up close to one of these areas and I represent a constituency in Parliament where this legislation would make no more difference than did my proposal for a traffic management scheme.

I used to serve as a member of Camden council, whose town hall is adjacent to Argyll square, which is a major centre of prostitution. Nothing in the legislation would stop that. The problem there was that most of the police activity took place in the day time; in the evening there were virtually no arrests, so evening kerb crawlers were subject to little pressure from police officers even though the problem was much less oppressive and offensive during the day.

There were two types of prostitutes. Those who worked in the afternoon were not linked into the structure of pimping, whereas those who worked in the evening were and were probably linked into organised crime. Despite that, police pressure was put on in the afternoon, not the evening. If this legislation had been in operation then, a few dozen kerb crawlers might have been picked up but I doubt whether it would have been much of a deterrent. Major television programme makers turned up to film what was going on but hardened kerb crawlers were prepared to carry on driving around Argyll square even though they knew there was a risk of being filmed. Unfortunately, the subsequent documentaries blanked out the faces of the kerb crawlers.

My guess is that some men will think that the risk of exposure under this legislation is too great and will stop kerb crawling, but I imagine that they will scuttle off to some other area where they hope there will not be the same police presence, or they may find themselves linked into a network of brothels and stop kerb crawling for that reason, but I suspect that they will be a small minority. Just as the penalties for many more serious crimes do not deter the criminal I do not believe that the hardened kerb crawler, with his different perspective on life, will be dissuaded by the small risk of arrest under this Bill.

The problem is to do with the innocent person who happens to be passing by. Perhaps I am naive but I confess that I had been walking through Argyll square for 18 months before I realised that there was prostitution there. I just thought that there were a lot of young people out late on the streets. What would have happened to me if I had stopped and chatted to one of them and if I had happened to be driving? As it happens, I do not drive, so I am safe. This is one of the few Acts of Parliament that could not be used against me by this repressive Government, but they have enough others to be going on with.

My anxieties have not been assuaged by the debate. If the Minister had given form to some of his commitments that would have been fine.

There has been some disagreement between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) about the level of penalties. He spoke with some passion, depicting wealthy men driving through working class areas looking to pick up women with whom to have sex. He described men who could pull £100 out of their back pockets. But the study of prostitution in the King's Cross area suggests that although a small number of well-off business men drive through these areas to pick up prostitutes, most people using their services are not well off. Many of them are on low incomes and will not be dissuaded by a fine of £1,000 because they could not raise such an amount anyway.

I should like to see fines related to people's income and their ability to pay. Let us consider the case of a person who is without shame, the wealthy business man who does not give a damn about what may be said, or perhaps a newspaper proprietor who knows that his newspaper will not report it if he is caught kerb crawling. Such people will not be deterred by a fine of £1,000 because they could easily pay it. If Robert Maxwell or Rupert Murdoch were caught kerb crawling it would be no problem for them to pay a fine of £1,000.

A message to the magistrates that we want to see much more severe fines would create an intolerable burden. If people cannot pay it would lead to the seizure and distraint of their goods or may well lead to them being imprisoned. All those problems could arise. The part of the Bill about fines opens up the prospect of yet more problems and more discrimination in the field of justice.

The Bill might be more sensible if it contained a method of penalising people that would really hurt them such as, for example, a long period of community service. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood is laughing. Perhaps he would like to intervene and share the joke with us. At one time I was the GLC member for his constituency. He was the Member of Parliament at that time and we did not have the immediate problem of kerb crawling in that area. The Bill would not have helped if there had been such a problem.

The Bill taps a vein of genuine worry, which I share, about what can be done to protect women who are harassed by people driving around an area asking for sex. If the Bill could solve that problem I would vote for it, but it will not solve it, it will make matters worse. It will not curtail the amount of kerb crawling but will lead to an increasing number of ordinary innocent people being entrapped.

As my hon. Friend knows I share his concern about civil liberties, and I have made that clear in Committee and on Report. My hon. Friend asks whether the Bill will reduce the problem of kerb crawling. The difficulty at the moment is that for a charge of persistent soliciting to succeed it is necessary for four to six police officers to be involved in the investigation to bring forward the requisite evidence. That raises a difficulty in terms of devoting police resources to other important matters in my constituency. I accept that the police manpower that is necessary to obtain convictions is quite disproportionate to the manpower that is required to gather evidence for other types of convictions. I share my hon. Friend's doubts about civil liberties although I am more satisfied than he is about the assurances that we have been given. Needing four to six police officers to obtain a conviction is a serious difficulty and a waste of police resources. The Bill will be effective because it will mean that fewer police officers or other witnesses will be needed to obtain a conviction.

I share my hon. Friend's anxiety. As a Member of Parliament and a solicitor he has much experience in this field.

Existing police resources are not wisely used, although not for any wicked or venal reason. It should be possible for the Metropolitan police to release enough officers to ensure that when a charge is made it is accurate and will stand up in court. We have talked about three, four or five police officers being used to obtain a conviction. London has 26,000—or is it 28,000?—police officers. There has been a major increase in police numbers but we do not see the extra officers on the streets.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the study of police in Liverpool. It shows that at any one time only 3 per cent. of the police force was on patrol. The problem that the hon. Member for Norwood raises would be resolved if the Minister would say that he will direct the Metropolitan police to switch resources into providing an adequate level of community policing—policing that works with the community and carries the consensus of the community. The Greater London council argued for such policies from 1981, while I was leader. If that happened, there would be no shortage of resources to gain convictions under the present legislation.

It worries me when we respond to legislation that is not working, either because it has missed the target or because of inadequate police resources, by passing yet more legislation that introduces further constraints on civil liberty. Instead, we should make the police whom we have, and for whom we are paying, patrol the streets. It may be bad for women to be harassed by kerb crawlers, but it is much worse for them to be raped or mugged. Some 40 or 50 per cent. of women in London are frightened to leave their homes after dark. The Bill will not solve that problem. The only thing that will reassure women and get them out of their homes after dark is a regular police presence on their streets, as there used to be in London when I was a child. The Bill will not do that.

Women will not look at the Bill and say, "Oh, that's all right. It needs only one police officer to identify a man approaching someone once in the street, so that will solve the problem." However, if they had seen a massive shift in resources to community policing, they would be much happier. Such a move would require no legislation. It requires only a direction from the Home Secretary to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Such a move would have the support of the whole House, especially those of us who have argued for too long that we need a police presence on the streets. That would deter not only kerb crawlers but muggers, rapists and—a crime with an increasing occurrence—murderers.

I share the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the fact that women are frightened to leave their homes. They are frightened not just in areas subjected to kerb crawling. Because prostitutes and their clients are regularly on the streets, and this leads to frequent visits by police, even if they are not there in adequate numbers to tackle the problem—there are sufficient people around to deter other crimes. A woman is less likely to be raped, mugged or murdered in such circumstances than she is in a poorly lit, inadequately policed and unfrequented street.

Therefore, we need legislation that tackles the problems of all women. These problems do not affect only London just as the Bill does not apply only to London. Many other areas suffer from the same basic problem. My guess is that the Liverpool study, which identified only 3 per cent. of police on patrol at any one time, shows a broad pattern that is repeated elsewhere.

How will this legislation be interpreted by the judiciary? Perhaps that is a grand word for magistrates, but presumably, on appeal, somebody who has been convicted could work his way quite high up the legal tree. If I am wrong, I will give way to one of my legal friends.

To be fair, he could not.

I thank my hon. Friend, but he disturbs me even more. I am not a lawyer, but as leader of the GLC I gave an awful lot of money to barristers and I spent a lot of time with them, although I never picked up the basic principles of law. I had hoped that someone convicted under the Bill, if it is enacted, would be able to appeal all the way to Lord Lane—God help him if he got Lord Lane, given his broad range of reactions. I am even more worried if there will not be a right of appeal.

There could be an appeal to the Crown court. One could get a retrial in the Crown court, but it would not usually go further than that.

My hon. Friend reassures me because in my view the worst part of the legal system is its highest level. The Court of Appeal is the judicial bench of the House of Lords. It is reactionary and divorced from reality, largely I suspect because the Prime Minister has appointed them all personally and has managed to find people even more profoundly reactionary and contemp-tuous of human and civil rights than herself.

Once again, the bulk of these cases will be sorted out in the magistrates courts. That worries me as my experience of magistrates courts is not a happy one. There was a gross miscarriage of justice at my expense when a security guard smacked me in the mouth. I did not feel that the magistrates court was a safeguard. Unfortunately the Bill will mean that the problem will be dealt with in the magistrates courts and that is a tragedy. Perhaps we need a judicial system under which a wider range of experience produces a better understanding of the problems.

There is a general bias among lay magistrates and stipendary magistrates in their broad commitment to support the police. That is understandable as there should be such a commitment throughout society. The legislation puts more trust in the police and removes some of the constraints on them. Therefore it is only to be expected that magistrates would be broadly sympathetic to the police and would give them the benefit of the doubt. Juries take the same position, and all the evidence shows a well documented predisposition to give the police the benefit of the doubt when there is a conflict of evidence between a police officer and someone who is the subject of prosecution. The Bill enshrines that and takes it a stage further by removing one of the checks and safeguards that have been invaluable constraints on the abuse of the 1985 Act.

Leaving aside the non-controversial issue in that we accept that, of course, a boy under 14 can commit rape and should be subject to penalties, the core of the argument is the balance between the rights of the police and their ability to operate as they wish, and the right of an individual who might be entrapped.

I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Streatham when he talked about the problems in his constituency. Those problems will not go away even if the Bill is passed. The Bill will simply lead to greater concern and chaos in the lives of those who are likely to be arrested by mistake.

There have been a small number of well documented cases in which people have been set up. Magistrates courts have been presented with evidence that individuals have been entrapped by the police particularly in areas where gay men collect. Not so long ago an hon. Member made the mistake of wandering into a gay bar and was prosecuted by the Metropolitan police who alleged that he pinched the bottom of a plain clothes police officer who was particularly attractive.

In cases involving sexual crime there are well documented instances of the police using entrapment and acting as provocateurs and of policemen pretending to be gay men in public houses and gay bars. When a Member of Parliament was caught in exactly the same way as the Bill would allow others to be caught, I challenged the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Kenneth Newman, and asked him how he could justify attractive young police officers dressed in civilian clothes hanging around in gay bars waiting for someone to pinch their bottoms when kerb crawling, mugging and rape are at record levels. That was a grave misuse of police resources.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing the conduct of the police and the way in which they operate. He must restrict his remarks to what is in the Bill. As he said a short while ago, the Bill is narrow and restrictive. I ask him to take his own advice as well as mine.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be as narrow and restrictive as possible.

We know that a Member of this place was entrapped in a gay bar. Another hon. Member or a member of the public, could be set up in the context of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent people being set up. A motorist driving innocently along a street could be ensnared so as to bump up the arrest figures in the area. There tends to be a high level of misdeeds on the part of officers who are involved in alleged sexual offences. About 20 years ago, it was revealed that police officers were involved in a fraud in which they were being paid by people operating in the porn trade. In a sense, the Bill would further entrap the police in an area in which it is already difficult for them to operate. It is an area in which there are boundless opportunities for corruption. That applies equally to sexual crime and drug offences which tend to cause a breakdown of standards and some times, lamentably, examples of police corruption.

I am aware that there is much activity within the Chamber and that I am not receiving the rapt attention of all hon. Members. I am waiting for something nasty to happen after the plotting has been completed. That activity should not distract from the basic issues. Our purpose must be to balance the civil liberties of all citizens, police powers and the right of women to be able freely to walk along our streets at night without harassment.

It is unfortunate that only a minority of hon. Members were prepared to discuss the issues today. That is not the fault of those who are passionately committed to one side of the argument or the other, and who have been in the Chamber throughout our proceedings. The Bill has attracted those who are committed. Although the Bill is national in its context, it is directed specifically at only a few areas. Those who have been in their places today represent constituencies where there is a kerb-crawling problem, or constituencies that are adjacent to them, and that is how it should be. It is regrettable that an amendment which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish which would have made the problem specific——

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot return to amendments on which the House has come to a decision.

Only local Members, as it were, are in the Chamber to discuss the Bill. None of us is present as a national Member of a national parliament. Those who are in their places have been brought here as a result of activities in local communities.

A decade ago I went down the road that the hon. Member for Streatham has taken. It involved more restrictions, more constraints and more laws. Everyone concedes that the 1985 legislation has failed, and the Bill might well fail. The commitments given by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), suggest that the Government expect the Bill to fail. It seems that they suspect that it is flawed. Why should we need all the commitments that were given by the Minister on behalf of the Government? He told us that the Government would monitor the effects of the Bill because of the danger that things will go wrong. He said that he would give special instructions to the police and Crown prosecution service to ensure that the Bill is implemented in accordance with the wishes of the House.

This cannot be good legislation. Legislation should be drawn so tightly that it cannot be open to misinterpreta-tion. Although the hon. Member for Streatham has drawn the legislation as well as he can to tackle an almost insoluble problem—and I am certain that he has had tremendous help from Officers of the House—once we get into the area of sexual crime, it is almost impossible to draft legislation that will provide the response that we want. The Bill is flawed because it falls into that camp.

This is a short Bill, no more than one sheet of paper, yet much of it, which is uncontroversial, deals with the ability of boys under 14 years of age to have sexual intercourse—which only a fool would deny was possible. The rest of the Bill deals with the problem of kerb crawling. The Bill deals with the balance of interest between local communities that are subject to the appalling consequen-ces of kerb crawling and the rights of the individual woefully inadequately. If the Bill had been in operation for the past 20 years, it would not have stopped Bedford hill from being a centre of prostitution and kerb crawling, as it is today. Nothing in the Bill would have stopped the area of Stoke Newington that I represented—Finsbury park—from being a centre of prostitution today. I have judged the Bill on that basis. I thought about whether the Bill would give residents in my area relief from the pressures of kerb crawling, as I tried to do.

If the previous legislation of the Greater London council and the Sexual Offences Act 1985 have both failed, why does my hon. Friend oppose another attempt to curb the problem?

I thought that I had made that clear at some point in the past five and a half hours. I fear that we are seeing a further erosion of the rights of the individual and I see no evidence that the Bill will work. I have put forward one proposal after another in the hours of debate today which could not only stop kerb crawling but would make a major impact on reducing prostitution. I told the House, as I repeat now to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), that the way to solve the problem is not the Bill, but by tackling the social consequences. The Bill simply increases the level of state control, and police powers and repression.

I am prepared to say that I seek to stop the Bill in the hope that that will produce better legislation to relieve the problems of the residents of Streatham and the constituents of hon. Members in areas where kerb crawling has become an intolerable problem. The Government may be unwilling to come forward with proper legislation, but I hope that they will do so. Better legislation might have the support of all hon. Members if the Bill fails at Third Reading. As we failed to carry the amendments, this is still a weak Bill.

I very much hope that the Government will find a way to bring legislation to the House on the subject of boys under the age of 14, which would be likely to complete its passage in a matter of hours. There is no dissent about those provisions in the Bill. Such a Bill would help to clear up the ridiculous legal anomaly which assumes that a 14-year-old boy cannot commit sexual intercourse. That hinders proper methods to cope with young offenders who increasingly, perhaps influenced by the television or by rather disreputable videos, mimic the behaviour that they see and sexually harass or, in the worst cases, rape young girls. It would be a tragedy if the provisions on that problem, which have the consent of the whole House, were lost simply because they have been lumped in with the wholly different legal and social problem of kerb crawling.

Having examined the Bill, I am amazed that it was ever allowed on to the agenda of the House. It covers two wholly different topics. I am surprised that there was not some rule of the House to knock it out earlier. Clearly, there is not and I still have much to learn. I hope that we can return to this part of the legislation, which has massive support in the House, at a time when it can be carried into law. I cannot support the other part of the legislation, which I believe would have a devastating impact on the lives of innocent people who would be entrapped.

The matter is of such importance that the Home Secretary should have come to the House today. Had he done so, and had he said that, although the legislation was flawed he would consider a massive shift of police resources—

No amendments on consideration.

On behalf of the hon. Member in charge, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

No amendments on considera-tion.

On behalf of the hon. Member in charge, I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Object.

Not moved.

Object.

Not moved.

Object.

Object.

Not moved.

Object.

Object.

Not moved.

Object.

Object.

Now, Sir.

The Question is ——

Object.

Second Reading what day?

On a point of order ——

Order. I must put the remaining orders first.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When item No. 17 was raised—the Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) there was a pause during which there was no objection by the Government Whips. You then asked for the date of the Second Reading. My hon. Friend rose to say, "Now". Then the voice of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) was heard, perky as ever. That was accepted as an objection. For the past six or seven years, the standard procedure in the House has been that, once the matter is raised, the Question is put. [Interruption.] I hear the pathetic voice of Hallam. It does not sound well.

The procedure has always been that, once the Second Reading date has been asked for, the matter is before the House. The moment for objection is passed. Why should the rules change today?

Order. I have got the hon. Gentleman's point. The procedure is possibly slightly confusing. I assure him and the House that an objection can be made at any time during the proceedings. It does not have to be made as soon as the title of the Bill is read out. An objection was clearly made, so the correct procedures of the House have been followed.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps we could have it stated a little more definitively. Otherwise we shall have the ridiculous position that the Chair can cast round the House for an objection, depending on the will of the Chair—of course, this is not personal. We could have a delay of up to five minutes while we wait for the learned voice of objection to a perfectly reasonable and rational Bill. Hare coursing is an obscenity which the hon. Member for Dulwich so pathetically enjoys.

Order. Objections can be raised at any time. The moment an objection is raised it stops any further proceedings on the Bill. That procedure has existed for many years and we are well accustomed to it.

I am pleased to have this Adjournment debate on health authorities' deficit budgets. First, I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. I hope that he will have success in reducing the deficits of health authority budgets.

The Government are saddling health authorities with a recurring debt of more than £100 million. That results in repeated cuts in our hospital medical services and patient care and treatment. The figures for 1989–90—that is to say, up to the end of March 1990—will not be available until the end of June. The picture that is emerging is of huge debts caused by the Government's underfunding.

The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy asessment of the debt is an underlying deficit for health authorities as at 31 March 1989 of £108 million. That was based on credits and balances in excess of six weeks. Even if the Government take their figure of eight weeks, which is pushing it a bit far, the deficit is still in the region of £70 million to £80 million.

The four London health regions make up a large part of that debt. They are having to cut services as a result. I take a bet with the Minister. I am a betting man——

I am not.

What a shame. I would bet him that the figure at the end of June for the year to 31 March 1990 will be higher than £108 million.

There are all sorts of reasons for the deficit. One is the Government's ridiculous 5 per cent. allocation for inflation to health authorities. We have had the figures from the retail prices index today. Inflation is 9·4 per cent. and still rising, yet the Government have allocated only 5 per cent. for inflation.

As Mr. Peter Longden, the chairman of the Healthcare Financial Management Association said at the time of the autumn statement:

"provided inflation was kept at roughly the levels … the impact of inflation, especially after an Authority has made its plans for the year, can have a major impact on service delivery."

Clearly inflation has not kept to the Goverment's 5 per cent. limit and that is having a major adverse effect.

The head of CIPFA's health service division, Mr. Chris Grimes, said, with reference to outturn for 1988–89:

"Little or no growth in funds had been provided leaving some Authorities with inherited cash flow problems which had been carried forward into 1989–90."

That problem is being carried forward into 1990–91.

Mr. Grimes also said:

"Although the 1989–90 funding provision had appeared generous at the outset, the effects of inherited problems and higher than anticipated pay and price increases had eaten into available resources."

When turning to the prospects for 1990–91, he said:

"It is difficult to see that pay and price increases will be limited to around 5 per cent. in the forthcoming year".

his prediction was clearly right:

"our prediction is that the level will be around 7 per cent. or more. The implications for Health Authorities if our prediction is correct could be significant."

It has been significant; it has meant greater debt and cuts in services.

At the end of November, CIPFA produced its "Health Service Trends" booklet, which is a mine of information. It contains many charts and compares inflation in the hospital and community health sectors with the retail price index. It shows that, from 1982–83 to 1988–89, taking 100 as the base figure in 1982–83, hospital and community health service inflation reached a cumulative figure of 149·9. The equivalent in the RPI was only 134·7. Health inflation is greater than the RPI, because wages and prices form 75 per cent. of the Health Service budget. The wages element is rising faster than the RPI because wages in the Health Service start at a low level. The Government are not taking account of health inflation properly in the RPI, let alone tackling the RPI.

CIPFA's "Health Service Trends" booklet refers to the 1988–89 revenue outturn and refers to a new index, the NHS specific pay and price rises index. That index shows the effect on NHS expenditure which increased by an average of 10·5 per cent. compared with a GDP inflator of 7·3 per cent. The booklet states:

"Health Authorities managed their financial affairs satisfactorily during the year, but made no major impact on the inherited problems of year end accounting."

The health authorities have made no inroads into the debt with which the Government have saddled them. That debt has actually increased steadily and health authorities have struggled with it and have made cuts in patient care as a result.

The booklet referred to the implications for 1990–91, stating:

"even the upper growth levels may be insufficient to meet current plans and targets. Any further deficiency in inflation sums will render the task impossible. It is imperative that any additional sums made available to the service allow for real growth in addition to inflation and the initial costs of implementing 'Working For Patients'."

Clearly the money has not been provided by the Government and that is putting health authorities in an appalling position.

There are no figures for the current financial year, but there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence. I shall read the Minister a few headlines. On 14 April the British Medical Journal said:

"Health authorities predict hard times ahead … Most health authorities are worse off this year".

The Health Service Journal said on 19 April:

"HAs slash budgets to balance books in 1990–91".

The Times said on 26 April:

"Cuts package threatens hospitals' jobs and beds".

On 21 April, the British Medical Journal said:

"Death by a 1000 cuts".

On 12 March, The Independent said:

"'Model' health authority forced to cut patient care".

On 5 April, the Health Service Journal said, referring to the National Association of Health Authorities,

"NAHA survey predicts a bleak financial future".

On 29 March, The Health Service Journal said:

"Cash crisis scuppers HA development plans".

The problem in London is even clearer. A report by Margaret Powell, the policy analyst of the inner London health authorities, showed that the debt of the inner London health authorities had shot up—from £19,823,000 to a projected deficit by the end of this financial year of £29,691,000. That figure will not be met by current plans.

In my north-east Thames region, there is debt in nearly every district. The CIPFA trends booklet shows that, in 1988–89, the region was forced to make service reductions of £7,440,000. In 1989–90 the figure was £8,933,000. My area of Waltham Forest, which is one of severe deprivation, had to make the biggest cut in the region—£2,451,000. No wonder there is still a huge deficit.

The community health council had discussions with Mr. Ian Russell, the district treasurer, who pointed out that the storm damage was not being funded properly and that hospitals and other buildings were being run down, causing immense problems to the authority. Mr. Russell said:

"The hospital price index is actually running at 8·8 per cent. which is well over the present 7·7 per cent. of the present RPI figure".

We know that the RPI figure is now 9·4 per cent. Mr. Russell continued:

"whilst the Government at first forecast a 5 per cent. rate of inflation to stand still, to stand still this District Health Authority should have really taken account of the number such as 10·7 per cent."

He said that the district authority would be in deficit of

"at least £670,000, which will result in reduction in services in this District over the next year."

I tabled a Commons motion, because only 6 per cent. had been allocated by the North-East Thames regional health authority to cover inflation costs in the coming year. The authority said that much of that would have to take account of contingencies. My local community health council planned a deputation to see the Minister about those serious problems. Debts are arising because of inadequate funding and 5 per cent. inflation.

Other health authority costs not properly funded by the Government include "earmarking"; a substantial amount is put aside for AIDS treatment. breast cancer screening, mumps, measles and rubella programmes, but the Government are not providing the necessary finance. Therefore, that increases the shortfall and the debts. There are already thousands of regrading appeals outstanding, for which the Government are not putting up the money.

With effect from 1 July, health authorities must pay VAT on fuel. That is a Government-imposed change, but no money will he provided for it. Then there is the cost of doctors' negligence. With the removal of Crown immunity, the costs fall upon health authorities—another Government change, which they have not funded. The cost of repairing storm damage to health authority property in January this year totalled some £13 million, and although the Government gave some money for the 1987 storm damage, they did not give a penny this time.

On top of that, health authorities cannot make up their deficits from capital sales because of the decline in land sales, falling prices and an inability to sell. They cannot make up the shortfall through cost improvements or income generation, because they are no longer to be had. After following that policy for six years, few cost improvements can be made and little income generated.

From April 1991, the Government intend to introduce their new policy as set out in "Working for Patients", but from the outset that new system will be brought down unless the Government make a huge injection of funds into the Health Service to rid it of debt.

The National Association of Health Authorities produced a chart to show how the Government have underfunded the health authorities. It made an estimate of target spending that included 0·5 per cent. for medical advance, 0·5 per cent. necessary to meet central Government policy objectives and between 0·4 and 1·3 per cent. to reflect the changes in population size and structure. It compared those target figures with the amounts that the Government have put in and shows that year by year, there has been an annual shortfall—in 1989–1990 it approached £490 million. As a consequence, repeated cuts have been made in patient care and in hospital and community health services. Those cuts have sabotaged the Health Service input into community care and resulted in longer and longer waiting lists.

The Minister should get straight to the job of getting rid of those debts.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on securing this Adjournment debate and on being in his usual good voice when presenting his case. I also thank him for his good wishes on my appointment. I receive good wishes gratefully from whatever quarter, but particularly from the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman may be slightly surprised if I start by saying that he has, in one sense, highlighted a real problem. The problem with his argument, however, is that the difficulties did not begin, as he likes to suggest, in May 1979 or at the behest of the Government. The problem is not unique to the National Health Service; it is simply the difficulty faced by any manager of living within budgets when resources are scarce. It is hard to think of a time when resources have not been scarce.

When addressing the problems of the NHS it is essential to begin by separating two different issues—the political commitment to the future of the Health Service and the management choices that affect the managers of the service and the way in which that service is delivered to patients.

I welcome this debate as an opportunity to state once again on behalf of the Government our unambiguous commitment to the principle of the NHS. The Prime. Minister has said that the NHS is safe in our hands. She did not use those words lightly, nor did they come to her on the spur of the moment. They reflect the Government's deep commitment to maintain and improve the NHS. During the review that led to the White Paper, it was alleged that the Government were considering privatising the Health Service. That never has been, nor is it, our intention.

When I was appointed to this job, I said that I was proud to be associated with the NHS because I regard that service as one of the best things that has happened in Britain since the war. It is a privilege for me to be involved as a Minister in trying to ensure that the principles of the NHS are delivered properly to patients in a way that patients have a right to expect.

The central mission—the jargon much used by people setting out plans these days—of the Health Service is the same as it has always been: to deliver patient care on the basis of need, not on the basis of the ability of the patient to pay for it. I accept that mission unambiguously, but it is important to be clear that we are talking about the principle that patient care should not depend upon the ability of a particular patient to pay for it. That principle does not work if one seeks to extend it to the level of funding of the service as a whole. In a properly prioritised budget, one cannot accept the principle that NHS funding is done purely on the basis of need. It must be done on the basis of a balance between the patients' needs and the nation's ability to pay for the service we want.

For that reason, I do not accept the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Leyton that, in measuring the real-terms development of the Health Service, we should consider the inflation rate of Health Service costs. In the end, it is the taxpayer who pays for the National Health Service, and his ability to fund the costs of the service must, to some extent at least, limit the rate at which patient services can improve in the National Health Service.

If the Minister accepts that it is Government policy not to fund specific inflation in the Health Service, does he accept that it is Government policy that cuts will become part of the Health Service, if the costs are above inflation?

I do not accept that that is either our policy or our record. I was just going to underline the degree of our political commitment to the Health Service. I pray in aid no better evidence than the history of resource levels that have been committed to the Health Service since we came to power I I years ago. Those resources are up in real terms by more than 40 per cent. We spend more than £500 per head, per annum, on the National Health Service, compared with £360, at today's prices, when we came to power. At today's prices, the level of our commitment to the Health Service has risen from £360 to more than £500—an increase of more than 40 per cent.

It is of interest in measuring the commitment to the service that the equivalent figures between 1974 and 1979 rose from £337 per head to £360 a head—an increase of 6·8 per cent. I am not alleging that the Government, between 1974 and 1979, were not committed to the principle of the National Health Service—that is not part of my argument—but it is not easy, against that statistical background, to suggest that the Government are not committed to the Health Service. As we have been better able to run an efficient economy, so we have been better able to deliver the principle that we share with the hon. Gentleman, a desire for the level of service delivered by the NHS to improve year by year.

It is not just a matter of resources. Direct care staff, who deliver medical services direct to the patient have increased in number since 1979 by 84,000, which is a large figure—larger than most parliamentary constituencies. We have employed the equivalent of a complete parliamentary constituency in extra staff involved with direct care to patients since 1979.

It is not purely a matter of the resources devoted to, or the staff employed in, the National Health Service. The total number of in-patient cases treated in the Service has risen from just below 6 million in 1978 to 7·5 million in the last financial year, ending in April 1989. That is the equivalent of 14,000 cases in every parliamentary constituency in England. Our out-patient treatments have gone up from 16,700,000 in 1978 to more than 19 million in 1988–89. That is the equivalent of 37,000 out-patients treated per annum in every parliamentary constituency. That is not the record of a Government whose commitment to the principles of the National Health Service can be questioned.

I have talked of commitment because I think that it is important for that to be stated and understood. However, it is not just a matter of commitment; I shall now move on to the specific issues of the service management that lie behind some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

A key priority of the Government is to ensure not only that the maximum resources are available to the NHS, but that the service is effectively managed and the resources used as efficiently as possible to deliver health care to patients.

It is important to understand that efficiency should not be an alien concept to a caring profession. Sometimes I am addressed by doctors in my constituency—I suspect that I may be addressed by a few more in the next few months—who, if they do not say it directly, at least imply that the word "efficiency" somehow relates to profit, and is therefore an alien idea in a caring profession. I do not accept that. It is by increasing the efficiency with which we use the resources committed to the NHS that we can do two things, both of which we want to be able to do—first, to increase the living standards of those who work in the service and to keep them in line with those in the economy at large; and secondly, to be able to continue to deliver the improvement in patient services which is what the National Health Service is all about.

If we employ efficient management techniques in the Health Service and draw up properly prioritised budgets and deploy rigorous management those factors will be effective in eliminating waste and ensuring that the NHS can offer patients a better standard of care and continue to improve those standards—as it has done since 1979 and since long before that. The process did not start in 1979; the NHS has a history of improving services.

How have we sought to improve management? First, we have strengthened the organisation within the Department of Health. We set up the National Health Service management executive, a group within the Department committed to the principles of ensuring effective management in the NHS. Secondly, we have introduced simple techniques such as the extension of contract tendering, which has released £100 million to improve patient care. That process is also designed to use resources more effectively.

Thirdly, and more fundamentally, there is a programme to which the Government are deeply committed, known as the resource management initiative. Launched in 1986, its intention is to ensure that resources in the large acute hospitals are more effectively managed than has been possible in the past, particularly by using the facilities that are now available for modern information technology.

We announced in the White Paper a commitment to extend resource management to 260 major acute hospitals in the country. I was rather jealous of my immediate predecessor who was able to announce, just before he left the Department, the extension of that programme, so that we have now committed a list of hospitals covering half the objective of 260 acute sites. We now have firm plans to introduce resource management in 130 hospitals and a clear commitment to do that in the other 130 as quickly as we can. That is a big investment in management to improve the services to patients.

This commitment to management in no sense undermines the commitment to extending the resources available for direct care in the service. Indeed, since 1978 we have increased the proportion of NHS employees devoted to direct care from 58 per cent. to 66 per cent. So, for the first time in its history, more than two thirds of the people employed by the NHS work in direct patient care, not in ancillary and support services—important though those are.

Finally, and most fundamentally, our commitment to improving the management of the service informs the reforms that were set out in the White Paper, which constitute the purpose of the Bill that is going through Parliament. All these programmes of savings and of improved management in the Health Service have, in the past five years, released £1 billion to improve patient care.

That money is not going back to the Treasury. As I have shown, the Treasury has been increasing the resources available to the National Health Service and within that increasing budget £1 billion has been released to improve the quality of the service that is delivered to patients. That is the purpose of the exercise.

Health authority deficits illustrate the pressure that we are putting on managers to ensure higher and improving levels of efficiency in the delivery of the National Health Service. It is the nature of budgets that they are not easy to live within, but I think that the great majority of health authorities will find ways to live within those budgets.

It is essential in achieving the objective of the efficient delivery of patient care that budgets are fixed and adhered to. It is only by doing that and by continuing the commitment to improve management techniques that the total care delivered to patients will continue to improve in the years ahead as it has in the recent past.