HC Deb 20 July 1938 vol 338 cc2209-12
Mr. Turton

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to order and decency in public places. This Bill seeks to reform the laws of the streets. The present laws deal unequally and harshly with what are the most unfortunate women in this country, and place them in a special category quite apart from all other persons in the courts of law. In introducing this subject, I think that the House should recognise what is the law dealing with prostitution. In this country, prostitution in itself is not a crime, but when prostitution offends against good order and decency in the streets, and causes either indecency or disorder, then it is a crime. The laws relating to this subject are so old and so involved that the position of a woman charged under either of the four Acts which I wish to repeal is this. When she goes into the court, the prosecution first prove that she is a previously convicted prostitute; then they go on to prove that she was in the street for purposes of prostitution; and lastly they prove that she caused annoyance to someone; and I would add in that respect that the person to whom she caused annoyance is usually not called as a witness in the case. That offends against the three most cardinal principles of English law; first, that no evidence of the bad character of an accused person shall be given in evidence so as to prejudice the court in the fair trial of that person; secondly, that no one shall be tried for intentions,

but merely for acts; and thirdly, that the best evidence shall always be brought before the court.

The four Acts which I wish to amend are the Vagrancy Act, 1824; the Universities Act, 1825; the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839; and the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847. In the short time at my disposal, I cannot go in any detail into these Acts, but I think it may interest the House if I quote from the Universities Act, 1825, which enacts that: Every common prostitute and night walker found wandering in any public walk, street or highway within the precincts of the said university of Oxford, and not giving a satisfactory account of herself, shall be deemed an idle and disorderly person, and shall and may be apprehended and dealt with accordingly. I regret that the senior Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert) is not present this afternoon, because I should have liked to have asked him why that Act affects Oxford and not Cambridge, and why an Act of that character can be permitted to remain on the Statute Book at the present time. It is quite out of line with the whole of English law and equity.

The Bill I seek to introduce will make this offence not directed specifically against the common prostitute or night walker, but against any person. It will not have the words "for an immoral purpose" included, but it will be on this line: Any person being in a street, highway, or place of public resort and behaving in an indecent manner, shall be guilty of an offence. Any person in any street or public place molesting, obstructing or importuning any other person to their annoyance by offensive words or behaviour shall be guilty of an offence. Those words are the subject of some measure of agreement between the social bodies that have interested themselves in this question. In my view they are an improvement on the Bill that was introduced in the year 1925 by the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). The House will recollect that as a result of that Bill, which was introduced in this House, and of a Bill introduced in another place by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, a Departmental Committee was set up. That committee reported as long ago as 1928. Since then nothing has been done. The Bill I seek to introduce will not carry out all the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. I want to tell the House that quite frankly, because I do not believe that the committee's recommendations would carry universal support to-day. The committee recommended, amongst other things, that the words "for an immoral purpose" should be included, and I do not believe that people like being prosecuted for their intentions and not for their acts.

In this matter I hope there will be no party division. The Bill has the support of Members of all parties in this House; and however different we are, whether in our religious beliefs or in our politics, or indeed in our views of morality, I am certain that in this House we are quite united in our determination to secure that everyone in this country gets the same measure of that English justice which we believe to be our proudest heritage.

Mr. Kirkwood

"British," not "English."

Mr. Turton

I cannot use the word "British" because this Bill, like all the Bills it is to amend, does not apply to Scotland.

Mr. Kirkwood

That is what they told us about the Divorce Bill last year, and they brought in a similar Bill for Scotland, which I at any rate opposed.

Mr. Turton

I do not want to stop the hon. Member, but I understand he is to make a speech later on the Scottish Estimates. As the legislation which I seek to repeal does not, I understand, affect Scotland, I think the words "English justice" are the more correct. I hope that I shall get unanimous support for the Bill to-day. While I realise that it is late in the Session for legislation to go forward, I would ask hon. Members to consider the matter during the Recess, and to secure that next Session we shall get an agreed Measure through on this subject at a very early date.

Question, ''That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to order and decency in public places, put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Turton, Sir John Withers, Viscountess Astor, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Colonel Sandeman Allen, Sir Henry Morris-Jones, and Sir Francis Fremantle.