HC Deb 05 March 1956 vol 549 cc1884-94

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

12.55 a.m.

Mr. William Shepherd (Cheadle)

The subject which I am raising tonight is not a very agreeable one, but I make no apologies for bringing it before the House because it is an issue which must be faced in the interests of the country generally and of London in particular. I do not intend to cover the whole gamut of vice in this brief Adjournment debate. I do not intend to deal with homosexuality, but merely with the issue of prostitution and certain aspects of crime in the West End.

I have been very much concerned to notice, during the last few years, the increasing extent to which prostitution is carried on on our streets; indeed, it is true to say that our streets have now become rather sordid places. Formerly well-known and well-conducted thoroughfares are now becoming squalid vice markets, and this is creating a very bad impression of this country among those who visit us. Before the last war, and after the revolution in Russia, the outstanding impression of a visitor to Russia were the beggars on the streets. The outstanding impression of anyone visiting London is the number of prostitutes on the streets, and it is time that something was done about it.

I find it very distasteful to be accosted by these women from time to time, and I am sure many other hon. Members feel the same. But my feelings are not so important as those of our visitors from the Commonwealth—Australia, New Zealand and Canada—who look at the state of affairs in the London streets and ask themselves, "Is this the centre of the great Commonwealth?"

Moreover, some of the sufferers from this disease are helpless victims. A person may have taken the lease of a shop at a high rent, and it may be a shop which relies a good deal upon men looking in at its windows. But they cannot do so in some of these streets without being accosted. Residents find that property near theirs has been taken over for prostitution and the value of their property immediately falls. The street becomes a disagreeable place in which to live.

I know that my hon. Friend will say that a committee is now sitting upon this matter, but something should be done before the tourist season starts again, because the position is getting worse and worse. This trade is carried on not only at night, but in the daytime. The Home Office is not very active in the matter. All it has done recently is to run a campaign against obscenity, and prosecute some people for selling the classics. That has not done very much good, and a little energy devoted to the question of prostitution would be a much greater service to the community.

I was told last week by the Home Secretary that it was estimated that about 780 prostitutes were operating in the West End. That may well be a correct estimate. It means that a very extensive business is being carried on in the centre of London, with a turnover of millions of pounds a year. It has been estimated that the turnover in a year is as much as £8 million. That is very big business. The Home Secretary said that he thought that very little of this prostitution was, in fact, organised upon a commercial basis. I cannot understand how the police came to give my right hon. and gallant Friend this information, because it is fair to say that at least 50 per cent. of the prostitution in the West End, in one way or another, is organised upon a commercial basis. It is certainly true to say that no prostitute in the main thoroughfares can put herself on the streets and start her business. She can only be put there by one of the men who feature in this disgusting trade.

Indeed, the organisers of vice are once again gaining a dominating hold. The Messina gang was broken and, for a time, much of the organised vice had gone; but there are new forces moving in to take over prostitution in the West End of London. I am at least glad to say that our own nationals are by no means primarily connected with this disgusting but lucrative trade. The organisers are: first, Maltese; secondly, Cypriots; and, latterly, West Indians. That last fact is very serious from the point of view of this country. West Indians and other negroes are organising prostitution in the West End, and there is evidence that they are bringing girls to this country from the West Indies for this purpose, as hon. Members can see for themselves in the streets. It is especially serious because our own existing Statutes provide no means for stopping the entry of West Indians.

Something has got to be done to break up this sort of thing; at present, it is conducted on a very large scale. Proof of that is found in the fact that these gangs often fight among themselves. On Christmas morning last year there was a fight in which nearly a hundred men and women were involved in Windmill Street; what might be termed a territorial fight between rival gangs, and this serves to indicate the serious nature of the traffic.

Hon. Members know what happened in the days before the Messina brothers were driven out of this country. We know that two prostitutes were murdered because they intimated to the police that they were willing to talk of what they knew. It is a most serious matter, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under Secretary will say tonight that the Home Office really is alive to the present state of affairs.

What can be done? Some people may say it is a state of affairs about which very little can be done; that existing circumstances are not very helpful. But I would ask them to remember what happened in Leeds. Not so many years ago, Leeds was, unfortunately, in some respects as disagreeable in relation to prostitution as London is today. But now, one sees the end of street prostitution in Leeds; and if Leeds can achieve that with the right will and enough determination, then surely London can do it. But it needs determination and I would like to list the things which I think ought to be done to put matters right.

This trade is carried on because, first, the penalties are inadequate—and for obvious reasons I cannot say more on that point; secondly, because the police have insufficient resources to deal with it; and, thirdly, because the bribery and corruption so closely associated with the business tend to have a damaging effect on the police. I give those reasons, and list them roughly in their order of importance. The fine of £2, which is the maximum, is really no deterrent in present circumstances; no deterrent at all. It is certainly no deterrent to a girl who—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

That would require legislation, would it not?

Mr. Shepherd

No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am merely pointing out the difficulties under which the police operate and the nature of the circumstances. I have not asked for that to be dealt with, but, obviously, such a fine for women who are earning anything from £80 to £120 a week cannot be regarded as a deterrent, and is based on Victorian price levels. A Committee is sitting to consider this question—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I have already told the hon. Member that he is now suggesting a remedy which requires legislation.

Mr. Shepherd

No, I am merely saying that a committee is sitting on the question, and I hope that when it reports it will make it clear that this state of affairs is inadequate and that the situation will not be remedied unless we do something about the present level of penalties—although, as you say, Mr Deputy-Speaker, I am myself barred from making any specific recommendations.

One of the evils of the present situation is the rota system on which the police operate. It is now quite true to say that if one is a motorist it is quite easy to acquire three fines per day for leaving one's car in the West End, but that if one is a prostitute one can work seven days a week for two or three weeks and be sure that one will only accumulate perhaps one fine. That is because the police have a system for bringing in these girls in rotation. I know that the intention behind that system is an anti-bribery and corruption intention; nevertheless, the fact is as I have stated it.

The second difficulty is that magistrates object to having a lot of prostitutes brought into their courts. I do not complain of that—it is disagreeable, and' it interferes with the normal work of the courts. I suggest that my hon. Friend might well consider having night as well as day courts. I do not think that that would require legislation. Every person soliciting on the streets could be brought before the courts each night, and that would in a very short time deal a serious blow at this business.

Another factor is the lack of police time—and I do not under-rate the task which the policy have in apprehending the men who carry on this commercial prostitution. It will take five or six officers perhaps three, four, five or six weeks of constant observation to accumulate sufficient evidence to prefer a charge. In the West End—and in all England today—there is a disquieting shortage of men in the police forces. It is, therefore, not easy for the police to find sufficient time to deal with those engaging in this vile trade; and I am very much afraid that the recent decision at the Old Bailey has not given the police much encouragement. The men carrying on this trade can be seen every night in the West End and are well known to the police, but there is the shortage of police and the difficulty of getting the evidence.

The third cause of difficulty in getting convictions is the existence of bribery and corruption in connection with prostitution. When there is so large a trade as this it is impossible to imagine doing away with that element altogether. Until recently it was convenient to pretend that it did not exist, but after recent events nobody any longer pretends that bribery—particularly in connection with this trade in the West End—is nonexistent. I appreciate the difficulty in which my right hon. and gallant and my hon. Friends find themselves. Were I in their positions I should be just as eager as they to spring to the defence of the police, who are inarticulate in this matter.

We can do as much damage to the police force by pretending that things are not as they are as we can by any outright attack upon it and by making it the subject of unreasonable misrepresentation. What I say about the police in the West End of London, and in this particular area, does not apply to the whole of London, or to the country. This is a special problem. We must take special means to deal with it. For obvious reasons I do not want to go into details, but I will say that it is difficult for an outsider to determine, despite the most careful inquiry, the extent to which bribery and corruption affect the question of vice in the West End of London.

I can say without hesitation that it would be wrong to discount it as a factor. What has happened in the last few months is common knowledge. I ask hon. Members to appreciate the effect that this sort of misdemeanour by a fairly senior officer has on the ordinary man in the police force. I urge my hon. Friend to bear in mind that strong action by the Home Office would not damage the police force. It might well help it. The memory of what happened to Inspector Goddard lingers in the police force even now. He has a case now which I will not deal with as it is the subject of an appeal; but I hope that that case will go, as Goddard's case did, to the Public Prosecutor's office, and that the matter will run its normal course.

I have a suggestion which might help to deal with the situation. I am convinced that we ought to have an assistant commissioner of police appointed specially to look after the West End of London as a whole-time job. It would be a good thing not to have a policeman. I would like to see appointed a man from the Public Prosecutor's office, a man with experience of this state of affairs, who has some legal training; a man who has not been brought up in the police force, a man whose independence and integrity are recognised. If one visualises a state of affairs in which, in another three or four years, penalties are made 25 times as great as they are today, one will realise that the danger of bribery and corruption would be much greater.

This is an issue which must be dealt with not in spasms, when something comes to light through some case, but consistently and persistently. I have tried, briefly and hurriedly, to outline the situation in the West End of London as I see it. It is an unpleasant state of affairs, it reflects badly upon the country and it is desirable that something should be done before tourist season sets in, because visitors to this country are deeply embarrassed by what they see in the London streets.

1.15 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes)

I am not sure that this is a good subject for an Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) has made many allegations, most of which I shall not have time to answer. This is a serious matter, first, because it involves a most difficult aspect of law and order in London and, secondly, because it is obviously a subject which lends itself to colourful generalisations and to damaging allegations of corruption against the police force. I have read a great deal lately on this subject, and more recently have had to study it a great deal.

I do not deny for one moment that what has been written, apart from what my hon. Friend has said tonight, gives cause for public disquiet. If all that has been written were true, it would be profoundly disquieting. Mercifully, a good deal if it is quite untrue. What I have got to do in response to my hon. Friend is to try to sort out the fact from the fiction and the actual from the allegation. I hope that my hon. Friend will not regard this as a whitewashing operation, because I can assure him that it is nothing of the kind. He has given his side of the case and I shall give mine.

I think I should begin by making it quite plain that we do not for one moment accept the suggestion that prostitution in the West End is a racket run with the knowledge, approval and concurrence of the police. That is totally untrue, and I should like to say that with all the emphasis I can. Nor does authority wink at cases of such misdemeanour. When allegations are made they are investigated and, if necessary, the offenders are brought to book. On the question of corruption of the police, my hon. Friend said at one point that he did not want to go into detail. I accept that on grounds of time, but it is grossly unfair—and does most serious damage to police morale—for wild general charges to be made in terms so vague that they can neither be investigated nor rebutted.

I accept from my hon. Friend that there are many aspects of life in the West End today which do not make a pretty picture, and certainly not to the tourist. It is not a new situation, and I think it is quite pointless to argue whether it is better or worse, or in what respects it is better or worse, than it was before the last war or even before the war before that. As my hon. Friend said, it is a sordid subject.

There are aspects of the law, particularly those relating to prostitution, which are quite indefensible. We have only recently had one example of that—the law in relation to the letting of premises to prostitutes. We now learn that it has recently been held that a landlord who lets a flat to a prostitute at an exorbitant rent is not living on immoral earnings. It is this state of affairs and other things like it which led to the setting up of the Departmental Committee on Homosexuality and Prostitution, which is to examine the difficult problems which the present state of the law creates.

I do not want to make much more comment on that. My hon. Friend knows the state of things there as well as I do. Meanwhile, the police have to do the best they can in the present state of the law to keep prostitution within bounds, to obtain evidence to prosecute men living on immoral earnings, and to provide local authorities with the evidence on which to prosecute brothel-keepers.

In giving an account of the police stewardship, I should like to mention these facts. Between 4 o'clock in the afternoon and midnight, fourteen patrols of male police, and two of women police, pay special attention to prostitution in central West London. In 1953, there were 9,779 arrests for soliciting, the great majority in the West End. In 1954, there were 10,948 cases, and last year 11,173–7,230 of them in West London. Last year, observation was kept on 218 suspected brothels—57 of them in West London. Proceedings were taken in 63 cases—five of them in West London—all resulting in convictions. One hundred and three arrests were made in the Metropolitan Police District for living on immoral earnings, and these resulted in 80 convictions. These may look rather humdrum alongside the more colourful accounts of organised vice and connivance, but they represent a great deal of rather thankless, odious work carried out conscientiously by the police force.

I want to say a few words about the police because it is a matter which my hon. Friend raised in the latter part of his remarks, and it is a very serious one indeed. In the past six months, there have been four cases which have given rise to public disquiet—the Jack Spot affair; the prosecution of certain witnesses in that affair; the case of Christopher Glinski; and the prosecution of Police Sergeant Robertson and Messrs. Canter and Page for conspiracy.

From the last case, there arose references to an investigation by Superintend- ent Hannam which I must mention, because on 17th November the Daily Mail reported that this document uncovered a vast amount of bribery and corruption among certain uniformed officers attached to West End Central Police Station, involving club proprietors, gaming house owners, prostitutes, brothel keepers, and men living on immoral earnings. My right hon. and gallant Friend dealt with that at the time, and I should perhaps add only that no report has been made to the Commissioner or my right hon. and gallant Friend supporting any allegation that the Metropolitan Police in general, or those in the West End of London in particular, are as a body corrupt.

What is true and most disquieting is that conditions in West London and the present state of the law on gambling and prostitution expose officers to great temptation. The Commissioner, as I think hon. Members know, does what he can to reduce risk by moving officers about, but there is a limit to what can be done in that way. I should add that allegations about police misconduct do not go by default. In 1955. in the whole Metropolitan Police District there were 41 cases, 24 signed and 17 anonymous, alleging that the police had taken bribes. All were investigated and one was substantiated.

My right hon. and gallant Friend has been urged that there should be a public inquiry. It may be that something of, that sort is in the mind of my hon. Friend. My right hon. and gallant Friend thinks that such an inquiry is the proper duty of the Commissioner. The Commissioner will investigate any specific allegation of corruption, and my right hon. and gallant Friend is satisfied that he can do it as effectively as it can be done.

On balance, however, I have no hesitation in saying that the responsibility for the present state of affairs lies really more with the law makers than with those responsible for enforcing it. The law is open to contempt in this field, and whenever the law is open to contempt those enforcing it are exposed to charges of, at best, inactivity and, at worst, connivance or corruption. Correcting the law will not be a simple matter. I must not refer to it in more than general terms, but I can say that an argument generally as to what the law should be is one of the oldest social problems of civilisation. I should not care, and I do not think that my hon. Friend would care, to draw up a plan for putting it in order; still less should I care to be a uniformed policeman trying to enforce it as it is now.

The Wolfenden Committee may offer the chance of a change. It has nearly finished taking evidence, but I cannot say when its report will appear. Meanwhile, my right hon. and gallant Friend feels most strongly that it should not be anticipated, even for the possible benefit of the tourists. We must do our best with the material we have and that, though subject to rare lapses by those in authority and though requiring constant vigilance by those in higher authority and those exposed to a great many difficulties, is a good deal better than some of the colourful rubbish which has been written recently would have us believe.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.