New Clause.—(INTIMIDATION.) (Hansard, 22 April 1959)

§ Mr. Hale
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I do not much like this new Clause. I will start with those somewhat unfortunate words. In dealing without principle with a social question, one finds oneself compelled from time to time in seeking to amend it to be pushed into lack of principle. I do not say this in an unfair or critical sense, but no one pretends that the Bill is trying to deal with a social principle. All that the Bill is doing is to put up sentences for one manifestation of the activity of prostitution and covering up others.
Generally speaking, I do not like, speaking as an old defender, the idea of trying to make people "peach" on one another. There is the additional risk of miscarriage of justice associated with extracted information. Both these objections could be lodged against this Clause as drafted. Here, I rely upon the advice of my right hon. Friends, but I would not be anxious to force this proposal to a Division.
However, the new Clause raises an issue of importance. The time has come when we ought to ask: what are the Government's intentions? The Bill deals with the girls, but does nothing to the men. The Bill excludes, by its very short Title, even discussion of prosecution of the man who participates in these activities. The man who wants to be flagellated in a flat is exempt from the provisions of the Bill, subject only to the one qualification which has been mentioned, namely, that sentences for living on the profits of prostitution are to be increased. We are doing nothing to solve the very great mystery which is worrying everyone in connection with the pimp. Everyone tells us that pimps exist. Everyone knows 472 that it is very, very difficult to bring cases against these men, largely because of the system of organised intimidation which they exercise over the girls. That is one of the difficulties.
I yield to no one in my admiration for our police forces. I realise as well as anyone how difficult is the position of the police force in operating in areas of prostitution. That is one of the big arguments against prostitution. Nevertheless, questions have been asked in the House by my hon. Friends about named pimps. The Messina case was first ventilated in the House, together with other cases. In a discussion in my own home, a few days ago, with a very distinguished man, I was told of information which he had been given quite casually in the course of conversation about the organisation of certain streets in London. He was told about the number of prostitutes organised to patrol them, how they were recruited, about the man in charge of that particular area, and roughly the income which he was getting.

§ Sir James Duncan (South Angus)
Free of tax.

§ Mr. Hale
Yes. I drafted a Clause which has not been called to try to extract from these men whatever money they may get from prostitution. Why we could not do that, I do not know.
If the Attorney-General says that this Clause, as drafted, is not very good, I will agree with him in advance. The new Clause was drafted at short notice because the Bill was rushed from Committee to the House. It was done in circumstances in which Members have no secretarial assistance or information.
The evidence of organisation of prostitution from above is overwhelming. It is more casual in Stepney than in the West End, but in the West End there is a system of organisation which permits these gentlemen to roam about in their Rolls-Royces and to deliver girls from the cars to the parks. They furnish girls with motor cars from which they can do their flouting and soliciting. They organise the letting of flats and swop girls from flat 473 to flat when questions are asked. Streets are divided into territories, and if a girl, who is not pimped by a particular man, is found in his territory, she is liable to be beaten up. It is a little sad to think that we have failed to break this sort of thing. If we want to break it, there is something to be said for using slightly unorthodox means.
7.30 p.m.
If a girl comes along and says, "I would like to get out of this flat and escape this life"—I know that many people lie: I have done it myself from time to time—"but if I do what will happen? I will be beaten up. If I go back to the flat tonight I shall be beaten up". I think that the Home Office should be able to say to the girl, "If you want to get out give us all the facts".
Although this may be an undesirable method, it has to be used. When two people are charged with murder sometimes it becomes necessary to let one go free to get evidence against the other. I know that it is a dilemma, but one has to use the evidence of one person for that purpose. I do not like it and I do not say this with any enthusiasm, but I suggest that one has to do something like this.
Devise your own methods if you like. We have got to say to the girl, "We are prepared to give you a chance. This is not a promise that will be forgotten in a month's time if you give us the information that will let us deal with the people running this". Although there is a gulf of opinion that divides us on many things, I think that I am speaking for both sides of the House when I say that we are in favour of dealing with the people who batten on these women with all reasonable measures that can be used to wipe out that side of the problem.

§ Mr. Paget
I beg to second the Motion.

§ The Attorney-General
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), began his speech with a sentence that rather surprised me. For once, I find myself in complete agreement with him; and I hope I shall on many other occasions.

§ Mr. Hale
If it was a surprise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is also a surprise to me.

§ The Attorney-General
The hon. Member said that he did not like the new Clause. I do not, and we do not.
I am in sympathy with a lot of what the hon. Member said, but I think that his argument was devoted to something other than what the new Clause covers. I am not seeking to make technical points; that is not my object. We have to consider the wording of the Clause. The House should bear in mind that the Clause gives a defence to the prostitute if she satisfies a court that she has made reasonable efforts to abandon the occupation of prostitute and has been constrained by fear or threat by any person living in whole or in part on the earnings of such prostitution. That would be a complete answer to the charge, irrespective of the conduct of the prostitute.
One really could not accept that. The fact that she acted under pressure, or continued under pressure, must be a mitigating factor for the court to take into account when passing sentence, but if she was a common prostitute when charged, and the evidence shows that she was loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution, it cannot, in law, be an answer to the charge to say that she acted in that way, and committed a criminal offence, under threats or compulsion.
The hon. Member's speech really seemed to be directed to another subject, if I understood him correctly, and I listened carefully to what he said. He was really contending that some attraction should be offered to the prostitute to provide evidence whereby those who organise this vice can be brought to justice. I am sure that there will not be a single dissentient in the House to bringing those who organise this vice to justice, but I would not be speaking frankly if I suggested that the Clause would assist in one degree to the achieving of that object.
I can say that the woman who comes along and asks for police help and guidance, or the help of the authorities, in abandoning her way of life, and for protection from those who are organising it, will get every possible assistance. There is no reluctance whatsoever to instituting proceedings against those who make a living, and sometimes a fat living, out of the sufferings of others.
I hope that the hon. Member will feel that our approach to this problem is not 475 only reasonable, but thoroughly sympathetic. It was because of our detestation of the conduct of those who live on organised vice that in the Bill as introduced we substantially increased the penalties for those who live on immoral earnings. We felt originally that the House might perhaps not desire a higher penalty than we then proposed. The Opposition were entitled to put forward an Amendment and, on reflection, we agreed with it. It is no bad thing to have a very substantial penalty as the maximum which can be imposed for conduct of that sort.
If I may say so, I think that the hon. Member has served a useful purpose by ventilating this subject, because it has given me an opportunity of perhaps getting some publicity for the actions that the authorities would take, and will take, should any prostitute invoke their assistance in the abandonment of her present way of life.

§ Mr. Paget
As I formally seconded the Motion, I think I have exhausted my right to speak again without the permission of the House, for which I ask.

§ Mr. Speaker
My attention has been drawn to the fact that the hon. and learned Member has really exhausted his right to speak because he seconded the Motion, unless he has the leave of the House.

§ Mr. Paget
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but in opening I said that I had exhausted my right by formally seconding the Motion, and I did ask the leave of the House.
I want to speak for a few minutes only because I feel that all this talk about how opposed we are to pimps and people who exploit these girls comes oddly from those who have brought in a Bill which I think everybody recognises as being really a pimps' charter.
I think that my hon. Friend exaggerated a good deal when he talked about the degree of organisation of street women. At one time, during the heyday of the Messinas, it was fairly extensive, but I am told that not one in twenty of the girls in the West End is at present in an organisation. The one thing which makes organisation in any branch of commerce difficult is the existence of a 476 free market. When the free market is closed the organisation becomes a necessity and this evil will be two or three times as great as a result of this Bill.

§ Mr. Hale
It would be ungenerous of me not to say this. In the whole of my Parliamentary career I have never been so deeply moved by a personal tribute as I was when the Attorney-General was generous enough to say that I had served a useful purpose in tabling a new Clause because it enabled him to make a speech. In the circumstances, I will cover my pride by begging the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.