| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment tabled and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and to give an example. Someone came to my constituency surgery who had served a sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed when he was a teenager, although he is now an adult. He would have been subject to the registration provisions of this legislation. However, he has now settled down, put his prison period behind him and, I believe, effectively escaped from that part of his life.
Many believe that offences committed when one is under the age of 16 should be discounted for registration purposes and that, if we do not do so, there is no point in maintaining a statutory distinction between youths and adults. It is very important that society gets it right in establishing whether someone who has not reached his majority--even if he has reached the age of criminal
responsibility--should be dealt with differently and less seriously for offences committed at that age. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East argued, it is very important that young people do not carry a stigma with them for the rest of their lives. I hope that the Government will respond in a positive manner to an enlightened and sensible proposal.
Mr. Kirkhope:
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has explained his desire to exclude some young offenders from the scope of the registration provisions. At an earlier stage in the consideration of the Bill, he sought to take under-16s out of registration altogether. Now he has modified that approach and seeks to give the courts discretion whether or not to impose the notification requirement in the case of under-16s.
I am afraid that I remain equally opposed to that approach. The key point is that registration is not a punishment, but a device to secure public protection from those who have committed serious offences--and, as we all know, some under-16s have been responsible for horrific sexual crimes.
Mr. Thurnham:
I am extremely unhappy that the Government are not prepared to consider the amendment, and have given no indication that they might consider it further and table amendments in another place. I feel that I have put strong arguments.
The Bill is weakened by the fact that it contains bizarre provisions that could require an eight or nine-year-old to register for life. The Minister said that it was tough. On Second Reading, the Minister of State said that the Bill contained draconian measures. I find such requirements quite extraordinary. By not accepting earlier amendments that would have strengthened the Bill, we are in danger of producing a measure that is just a toothless soundbite. If it bites at all, it will bite on children themselves.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean):
Before the hon. Gentleman launches into rhetoric about toothless soundbites, may I point out the nonsense of the statement that he has just made? One cannot convict an eight or nine-year-old. The age of criminal consent is 10. If that is the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to resist his proposals tonight.
Mr. Thurnham:
I am amazed by that intervention, because the Minister of State professes to be something of an expert on Scotland. He comes from Scotland. The Bill would affect eight-year-olds in Scotland. I referred to nine and 10-year-olds. The age of criminal consent is 10 in England and eight in Scotland, so the Minister does
I should like to divide the House on the amendment, but as the Government have not indicated that they wish to continue with the business after 10 o'clock, I find it necessary to withdraw the amendment. If it was not for the pressure of time, I would certainly wish to divide the House. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 1, in page 5, line 20, leave out '(b) to (d)'.--[Mr. Maclean.]
Mr. Michael:
I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 12, leave out line 32 and insert--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in page 12, line 35, after 'over;' insert--
Mr. Michael:
There is an anomaly in the Bill arising from the Government's wish to have a degree of flexibility in relation to teenagers. In schedule 1 the requirement to register in relation to three offences--intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16, buggery, and indecency between men--does not apply where the offender was under 20. The amendment rephrases that provision to deal differently with each of the offences.
As I said in Committee, intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16 is one of the excluded offences. I understand that the Minister wants to avoid individuals involved in teenage sex being forced to register on a permanent basis under the terms of a Bill that targets paedophiles. However, by excluding the 18-year-old who has sex with a girl of almost 16, the Bill also leaves out the 19-year-old who has sex with a girl who has only just reached her 13th birthday. That illustrates the enormous range and variety of the offences that can be caught under the Bill; some are much more serious than others and the Minister must surely intend to catch those cases, particularly when the offence is very serious.
I pointed out in Committee that Lord Woolf ruled that indecency between men can only be consensual. We need to ensure that we target those who are a danger to children and not those who are not. The amendment would include for registration any serious cases of indecency involving 16 or 17-year-olds with someone over 20 if the seriousness of the offence was such that a court had imposed a term of imprisonment, but it would not catch cases in which there was a closeness of age, which is parallel to the exclusion that the Minister has allowed for heterosexual sex.
The amendments are modest, aimed at ensuring fairness and that we hit the target of those who are a danger to children, without accidentally hitting those who are not a danger to children. The Minister has also sought not to target such people.
Mr. Simon Hughes:
I should like to intervene briefly to support the amendment.
Mr. Kirkhope:
The aim of the first main proposal in amendment No. 22 is to exclude from the registration requirement offences of indecent assault on a girl or boy under 16 in which the so-called assault is in fact consensual, and no custodial sentence is imposed. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has focused on the fact that such behaviour may constitute an offence, even though consensual, because, under the 1956 Act, a child under 16 is not considered to be able to give consent to activities that, if non-consensual, would count as assault. The hon. Gentleman's solution is to seek to distinguish between serious and less serious cases with the test of imprisonment.
I agree that the amendment identifies a theoretical anomaly. A teenager who has committed consensual unlawful intercourse with a girl under 16 would avoid registration, whereas the same teenager, if charged with assault as a result of consensual indecent behaviour falling short of intercourse, would be required to register. I agreed in Committee to consider the matter further to see whether there was a way round that point. We have thought very hard about the matter, but we have concluded that any problem is more apparent then real, and that any solution would make the Bill more complex than it is already.
There could be difficulties, for example with offences tried before the passage of the Act, in knowing whether consent had been given, as the court would not necessarily have addressed that. We would have to put cases resulting in a custodial sentence in a separate category from, for example, those resulting in a community sentence, which could still be serious instances of the offence.
I do not believe that there is likely to be a problem in practice. I do not believe that cases are likely to come to court in respect of teenagers engaged in what are patently consensual intimate acts. The problem, if it exists, is inherent in the structure of the offences. Such offences could, in theory, occur whenever young teenagers cuddle one another, but I am not aware that prosecutions frequently take place following dances and discos for youngsters.
The second part of amendment No. 22 would toughen up the proposal in the Bill. Instead of our approach--under which the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse
with a girl between 13 and 16 would not attract registration if the offender was under 20--the amendment would give the court discretion to require registration when the interests of child protection made that appropriate.
I have some sympathy with the motivation behind the amendment. I undertook in Committee to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I am not persuaded that his proposal is the answer. It would make the scheme more complex and would create a further category of offenders subject to the registration requirement. It would make enforcement more difficult, because the police would not know, from the facts of the case and the sentence passed, whether the offender was liable for registration. The court would be invited to exercise discretion on whether registration was required in the particular instance, which we have avoided elsewhere in the Bill.
Amendment made: No. 9, in page 10, line 1,, leave out 'proving his' and insert 'setting out the'.--[Mr. Maclean.]
'(a) Where the offender was under 20--
(i) paragraph (a)(v) and (vi) does not apply;
(ii) paragraph (a)(vii) and (viii) does not apply where the act would not have been an offence but for section 14(2) or section 15(2) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, unless the court has imposed a term of imprisonment for the offence; and
(iii) paragraph a(iii) does not apply unless the court, having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the offender, in the interests of child protection, so directs.'
'(bb) paragraph (a)(vi) above does not apply where the other party was 16 or over at the time of the offence and the offender was not sentenced to a term of imprisonment.'
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |