| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice about access to the Palace of Westminster, given the new arrangements with the Bridge street underpass. When the Division
was called, I was in my office in Norman Shaw North, as were many other hon. Members. We sought to get here in plenty of time for the Division. We tried to cross the road by the traffic lights, which is the quickest route. I understand that, traditionally, we are supposed to be allowed to access the Palace "without let or hindrance", but we had to wait a considerable time for the lights to change. Had we accessed the Palace elsewhere, that old-fashioned courtesy would have been extended to us. I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would look into the matter not only on my behalf, but on behalf of other hon. Members whose offices are far afield.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall instruct the authorities of the House to look into the matter, before another Division is called.
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It really is difficult to cross Bridge street if one does not catch the lights. It is all right for certain hon. Members to say that there is no problem, but it is purely a matter of coincidence and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is quite right.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members should have access from other parts of the parliamentary estate to get to Divisions unimpeded. The matter will be looked into. It may be worth noting that I used my discretion and allowed an extra minute before the Doors were closed because it was the first Division of the evening.
Clause 2
Mr. Boateng: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 31, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'. The amendment would raise the maximum penalty for the new offence of abuse of trust from two to five years. It has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and the hon. Member who deputises for the Opposition on these matters, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), so it enjoys the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The amendment follows a detailed discussion in Committee on a similar amendment. We undertook to consider the position further in the light of the cogent arguments made then. Hon. Members will recall that, on Second Reading,my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South(Mr. Bermingham) made two persuasive interventions to raise the issue of penalties. It is right that his name should be mentioned in relation to this amendment. We have looked at the amendment tabled in Committee and agree with the views that hon. Members expressed then that the amendment should be made. It may be helpful to explain briefly why we feel that that is so. First, we agree that analogy with the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl between the ages of 13 and 15 is flawed. My view, for what it is worth, is that the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse is too low. I know that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House share that view. The Opposition spokesman on these matters certainly does.
As we said in Committee, we expect the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse to be sorted out as part of the sexual offences review. However, as we believe that it is too low, we accept that it should not determine the level of penalty for the new offence. Given that we are considering a new offence, it is right to take this opportunity to set that penalty at an appropriate level. We must not be unduly influenced by the inappropriate level of penalty that applies in relation to unlawful sexual intercourse. Thus, we are considering the matter on its merits rather than on the basis of an analogy with what we regard to be a flawed penalty. There is merit in a maximum penalty of five years for the new offence of abuse of trust. We believe that there could be cases, even of 16 or 17-year-olds with ostensibly consensual sexual relations, where a penalty of five years could be properly justified. For example, if someone in a position of trust in a detention setting had sex with a 16-year-old detainee, that would be a very serious offence, which would merit a maximum penalty of five years. It is important for hon. Members to remember that we are discussing a maximum penalty, which would be used only rarely. Nevertheless, it is right that the courts should have it at their disposal to deal with the most serious cases of abuse. I hope that that argument will commend itself to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.6 pm
It is important to view the circumstances where abuses of trust might stretch across a spectrum. At one end, there are circumstances--to which I have referred--where someone is held in detention and the maximum penalty might be appropriate. At the other, it is difficult to agree that, for example, teachers would merit such a penalty for consensual relations with a 16 or 17-year-old student where the teacher was, say, 23. In that instance, the lower end of the spectrum might be the most appropriate.
Mr. Hogg:
The hon. Gentleman talks about the spectrum in which abuse of trust can take place. I wonder whether he could tell the House--I do not know the answer; he may have given it in the past--why the Government have decided not to extend the penalties and obligations that flow from the clause to those who are in loco parentis within the context of the domestic home?
Mr. Boateng:
We have discussed that issue on the Floor of the House and Upstairs. I shared then with the House, and am happy to share now, the principles on which we arrived at our decisions in relation to abuse of trust. The most relevant one in terms of the situation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes is the availability of countervailing adult influences. Even though an au pair, for example, might be in a position where she could exercise undue influence due to a position of trust within the household, other adult influences would be brought to bear on the life of the young person that would countervail against the influence of the au pair who found herself in loco parentis.
Mr. Boateng:
That would be the principle there.
Where the line had to be drawn, and it is a matter of judgment in that domestic setting--a private home--it was properly drawn in such a way as to exclude the
person acting as a nanny or an au pair, but the maximum penalty needs to reflect the requirement for sentences to express society's condemnation of the most serious cases within that broad spectrum. It needs to be seen as a maximum, not as the norm. For those reasons, we share the view of members on both sides of the Committee who put forward, and supported, the proposition that we should seek a higher maximum penalty.
For that reason, we hope that the House will accept without Division the proposed increase in the maximum penalty from two to five years.
Mr. Clappison:
It would be churlish of me not to welcome the Minister's contribution. One of our amendments in Committee first proposed the increase in the maximum sentence for breach of trust from two years to five years. We thought then that we supported it with a strong and persuasive argument. We followed that up by tabling the amendment for Report.
We are pleased that the Home Secretary has added his name to our amendment because we think that it does much to improve the Bill. Certainly, it is a Bill that could be much improved, and in other respects besides the maximum penalty.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made an acute point in his intervention on the Minister about the extent of the coverage of the concept of the position of trust. We are far from convinced by the doctrine that the Minister has put forward this evening and the others that he has put forward, which are slightly different, in trying to justify the Government's view of the position of trust.
The Minister referred to the availability of countervailing adult influences as the reason why the Government fixed the line for the position of trust where they did, but, if they really believed in that doctrine, they would have taken many teachers out of the ambit of the clause because, when a child is at school, there are many countervailing influences besides the teachers: other teachers, parents, other adults whom the children will know--
Mr. Clappison:
I shall give way to the Minister--although he did not do me the courtesy of giving way to me earlier--because I know that the Government's proposal has no justification at all.
Mr. Boateng:
The hon. Gentleman is most kind, but he knows that there are four principles, to which we have returned again and again: the individual is particularly vulnerable; the location makes the individual particularly vulnerable; the lack of access to other adults and the absence of countervailing influence--that was the one to which I referred the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)--and the special influence of an adult where the relationship is in loco parentis.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |