| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Boateng: I am obliged to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to a short but important debate. Let me deal first with what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
I accept that we should address relationships that are caught under the umbrella of abuse of trust--relationships that might develop between a 24-year-old teacher and a pupil of 17. Under the Bill as drafted, such a relationship would constitute a criminal offence. Although it is a matter of judgment, I believe that such relationships should be caught by the Bill and subject to the criminal law.
On balance, as a matter of public policy, such relationships should be discouraged. Hon. Members will have a view on relationships between teachers and pupils, and may have experience of the impact on school discipline and the lives of young people if such a relationship develops. Such relationships can be highly disruptive, both of young lives and to school discipline. It is therefore right that such relationships should fall within the ambit of the criminal law.
Such relationships are, however, at one end of the spectrum that we have debated today. Progress on the matter may entail determining how codes of practice,
which are envisaged as part of the mechanism created by the Bill, and guidelines to the Crown Prosecution Service might provide means of ensuring that only cases that should properly be prosecuted are prosecuted. There should therefore be a combination of a code of practice--to modify and regulate conduct in the circumstances that we have discussed--and guidelines for those who bring prosecutions to clarify the basis on which prosecutions should be brought.
Mr. Hogg:
I am grateful to the Minister for giving a relatively sympathetic reply to my suggestion. Although he may not be going the whole way, he will doubtless think further about the suggestion. However, if we are going to go down the road of codes of practice--which is a course that Governments adopt in dealing with the type of circumstances we are debating--does he accept that it is desirable that the code of practice should take the form of a statutory instrument, so that the House can debate the code and express our views on it?
Mr. Boateng:
The Government have already, in Committee, tabled a draft code of practice for consideration. Undoubtedly, in our deliberations in the House, we shall return to that draft--which will be available also to the other place, so that it might inform debates there.
I am reluctant to go down the path suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in creating a requirement to obtain the Attorney-General's consent to a prosecution. However, I accept the thrust of the argument underpinning the suggestion--that one should apply the criminal law only in circumstances in which doing so is clearly justified. We have made it clear that there would have to be consultation and discussion with teachers' associations and unions in developing a code of practice, to ensure that we get it right.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the wider issue of uncles, aunts and "dads"--who are intermittently involved in domestic life but are not the natural father and are perhaps one of a succession of man friends. Hon. Members will know that some of the most serious cases of child abuse occur in that type of family context--which, as it involves "consensual relations" and is not subject to the law of incest, currently falls outside the criminal law. There is therefore a very strong feeling--which was expressed on both sides of the Committee--that we have to re-examine the law of incest.
Incest is a very complex matter, and we shall have to take advice on dealing with it. The law of incest has developed to protect the gene pool rather than to protect children. Although the Government believe that the time has come to re-examine the law of incest, we do not think of the Bill as a vehicle for changing it. However, we shall certainly expect the sexual offences review to consider the matter, to take evidence on it and to make suggestions on how Parliament might properly address that very real issue.
Mr. Hogg:
Will the hon. Gentleman also address the issue--not necessarily now, but in the review--of how to deal with cases involving the natural father? Although it is true that the law of incest may apply in the
Mr. Boateng:
Sexual activity between the natural father and his son also does not constitute incest--precisely because it is not linked to the possibility of procreation and consequent pollution of the gene pool. It is clearly a mischief that should properly be remedied. We shall expect the sexual offences review to do so.
Mrs. Gorman:
Surely society's attitude towards incest long predates any concept of gene pools? Is not that attitude part of the structure, and taboos, on which our society is built? Is that not why it is viewed with such horror in our society?
Mr. Boateng:
I was not suggesting for one moment that it should not be viewed with horror. I was merely pointing out what I thought was the generally accepted view, that the taboo developed because it was thought to be genetically undesirable to make connection with one's own relative.
Mr. Bercow:
What about moral concerns?
Mr. Boateng:
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, the moral concerns arise from concerns to preserve, so far as possible, the health of the gene pool. Although this is not the time to deal with that interesting byway, the sexual offences review will undoubtedly wish to deal with it. Our modern concern is with child abuse, and there is no doubt that child abuse has flourished in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Congleton.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made, as ever, some interesting and important points. He did so with great succinctness and brevity, in stark contrast to some of his fellow Liberal Democrat Members, who are sadly and inexplicably absent from the Chamber. The Government will ensure that the code of practice and the review take on board the specific circumstances and instances that he outlined in his speech. Those matters will have to fall within the ambit of the review's deliberations.
I should tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that, although I am only too pleased to see that it is possible to arrive at some bipartisan--or tripartisan--unanimity on the issue, I am sure that he will wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who, sadly, is not able to participate in today's debate. In the debate on Second Reading, my hon. Friend intervened in my speech no fewer than twice, precisely to gain from me the assurance that I gave that we would return to the issue of increasing the maximum sentence both in Committee and on Report. Therefore, although I am happy to see the extent to which it is possible to make common cause on the matter, I should say that the issue was raised first by my hon. Friend. He deserves credit for that, even in his absence.
On that basis, I hope that it will be possible for the House to approve the amendment without a Division.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Clappison:
I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 22, after 'full time', insert 'or part time'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8.
Mr. Clappison:
This important issue arose in Committee. As the House will have gathered, we are concerned that the Bill does not give sufficient protection to 16 and 17-year-olds and is not drawn wide enough in respect of adults who should be in a position of trust. We should have liked additional protection for children under 16, but that has not proved possible.
Mr. Hogg:
I am a little anxious about the amendment, which seems to extend to evening classes, or even Sunday schools. It is not clear to me why a relationship in an evening class between an instructor and a student should give rise to a criminal offence.
Mr. Clappison:
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a fair point.
The amendment would remedy a problem in the Bill. After listening to our arguments, the Government have accepted that there is a problem. As I said in the previous debate, we have concerns about which teachers are covered by the provisions. The Minister has admitted that, in some circumstances, supply teachers are not covered. The amendment is designed to deal with what many would regard as another loophole, which we raised in Committee, affecting students who are registered as being in full-time education at one establishment, but who attend a second establishment as part of their course.
We have asked whether such a student would be protected against an abuse of trust by a teacher or lecturer who worked at the second establishment and was involved in teaching, and caring for, them. To be fair, the Minister agreed to consider the issue after he heard our arguments in Committee. I understand that he accepts the force of those arguments and has tabled Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8 to cater for the situation.
We welcome the fact that the Government have seen sense on this important point. It is common for many 16 and 17-year-olds to attend a second establishment as part of their course. Before the amendments, it was hard to see how the Bill would cover a teacher at a second establishment.
6.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |