| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): The Liberal Democrats support the Government's proposals on grooming and dealing with sex offenders and their registration and monitoring. Like the Government, we stop short of supporting the full implications of a "Sarah's law" approach. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that, when British people or those resident in Britain commit sex offences abroad, information about the conviction will be adequately transferred to the authorities on all occasions so that we are protected against those who have offended abroad but return to this country and are obviously at risk of offending here?
Mr. Blunkett: I shall answer the question carefully because my immediate instinct is to say yes, but much depends on the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place and its ability to deal with such matters through its criminal justice system. Whenever such actions are identified, I expect the relevant countries to be required to ensure that they inform us properly, just as we would want to do the same when offenders commit crimes in this country. I am happy to explore in Committee whether we might take further measures to ensure that the process is watertight.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): I, too, welcome the provisions on sexual grooming. As the Home Secretary knows, the Conservative party said some time ago that the matter required attention. Is he satisfied that there is enough flexibility in the proposed maximum sentence to deal with cases in which nothing else happens, but the evidence is clear and unequivocal about the intent of a person, who may have previous convictions for serious sex offences against children?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes. Earlier, I said that we must be able to judge the sentencing provisions that are available to the judiciary in the light of the variation in offences. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have done that with respect to variation in age of the offender. The Bill now provides for that, as does the Criminal Justice Bill. My hon. Friend Baroness Scotland will raise the matter in the House of Lords when it considers the Criminal Justice Bill. She is prepared to listen to the comments of hon. Members here and in another place about other forms of offence and the shadow Home Secretary's
request for a sliding scale for youngsters. However, I am satisfied that we can get tough enough with individuals to the extent of imposing life sentences for some actions.
Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West): I understood the point of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) to be that grooming offences do not carry the same maximum penalty, even against children under 13. A person could therefore get a life sentence for committing an offence against a child under 13, but not for grooming such a child. That is an important matter.
Mr. Blunkett: A person cannot get a life sentence for grooming but the actions that arise out of grooming can mean such a sentence. We are criminalising grooming; we are making it an offence with a penalty of five years. For the first time, other actions against children under 13 that arise out of grooming mean a life sentence and 14 years when committed against those who are older than 13. We are trying to make sense of things so that, for the first time, there is an offence that leads to another offence, should that tragically happen.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley): Does the Home Secretary acknowledge now—it was acknowledged in the previous Session—that the Bill is proactive not reactive? The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) was therefore right. We should strike hard proactively rather than reactively to save a child.
Mr. Blunkett: First, I thank the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for the enormous amount of work that he has undertaken as a member of the taskforce and beyond that. We must send the right signals, but hon. Members often draw attention, sometimes when criticising my actions, to the need for penalties to be incremental and to deal with the offence. Our criminal justice system must deal with the offence that has been committed. I should be happy to listen to further thoughts from the hon. Gentleman on the way to get the matter right and on whether I misinterpreted him.
Before I deal in detail with the substance of part 1, I want to lighten the mood by showing the reasons for the reluctance of Governments of all persuasions to deal with such issues and the difficulty of tackling them in practice. I draw on the debate in the House of Lords for examples.
Simon Hughes: It is hilarious.
Mr. Blunkett: I need to lighten my mood because going through some of the cases is harrowing.
Some of the comments that were made could have come from "Round the Horne" and "Beyond Our Ken". Let us take Lady Saltoun—or Opposition Members can take her. Between her more offensive comments, she came out with some gems. Her statements are almost priceless. She suggested that oral penetration could be considered less serious on the ground that it could be prevented because:
- "Clenched teeth can provide quite a good defence. Indeed, not only can they provide a good line of defence, they can be an aggressive form of defence because teeth can also bite."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 March 2003; Vol. 646, c. 1054.]
- "leave out 'genitals' and insert 'penis'."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 May 2003; Vol. 648, c. 555.]
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): On the lighter points of the Bill, the Home Secretary might not have read all the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee, on which I serve. One of the highlights was when the head of the naturists pointed out that all naturists had to carry a naturist passport, which led many members of the Committee to wonder where they would keep it.
Mr. Blunkett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall move quickly on from contemplating that thought—sufficient unto the day.
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking): Where would they keep their identity cards?
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) makes me smile by asking that question. Perhaps the biometric data could be placed on the person.
Clauses 1, 3, 4 and 5 provide for clarity and greater strength in dealing with the law on consent. The definition of consent has been a difficult and problematic issue. In the House of Lords, we managed, through agreement and compromise, to ensure that consent had to be freely given, and that the test of reasonableness was accepted in terms of the genuine belief that consent existed. I am glad that we reached such a compromise because it was important that we were able to move forward in that way. In the Lords, we discussed the question of a list of offences involving a presumption, and we shall return to that in Committee. This involves circumstances in which the lack of consent is self-evident, including those in which someone was asleep or had been drugged or rendered unconscious. Clearly, it would be self-evident that they could not have given their consent in such circumstances. We will be happy to hear from Members on both sides of the House regarding how we can build on the progress that has been made and move forward in those areas. Honest and reasonable belief in relation to consent seems to be a sensible agreed solution.
Clause 2 deals with the difficult issue of anonymity, and a new clause relating to the definition of this was narrowly carried in the House of Lords. As drafted, it applies only post-charge, but as we all know, the difficult with anonymity often arises when there is speculation about what has happened and about the nature of an individual's activities, long before charges are brought. I have said before that we are not convinced that we can separate anonymity in such circumstances from anonymity in relation to other very serious offences, but we remain willing to listen to the
views put forward in Committee. It is our intention at the moment to ask the Committee to reverse that amendment.
Dr. Howard Stoate (Dartford): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on this rather difficult issue, and I hope that the Committee will have time to consider it in more detail. Clearly there is a problem when, for example, a professional person such as a doctor has been accused of inappropriate behaviour and the matter goes to court. Once that person has been charged, his name will be besmirched by all sorts of newspapers—scurrilous and otherwise—which will do irreparable damage to his reputation, even if he is subsequently found innocent. Will my right hon. Friend consider those difficult situations in which a professional person who is accused of something that he is subsequently found not to have done, nevertheless has significant damage done to his reputation by the reporting of the case in the newspapers?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |