| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which we shall have to consider carefully. At the same time, it is also right that we should not sentence to huge terms of imprisonment people with no track record of having committed an offence, even though some evidence of preparatory intent has been found. The dividing line is difficult to draw. Public protection is important, and I am sure that in Committee, with the help of my hon. Friend, we can make some progress on such issues.
The proposed risk of sexual harm orders are a cause of concern not only to me but to some outside organisations. Although I entirely accept the principle, one must also bear in mind that they could be imposed on people who had never been convicted of any offence whatever, even though that might be unlikely to occur in practice. In those circumstances, the prescribed five-year period seems somewhat draconian. There may be
greater scope for flexibility in the other direction while still allowing for a maximum period. We hope to be able to look into that matter, especially as there is also a provision for interim orders, which can be obtained quickly.The Home Secretary has an unenviable task: balancing the need to protect the public with the need to protect the liberties of the individual. I certainly do not criticise him for the way in which the Bill has been put together in respect of those matters. I hope, however, that we can provide further scrutiny of that aspect.
The Home Secretary rightly said that the issue of anonymity goes much further than sexual offences. People's lives can be ruined through having their identity revealed at the time of an investigation, while they can be equally damaged by the trial process. I have noted that commentators have said that there is no equivalence between the alleged victim, who is giving evidence, and the person on trial, but I take a slightly different view.
In this country, the general principle has been that allegations are made openly and that, as a general rule, people stand by them in the sense that they are willing to accept the publicity attendant on making them. Equally, those against whom the allegations are made must suffer the consequences of the trial process, however unpleasant that may be and however difficult if they are subsequently acquitted. We have rightly provided anonymity for victims; if we had not done so, we should be doing a grave disservice to the interests of justice in such cases. The exception that we made for such victims was correct. However, there is another side of the anonymity coin, which relates to the accused, both in the period before a charge is made and thereafter.
The Home Secretary made some interesting comments this afternoon. He seemed to indicate that the Government might be minded to look more generally at the issue pre-charge, across the whole spectrum of offences. That might be one approach, but we should not simply allow an issue that was considered soberly and at great length in the other place to disappear. There is overwhelming evidence that individuals tried for alleged sexual offences frequently suffer disproportionate publicity and, if acquitted, there are serious consequences when they try to rebuild their lives.
For a period of 12 years, we provided for the anonymity of such people. When I was first called to the Bar, that principle still operated and I cannot remember anyone saying that the administration of justice was seriously inconvenienced or handicapped as a result. Mindful as I am of the comments that have been made—that there may be circumstances in which the lack of publicity means that other victims may not come forward—there is an established track record to show that the principle has operated, or appears to have operated, reasonably well in the past. There might be circumstances in which an exception could be made, such as a submission by the prosecutor that the offences were serial and thus that further publicity was required.
Vera Baird: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has noted that if there were to be any such provision, there would have to be exceptions. I was reading an article in
a 1986 copy of The Times recently, when there was anonymity for rape defendants. One of the problems in a number of cases then was that if such a defendant absconded before he came to trial, no publicity could be used to try to apprehend him.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that contribution. I hope that she understands that I accepted that there was an issue, although not one that is necessarily insurmountable. A measure of protection might still be provided.
In relation to the provisions on under-18-year-olds, the Home Secretary pointed out, in some of the final comments in his speech, that some of the problems were related to mental health. The Home Secretary has read the briefing available to other Members and to those who take an interest in the subject. The evidence is pretty overwhelming; in many cases, paedophile behaviour starts in adolescence, in those under the age of 18. If it could be tackled at that age, it could be dealt with successfully, whereas the evidence shows that although it is possible to achieve cures in adulthood, through treatment and rehabilitation, it is much harder.
I am sympathetic to the principle that has led the Home Secretary to place a lot of emphasis on under-age sexual behaviour, including that which may take place between two people who are both under age or very close in age; but the consequences are bizarre in places.
Although the Home Secretary is right to highlight the fact that substantial change to the principle of the law has not been proposed, things appear in a pretty stark light when we end up with five-year penalties for those who go behind the bicycle sheds to engage in some French kissing—that is what it really boils down to even with two 15-year-olds. That is a very odd state of affairs.
Speaking as a Conservative, I have an inherent anxiety about administrative discretion. I accept that administrative discretion may be the only remedy in cases where the CPS will not charge. Nevertheless, when such matters are put on to the statute book in such stark terms, I always fear that, at some point, something will not work properly and that we will end up with prosecutions that cause serious problems. I admit to the Secretary of State that I am not sure that I know the answers, and I suspect that, if he had known the answers, he would have already put them on the statute book.
It is an odd state of affairs—the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) also highlighted the oddity of the situation in an earlier intervention—that it is possible for someone under the age of 16 to consent to rape, thereby reducing it to the alternative offence, which is a sexual act to which no consent can be given. I think that that is how I read the Bill. So if one has sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old, it may be possible to escape the full penalty of the law, but there is no possibility of that 14-year-old consenting to much lesser behaviour, even though she may consent to the more serious one. That is a curious state of affairs, and all I can say to the Home Secretary is that I shall do my best, as will my hon. Friends, to try to improve on matters, but I am by no means certain that we will be able to do so.
Mr. Blunkett: I make this generous offer: I will buy a flagon of champagne for anyone who comes up with a satisfactory answer. [Hon. Members: "A flagon?"] Not a flagon—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): A magnum.
Mr. Blunkett: Well, those who come from the north of England need civilising, don't they? We will settle for a magnum of champagne. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: it is an ass, but we have to deal with the ass by providing a carrot, rather than a stick.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for the offer. I think that a flagon would have suited me very well, but I fear that I may not obtain it. However, he has certainly fired me into finding out whether I can provide any improvement.
I wish to deal with the abuse of positions of trust, about which I have to tell the Home Secretary that there is something rather strange. A schoolmaster who has fallen in love with a 17-year-old pupil is constrained from having sexual relations with her. I have no problem with that whatsoever. People who are in positions of trust must not abuse the trust, otherwise the whole system collapses. Parents are entitled to know that their children will not be abused at school. However, I find it strange that the word "regularly" has been introduced, not so much in relation to the abuse, I hasten to tell the Home Secretary, but in relation to the person's status in an educational establishment.
I find it rather difficult to understand why, if a supply teacher is at a school for only a week, the responsibilities and duties that fall upon him should be any different from those for someone who is there permanently; nor do I understand the downside problem, although it might be necessary to tinker slightly with other words in the relevant clause to ensure that, when that person ceases to teach, the constraints placed on him having a sexual relationship with the 17-year-old are rapidly removed. That is something that we can achieve, and I am not very happy with the way things stand at present.
I mentioned to the Home Secretary the question of those with learning disabilities, and I do not want to go into that further now. We will consider those issues later.
Finally, I wish to refer to a completely separate matter, which does not appear in the Bill, but to which the Government are giving some thought. There is a great deal of evidence that, as well as photographs being taken of children, paedophile pornography consists of other images that may not be of victims, but which are nevertheless very pernicious in their dissemination. The Bill makes no mention of those images, but I understand from correspondence that I have seen that the Home Secretary is alive to that issue and has indicated that he would be minded to consider that matter, while the Bill is considered in the Commons.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |