| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.3 pm
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) in the debate. As a former barrister, he brings
great experience to this issue. It is always difficult speaking at the end of a long debate, such as this. I went home the other night and told my wife that I had just made a speech in the House of Commons and she said, "What was the point of that? I expect you sat there for six hours and then made all the same points that everyone had made before you"—very perceptive. I shall try to avoid doing that tonight.Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill. It is right to codify and bring together the law on sexual offences. It is right to update the law, as the Bill does in a range of ways. It is also right to introduce the new offences that many hon. Members have spoken about, not least to keep pace with technology. Much has been made of the offence of internet grooming, and the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who is not back in his place, spoke about it powerfully. The police have told me that they need changes in the law to keep up to date. Everyone in the House is clear that paedophiles, rapists, those dealing in child pornography and traffickers need to be hunted down and punished, and this Bill helps us to do that, which is why, I am sure, it has all-party support.
As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I also welcome the way in which the Government have handled this Bill. They have listened at each stage: they listened in the other place, and they listened to the Select Committee report. We had some difficulty, as we were trying to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny while the Bill was in the other place, and we often found that we were dealing with a moving target—we would come up with a powerful argument, but it would not matter any more because the provisions had been amended. We came to many of the same conclusions as the other place.
It is also a difficult area because we are dealing with awful crimes, and we are also dealing with sensitive areas in which we must choose our words carefully. The Home Secretary gave us some good examples of that from the debate in the other place. It is worth saying, however, that what we are trying to do is criminalise that which is wrong. I hope, however, that the Government are also trying not to draw into the criminal law those things that are harmless but of which we may disapprove. One or two problems may still exist, such as those relating to clause 14 and 15-year-olds having a snog. I am not claiming that I am going to win the bottle of champagne, but it is nice to know that, under new Labour, it is a bottle of champagne and not a pint of lager, so we can all work on it.
The Home Affairs Committee looked in detail at three areas that I want to mention. The first issue was sexual activity in public, which was dealt with in clause 74 of the old Bill, but that clause has now gone. That decision was absolutely right, as the clause was far too widely drawn. It was in danger of making the law look an ass, as the Home Secretary said earlier. I hope that it will not be reintroduced to deal with the problem that the Government perceive in relation to sexual activity in public lavatories. It is worth remembering why the clause on sexual activity in public was included in the first place: it was an honest attempt to be comprehensive and gender-neutral. What happened was that we found that it would end up criminalising a couple of people in a car, halfway up a mountainside, having a fumble on the back seat. That was clearly the wrong result and that is why the Government rightly dropped the clause. I hope
that they will not reintroduce it in any form to deal with the other problems that they are having, as harmless activities should not be criminalisedThe second area was the question of exposure and the concerns of British Naturism. I suggested that we bring in representatives of British Naturism to present evidence and answer questions, which it did extremely well. It had real concerns about the Bill, which have been partly dealt with, about which I want to make a few comments. British Naturism says that it has 20,000 members and that 2.5 million people in this country take part in naturist activities. While I was listening to the debate, I worked out that that is 5 per cent., which, if the House is representative, must include at least 30 Members. I can only think of one or two who take part—[Hon. Members: "Name them."] I will not go that far, as I am just starting out. Calm down, as Michael Winner once said.
This matter was dealt with by clause 70, now clause 68. The old test as to whether one was guilty of this criminal offence was knowingly exposing oneself and being reckless as to whether that would cause offence, which was wrong. The naturists rightly said that sometimes one cannot know whether one is being reckless, as one cannot know the state of mind of the other person. In my constituency, people sometimes go punting along the Cherwell, and—for those who know Oxford well—when they reach Parsons' Pleasure, they sometimes find a few dons in a state of more than partial undress.
Mr. Malins: I remember it well.
Mr. Cameron: I am sure that my hon. Friend was in the punt and not on the bank. The point is that we should not criminalise that sort of behaviour. In addition, the test as it was drawn would have caught someone who was changing their swimming trunks on the beach and who tripped over—they would be reckless as to whether someone might see them and be caused offence.
The new test in the Bill is better. First, it is that one intentionally exposes oneself, and, secondly, that one knows or intends that someone will see and will be caused alarm or distress. That sounds much more sensible, and the naturists, including those from my constituency who have written to me, should be more relaxed about it. However, they are still not happy and I hope that the Minister will listen to them.
The naturists are still making two points. One is reasonable, the other less so. The less reasonable point is their request that there should still be a reference to sexual gratification—that is, that it should be a crime for someone to expose themselves only if they do so for that purpose. That presents a problem, because surely there are cases involving deliberate exposure to cause offence, but no sexual motive. That probably should be a criminal activity, so the suggestion is not helpful.
The second point has more merit. The naturists would like the test of a reasonable person to be introduced to the clause on exposure—that is, a reasonable person would be caused offence by seeing someone without any
clothes on. The Criminal Bar Association gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee—I refer the Minister to it—and it seemed to think that approach sensible.The Select Committee sitting was a sketch writer's dream, as Members might imagine. I have referred to the point about British naturists all carrying passports saying that they are bona fide naturists, which caused the question to be asked, "Where do they keep their passports?" However, it came over loud and clear that those people are, on the whole, law abiding and not a nuisance. Their idea of fun might not be ours, but they have a right to be heard and listened to. I hope that the Minister will listen to their concerns in Committee, particularly the point that I have tried to put across.
The third issue examined by the Committee was rape and consent. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an excellent speech. She is a real expert on this. I will not repeat the figures that she gave on the dreadful rape conviction rate, except to refer Members to page 7 of the Home Affairs Committee's excellent report, which sets out in detail the number of alleged rapes taking place each year and the number going to court. That will give the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) the full picture, but the figures are truly awful.
It cannot be said too many times that this is a dreadful crime. That goes for date rape, stranger rape and any sort of rape. Also, it is absolutely right that the Government have a target for getting the conviction rate up. As the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said, that should be partly about police work, partly about improving the record of the Crown Prosecution Service, partly about reforming how the courts work and partly about encouraging people to come forward.
I am not going to get into the debate about anonymity, as I do not think that I agree with what the Select Committee said about it, but we must remember that what is right is anonymity for the person who has been raped. One of the reasons for introducing that was to encourage people to come forward, which is absolutely what we should keep.
It is difficult to get to the bottom of the crime of rape and work out exactly what happened between two people, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar said, it has not become five times more difficult, yet that seems to be what has happened to the conviction rate—it has got five times as bad. In this context, we must ask ourselves how much a change in the law will address the problem of the conviction rate. I agree absolutely with the hon. and learned Lady about clause 1, which is the right way round the Morgan case. The clause says that reasonable belief in consent has to be shown. It will not be good enough to say, "I thought that she consented." The hon. and learned Lady was extremely clear about that.
However, less clear are clauses 75 and 76, which set out the so-called rebuttable presumptions, when it is presumed that consent is not given. Clause 76 deals with conclusive presumptions, when it is conclusively proved that consent is not given. If that sounds complicated, that is because it is complicated. It was even more complicated before the House of Lords got at it.
- "Clause 78"—
- "was probably the most confusing provision in the whole Bill . . . the drafting was cumbersome and attracted much criticism from judges and lawyers."
I am not a lawyer but I served on the Committee that considered the Criminal Justice Bill. When there were previous changes to criminal law such as to the rules of hearsay, to the rules on previous convictions and to the right to silence—a change made by the Conservative Government—the argument was made that the court should hear all the evidence and that a jury in an open court should be trusted to reach the right decision—we should let the dog see the rabbit, as it were. However, the rebuttable and conclusive presumptions about consent seem to write into law detailed provisions on how a judge should direct a jury.
I showed the Bill to a criminal QC this morning, and he said that there is a danger of introducing complexity with no added value. I want the Minister to think about that when the Bill reaches Committee. Let us consider what would happen if Miss A, the victim in a rape case, said that someone impersonated another person.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |