|
Julie Morgan: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the NSPCC project's investigations and discussions are held pre-charge, so that as many young people as possible are diverted from the custodial system?
Paul Goggins: I am happy to confirm that they are all held pre-charge. The stand-down 28-day bail period is pre-charge. This helps to inform the whole process with a more thoughtful approach, while bearing in mind that there is a need for justice and to ensure that where an offence has taken place the victim is accorded the proper respect and dignity. We must have an effective intervention with regard to such children.
Sir Paul Beresford: I was going to raise the point that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) raised on the back of the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. If a mother comes across her daughter playing nurses and doctors—or whatever children of that age call it now—and is sufficiently aggrieved and upset because she cannot stand the boy concerned and so on that she goes for a private prosecution, what will the situation be?
Paul Goggins: I did say that I would reflect on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow—and now of the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) as well—and after a little time for reflection, I am able to respond by saying this: the Director of Public Prosecutions can take over private prosecutions, and can discontinue them. After advice, it appears that this route would not open up scenarios of the type that were put to me by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and my hon. Friend.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Sexual assualt of a child under 13
Sandra Gidley: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in
clause 8, page 3, line 36, at end insert—
'( ) Conduct by a person (A) which would otherwise be an offence under subsection 1 of this section against another person (B) is not an offence under this section if—
(a) there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved, and
(b) B has fully consented to all aspects of the conduct.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 174, in
Column Number: 111
clause 14, page 5, line 32, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) Subject to subsection 1A, a person under 18 commits an offence if he does anything which would be an offence under any of sections 10 to 13 if he were aged 18.
(1A) An offence is not committed if—
(a) there is no great difference in ages or mental or physical maturity of A and B, and
(b) B has fully consented to all activities which would otherwise be an offence,
(c) the activity was not part of an assault.'.
Amendment No. 175, in
clause 14, page 5, line 33, at end insert—
'( ) Notwithstanding subsection (1) it is a defence for offences under sections 10 to 13 and 15 in respect of a complainant who is 10 years or more but under the age of 16 where the complainant consented to the activity and A is—
(a) 13 years or more but under the age of 18,
(b) less than 2 years older than the complainant, and
(c) is not in a relationship of dependency.
Sandra Gidley: The amendments were tabled in an attempt to deal with a vexed question. Although we are not dealing with clause 14, I was taken with the simplicity and—dare I say it—common sense of amendment No. 11 to that clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I look forward to that debate, because there are many parallels between clause 8 and clause 14. The Liberal Democrats want to tackle the problem, but we realise that there are a number of approaches. The fact that we have supported four different amendments that purport to do the same thing does not mean that we are confused. I hope that hon. Members realise that we are genuinely attempting, in as many ways as possible, to find a solution that is acceptable to the Committee and to Ministers.
Amendment No. 173 is an attempt to keep things relatively simple. Hon. Members who have read the briefings closely will probably have worked out that it is a variation on an amendment suggested by the Family Planning Association. We have incorporated what can be regarded as the Finnish model, because we did not want to get too bogged down in age limits and maximum differences in age. There are many differences in maturity and physique even between people of similar ages, and the permutations are endless. One can always find a combination in any age definition that does not to work. The amendment is an attempt to resolve that problem.
The amendment could be interpreted as condoning sexual behaviour between a 12-year-old girl and an 18-year-old male. The Committee knows from my earlier comments that I would be unhappy about that. I will freely admit that there are some 12-year-old girls who—mostly for the reason that they have suffered abuse themselves in some way—might want to try to attract an older male. My assertion is that in those cases, the test of physical maturity would come into play, so that there would be no defence for the man. One can imagine an opposite situation in which a young man who had developed an unhealthy taste for young girls would try to work around that provision. That situation would also be provided for with the ''no great difference in age'' provisions. That is our
Column Number: 112
preferred way of dealing with the question, but amendment No. 174 proposes an alternative method and gives more detail about age differences. We have tabled parallel amendments to clause 14, including amendment No. 175, which we are discussing now.
The maturity of young girls and boys varies widely during the teenage years and putting aside basic differences, the most obvious is the different age at which the hormones kick in. As someone whose family is currently suffering from teenage hormones kicking in, I am aware of those problems. Guidelines would have to be produced for the CPS but that would not present a problem to the Minister, who was on the ''Today'' programme this morning suggesting that they will be produced anyway. Any of the amendments that we are tabling would also have to be backed up with guidelines as to what is and what is not acceptable, so I accept that there is a little more to be done.
10.30 am
Amendment No. 174 provides greater age definition: under its provisions the defendant would have to be between 13 and 18 and the age difference no greater than two years. Many agencies have suggested that an age difference of three years would be much more acceptable, as that would take into account differences in physical and mental maturity. The Liberal Democrats would be prepared to consider the amendment. The two-year age difference provides a tighter framework; it is already used in countries such as Canada to fairly good effect and it provides less scope for a mature older male—I am sorry, my maths has gone to pot—to try to develop a relationship with a relatively immature female. The two-year age difference provides a little more protection.
I am keen to hear what the Minister will say in response. We will press amendment No. 173 to a Division because it represents a simple and manageable way to deal with the problem. We will not press amendments Nos. 174 and 175 to a Division, because the Conservatives have tabled similar amendments that will be dealt with later, and it will be useful to have a wider-ranging debate at that point.
Mr. Gerrard: I was listening to the hon. Lady with a fair degree of sympathy until she said that she was going to press amendment No. 173 to a Division. We are trying to find a solution to a difficult problem and I do not see a complete solution in that amendment.
Sandra Gidley: I was minded to press it to a Division merely to see how much sympathy there was for it. If it is clear that there is no such sympathy in this Room, we might revise our opinion. However, for the record, it would be useful to see what support there is.
Mr. Gerrard: The difficulty with the amendment is in the use of the phrase ''no great difference''. I have a considerable problem in seeing how that would be interpreted. One thing that has come through the debate this morning is that we are trying to resolve a problem and we need as much clarity as possible within the law. The problem with the amendment is
Column Number: 113
the use of that phrase, particularly when the matter is complicated by the wording,
''no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity'',
meaning that there is a further issue to assess: the mental and physical maturity of two individuals. We all appreciate that one can see enormous differences between the mental and physical maturity of two 12 or 13-year-olds.
Vera Baird (Redcar): Obviously it is sensible to incorporate such factors into any decision about prosecution, but are they not better dealt with pre-prosecution, in the way that the Minister outlined, rather than left to a jury to assess, which is what the amendment would require?
Mr. Gerrard: That is absolutely right. The Minister and others have referred several times to guidelines. On a number of the offences in the Bill—and in any criminal prosecution, come to that—one would expect that the CPS would have guidelines that would be followed in cases where there might be issues of discretion. It would be of assistance to hon. Members, both in the Committee and in the House as a whole the Bill is discussed on Report, to have a clearer idea of what the guidelines to the CPS might comprise and what factors the CPS would expect individual prosecutors to take into account.
Furthermore, although we have discussed guidelines to the CPS, that will not be the only body involved in such matters. What will the police do? What approach will different police forces take? I can think of one or two chief constables who took some bizarre approaches to sexual offences in the past. A few years ago, I would not have trusted a chief constable in Manchester to take an enlightened approach to such legislation. What approach the police take is important. We must bear in mind that, for a 12 or 13-year-old, the matter would not involve only the possibility of being prosecuted, but of having to deal with the police. That could be a real problem if an individual police officer did not approach the complaint in the right way.
It would be helpful to receive information on what guidelines might be considered, how they might be applied through the CPS and how a consistent approach might be taken by different police forces, because such problems are not easy to deal with.
| 
