| Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
|
|
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I will not repeat this morning's arguments or their details, but will try to address the specific issues relating to the amendments. I begin by pointing out again that as soon as we try to differentiate one kind of sexual activity from another, or to differentiate in terms of age, we immediately hit a degree of complexity. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) spoke about full sexual intercourse as something that we agree is not acceptable between children under 16. He went on to refer to sexual touching, and made it sound mild and innocent. I think that the phrase he used was ''fairly innocuous''. We can all imagine examples of sexual touching that would be fairly innocuous—a young boy placing his hand on a young girl's breast, for example. That might fit into the behind-the-bike-sheds category. However, if a naked adult touched a naked child with any and every part of his body, that would be sexual touching, although it may stop short of penetration. I am sure Committee members agree that that is a lot more serious than the Column Number: 132 first instance. As soon as we begin to say what sexual touching means, we find that it means a lot more than can be explained with just one example, and we see the complexity of the argument.The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole opened our discussions this afternoon. Her new clauses 5 and 6 would differentiate between penetrative and non-penetrative activity. I perfectly understand her motive for introducing the subject in Committee, and I accept that there is a greater incidence of adolescents under 16 engaging in non-penetrative behaviour than there is of adolescents engaging in penetrative sexual acts. Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley): For the sake of my political career, I really should not do this, but I am supporting the Minister again. A colleague of mine is a senior psychiatrist specialising in abused children, and she regularly appears in court on either side of a case. Her comment on penetration and the reference in much legislation to the word ''vagina'' is that it is, as she puts it, about half a centimetre too late. She says that girls at a certain age, who can recognise what is happening but not do anything about it, are as severely damaged by such behaviour as by penetration. So, regretfully for my political career, I am supporting the Minister. Paul Goggins: Once again, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and I wish him well in his political career. Returning to new clauses 5 and 6, the penetrative activity that would remain criminal behaviour under the amendments is restricted to penetration by the penis of the mouth, anus or vagina. That suggests that other sexual activity that falls short of penile penetration should be decriminalised for offenders under 18. That would mean that it was not an offence for a person under 18 to engage in sexual activity with a child under 16. That could involve, for example, the older child penetrating the anus or the vagina of the younger with an object of some kind. Straight away we can see a deficiency in the hon. Lady's new clauses, as they leave out significant and substantial matters. Mrs. Brooke: I did briefly say that we did not include oral sex or penetration with objects to keep the new clauses as simple as possible—we thought that they were complex enough as it was. However, if the Minister thought that there was something to our approach, other provisions could be worked into the new clauses. Paul Goggins: I again acknowledge the hon. Lady's honourable intentions, but my argument holds; as soon as one tries to introduce greater clarity, one introduces greater complexity. Although I accept that the hon. Lady has tried her best not to confuse things, there is still confusion. The kind of penetration that I described could be extremely damaging and serious, but it is excluded from the offence that the hon. Lady is proposing. I offer that as a consequence—perhaps a shortcoming—of her amendment. Under the hon. Lady's proposal for a comprehensive assessment by the youth offending team, the notification requirements under part 2 should apply to children only after a risk assessment. Column Number: 133 I do not want to take up more time dealing with those matters, because we discussed them this morning and earlier in the week. Procedures for dealing with young sex offenders already take into account their age and maturity and the individual circumstances of the case. That applies at all stages in the criminal justice system, from investigation to possible prosecution, through to court and final sentencing. The age of the offender is always taken into account.We believe strongly that the notification requirements should flow directly from the nature of the offence committed. We accept that in all but the most serious cases children should and will be subject to the registration requirements for only half the period applicable to an adult convicted of the same offence. It is not necessary to put in statute that the age difference between the offender and the victim should be taken into account when sentence is being determined. Account is taken of an offender's age all the way through the criminal justice system. I have listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. If they are still not persuaded by my argument after our discussions this morning, I hope at least that they are increasingly persuaded of the fact that we have tried to consider whether such things could be incorporated in the Bill. Frankly, however, any compromise that introduces more complexity puts at risk our central determination to provide protection for children. Mr. Grieve: When speaking to amendment No. 132, I shall consider one possible option, which I outlined earlier. The Minister has no difficulty persuading me or anybody else that there are limits and difficulties to making exceptions. By doing so, one allows for all sorts of rather horrific things to be decriminalised. I understand that there may be circumstances in which the prosecutor will undoubtedly exercise his discretion not to proceed. However, my broad conclusion is that to provide an exception for sexual intercourse or penetration, whether by the penis or by an object, of vagina or anus, is impossible. If somebody comes up with another idea, I am prepared to consider it. I was, however, struck by the Minister's example of sexual touching. He said that that could be much more than fondling a breast behind the bike sheds. It could involve two people touching every part of each other's body. The exception that I suggested could apply to cases involving a young person aged between 13 and 16, if there were a three-year age difference between that person and the person doing the act, or if two such young people were doing it to each other. The Minister says that that could be a horrible set of facts—it is certainly a set of facts about which people might be concerned. Those who want their children to be protected from excessive sexual activity before they reach the age of 16, or even beyond it—many families do—may find that thoroughly undesirable. However, in terms of consequences, there is an enormous difference between that and penetrative sexual activity. I wonder what examples from the past 10 years the Minister can give of cases in which there has been full consent on both sides but a prosecution has been Column Number: 134 brought, against, for example, a 15, 16, or 17-year-old for having engaged in sexual activity not involving penetration or full intercourse. I suspect that there have been hardly any such cases—I would be amazed if there had been, especially if the case did not involve bodily harm on the other person. I would, however, be interested in seeing those statistics, if the Minister can provide them.I admit that such activity covers a wide spectrum, but do we wish specifically to criminalise, or might we want to make an exception? If we decriminalise such activity, we will have to live with the consequences of our actions. We would have to accept that, in cases of a 16-year-old taking a 14-year-old to bed and engaging in a huge amount of sexual touching, but no penetration, there would have been no offence. If that was all that happened, should prosecution take place? However undesirable we think such activity might be, I am a little surprised that it would warrant a prosecution. If the Minister can provide facts or write to me with some illustrations and examples of when sexual touching alone has been thought to be so serious that it merited prosecution, I am willing to be convinced of such matters. However undesirable I may consider such activity to be, I am not persuaded that the force of the criminal law is necessarily required when the age difference is so small. I accept entirely that it would be a different matter if a 35 or 40-year-old performed such activity with a 13 or 14-year old, because that would constitute a paedophile assault. That is precisely why the only circumstances that could be permitted are those relating to people between whom the age difference is very small. I have suggested three years, but if a member of the Committee comes up with another formula, I am willing to consider it. We could have a difference in age of two years. Has prosecution taken place when the age difference is so small? If so, what aggravating features persuaded the prosecutor make such a decision? It would be interesting to know what penalties are imposed in such circumstances. It seems that they would be towards the lower end of the scale. That said, I accept that the alternative approach is to follow the Minister's suggestion and give the prosecutor discretion—the world will not come to an end if such action is taken. However, it would be nice to legislate with a firm understanding of such matters, so that we can justify our action if we are challenged about it.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 11 September 2003 |
