| Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, at the Metropolitan police presentation yesterday evening, which I think he attended, a point was made about the difficulty of dealing with cases where a child who was being abused did not regard the attention as unwelcome and did not understand that what was happening was not normal. Mr. Malins: I recall that point being made. The hon. Gentleman is right, which is why my amendment might not be right. Incidentally, it was drafted well before I attended that presentation, after which I might have been wiser. However, I am dealing with someone who is 15 and over as opposed to 13, so my arguments might apply to some extent. All I need to know from the Minister is this: if he does not like the amendment, why does he not like it—what are the principal objections to it? My amendment No. 138 was, effectively, proposed by Brook, which is the country's leading provider of free, confidential sexual health advice and contraception to the under-25s. It is fair of me to table it, on the basis that it might be a helpful way forward. It is linked to an amendment to clause 14. If it is not a helpful way forward, the Minister will undoubtedly tell me. I look forward to hearing from him. Mr. Grieve: I shall try briefly to look at the other amendments. As I said earlier, I see amendment No. 132 as the key amendment—particularly in light of the last group. I should like briefly to speak to that and to explain it, although the Minister will then tell me that it is flawed for a series of procedural reasons that I had not previously understood. Rather than considering clause 14, which provides for a different sentencing regime for a person under 16—different from that for persons over 18—in relation to the offences in clauses 10 and 13, it is easier to focus on clause 10, which deals with sexual touching, and, having accepted that that could be an offence as defined in that clause, provide an exception there. I shall read my amendment to show how narrow the scope of the exception would be:
Column Number: 139 I hope that paragraph (d) is sufficient to cover my wish to exclude penetrative sexual activity. The amendment continues:
For example, that would prevent the exploitation by a 15-year-old boy of a 13-year-old who might have some degree of learning disability. I suggest to the Minister that, in view of all the problems he has correctly identified, that will probably be the high point of my attempt to get the Home Secretary's magnum. It would be useful to know the circumstances in which a prosecution would currently be brought within those defined criteria. I suspect that it will turn out to have happened hardly ever, if at all. Although I shall not press the matter to a vote, we may have to come back to it on Report. My amendment would still provide adequate protection against paedophiles—older people preying on the young—and would continue to provide protection for those aged between 13 and 16 who, for whatever reason, do not have the capacity to consent because they do not understand the nature and quality of the acts in which they are engaging. It confines the exception to the activities of two people together, whether boy and girl, girl and girl, or boy and boy. I have not sought to affect clauses 11, 12 and 13. That may seem a bit strange. Some people might think that causing a child to watch a sexual act is less serious than sexual touching, but I am not sure whether I agree. One appears to have a natural origin, whereas I sometimes think the other involves witnessing scenes that are far more depraved and unpleasant than the activities in which two people would reasonably and normally get up to. Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman about that, not least because bullying may lead, particularly in boys' schools, to boys forcing boys to watch other boys do things. That is not entirely unknown—and it is just as cruel and vindictive an activity as anything else. Mr. Grieve: I think the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood what I said. I was saying that the amendment would not legalise somebody being forced to watch something. Perhaps I have misunderstood what he said. I shall try to deal with what he possibly meant, which is that somebody may be bullied into consenting to sexual activity. In that case, they would not have given consent. I accept that it may sometimes be difficult—this is a legitimate and important point—to persuade somebody who has been bullied into consenting to sexual activity to admit that that is what happened. We know that, in the context of sexual activity between adults—the hon. and learned Member for Redcar has raised the point in relation to rape cases—it is often difficult for somebody to come forward and to state that they were bullied and coerced into doing something that they did not wish to do. There, I think, the hon. Gentleman has a good point. That is an evidential problem, which is likely to exist in most circumstances. I accept that it might be possible to Column Number: 140 have evidence other than the evidence of the victim, but one certainly needs the evidence of the victim if one is to mount a prosecution on the basis that consent did not occur.This is the only possible loophole that I can think of that would allow us to deal with the Home Secretary's difficulties. He was plainly anxious about criminalising what he regards as perfectly normal adolescent activity. I accept that there are possible downsides but I hope that the Minister will look at the matter seriously, if not today, then perhaps we can come back to the matter on Report.
3.15 pmMr. John Randall (Uxbridge): I apologise to the Committee because I was unable to attend the full sitting this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting very close to something that might be acceptable. I understand the problem and I think that the Committee is gradually making progress towards resolving it. I would not run to a magnum of champagne, but perhaps a can of lager from Uxbridge. I still have a problem with the whole idea. I understand the problems, but the issue must be resolved; there will be great concerns about it, not only within the Committee but outside it. Has the Minister had any conversations with the Department for Education and Skills about what guidelines it would give on sex education with regard to those under 16? Will those giving sex education be telling people that certain touching is officially a crime, but that people will be all right up to a point? Or would those teachers be in danger from a parent, perhaps more prurient than others, saying that their child has been told that touching is okay, even though it is a crime? I am wondering how the Department for Education and Skills would get around the matter. Before I can sit down and be happy that we have tried our very best, I would like to know what has been happening on that point. Vera Baird: I had not intended to say much today, but I am driven to my feet by a craving for champagne. I worry a little whether I have understood the position properly. I think that the position is that if someone aged between 13 and 16 is raped by someone not much older than them, there will be a defence of consent. If I have misunderstood that, I am pleased to have that corrected. Mr. Grieve: No, no; indeed not. I have specifically drafted amendment No. 132 to relate to sexual touching without penetration, which is why it is provided for in the amendment. It would not cover rape or any form of penetrative sexual activity at all. Vera Baird: I am grateful for that, but what would prevent a defence of consent in the Bill to the rape of someone aged between 13 and 16? I ask that rhetorically. [Laughter.] The Chairman: I call Paul Goggins to answer that rhetorical question. Paul Goggins: I will either have a conversation with or write to my hon. and learned Friend. Column Number: 141 My overall observation returns me to a comment made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield during a very passionate defence of the importance of the age of consent. The more we try to change the lines regarding age, no matter how reasonable it may appear on paper, the more problematic it becomes. Inadvertently, our efforts to win the champagne may send out an unfortunate message from this House regarding the age of consent. It is important that we hold that as a backdrop to the debate. It is central that we offer that protection. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) asked why there would be any problem in adding the phrase,
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) answered that question, in part at least, very well indeed. Perhaps because the child has been abused, perhaps for other reasons, that activity may not be seen by them as causing that harassment, alarm or distress, but it is not defensible in any way whatever and needs to be caught by the Bill. The hon. Member for Woking asked me gently to respond to the other part of the question, to which I say the following. Clause 10 applies to offenders over 18, so I give him the scenario of a 50-year-old engaging in sexual intercourse with an 13-year-old where the prosecution have to prove that there has been harassment, alarm or distress. They will have to prove in court the issue of consent causing more distress for the child involved.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 11 September 2003 |
