|
Mr. Randall: I simply want to echo what my hon. Friend said. After listening to the Minister, I have grave worries. It sounds as though the protection that we would be affording children under 16 in this country would not necessarily apply to those in a legal marriage who have come from outside the country. I speak entirely as a layman, but the message will have to be relayed clearly outside so that people can understand why there is a difference under the legislation.
Paul Goggins: I understand why Opposition Members are responding to marriage exceptions. I felt that it was important to advance that argument, because it relates to clause 11 and other clauses. However, with the forbearance of the Opposition, perhaps we may leave discussion of the marriage exceptions until a little later in our business.
I shall not comment on the scenarios proposed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, but I offer him the same assurance that I offered his hon. Friend the Member for Woking on the previous amendment. I accept the argument. If it applied there, it would also apply here.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Engaging in sexual activity in the present of a child
3.45 pm
Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 50, 56, 66, 80, 97 to 99 and 103.
Paul Goggins: Amendments Nos. 44, 50, 56, 66 and 80 redefine the offences relating to engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child or a person with a mental disorder to include situations where the offender is in a place from which the activity can be observed and he believes that the other person is aware, or intends that that person should be aware, that he is engaging in the activity. The amendments are needed to close a loophole in the current version of clauses 12, 20, 34, 38 and 42. I am happy to acknowledge that that loophole was exposed during
Column Number: 149
discussion in the House of Lords, where a commitment was given that that issue would be considered further. Hon. Members have already referred to the benefit of the scrutiny in another place.
The clause covers a situation in which a person in, for example, the next room or in the garden of a house next door to a child's home engages in sexual activity, intending the child to see it, for his—the offender's—own sexual gratification. Clauses 20, 34, 38 and 42 share the same wording and consequently they are similarly amended.
Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 make minor, presentational drafting changes to clause 70, which deals with the interpretation of the provisions on voyeurism. Amendment No. 99 would remove from that clause the definition of observation, because the term is now, by virtue of amendment No. 103, included in clause 80 on general interpretation, which applies to the whole of part 1. It is therefore unnecessary to define it again.
Amendment No. 102 defines the word ''image'', which we shall deal with in a later clause, and No. 103 defines ''observation''. They ensure that the offences referred to above would include the observation of the sexual activity by means of an image created by, for example, a webcam or other remote viewing system. That will help deal with paedophiles and others who use technology and the display of sexual acts through the internet or mobile phones as part of their abuse of a child, or as preparation of the child for later abuse.
Some of the amendments are minor or presentational and others are more substantial. I hope that hon. Members have found my brief explanation helpful.
Mr. Grieve: I welcome what the Minister has done. I am grateful that he has taken on board the remarks made in the House of Lords. The amendments are undoubtedly a major improvement to this part of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Causing a child to watch a sexual act
Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in
clause 13, page 5, line 19, leave out 'a photograph or pseudo-photograph' and insert 'an image'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 47, 51, 59, 69, 85, 92, 100 and 102.
Paul Goggins: Some of the amendments will have a particular resonance for those Committee members who attended the presentation by the Metropolitan police yesterday. Amendments Nos. 45, 51, 59, 69 and 85 will ensure that any individual who shows a child or a person with a mental disorder or learning disability a cartoon, drawing or any other image of a person, whether real or imaginary, engaging in a sexual act is
Column Number: 150
committing an offence. That extends the offence in clause 13, causing a child to watch a sexual act, which previously only included causing a child to look at sexual activity depicted in photographs or pseudo-photographs. The amendments were tabled in response to concerns raised by the police that paedophiles often show media other than photographs depicting sexual activity to children for their own sexual gratification. For example, they might show tracings of such photographs, cartoons or other kinds of drawings.
The other amendments make similar changes to the offences corresponding to the behaviour described in clause 13, namely those offences in clauses 21, 35, 39 and 43 concerning abuse of trust and the protection of adults with mental disorders. Amendment No. 47 ensures that the marriage defence in clause 16—again, I emphasise that we will debate that at greater length later—uses the same term as the offences in clauses 10 to 14, to which it applies. Amendment No. 102 provides the definition of ''image'' on which the amendments rely. It includes moving or still images, however produced, and three-dimensional images. In the context of those offences, it will also cover images of imaginary people engaging in sexual activity, such as images created by computer graphics and cartoons.
Amendment No. 92 makes a minor consequential drafting amendment to the interpretation clause, clause 53, relating to child prostitution and pornography. Amendment No. 100 makes a minor consequential drafting amendment to clause 70, relating to the voyeurism offence under clause 69. Those amendments will assist the police in dealing with offenders who show such material, particularly to children, for their own sexual pleasure. Such behaviour may lead to a reduction of a child's natural barriers against engaging in sexual activity and forms a well recognised part of the process of grooming a child for abuse. We believe it right to extend that protection to vulnerable adults who may also be subject to abuse of that kind.
Mr. Grieve: I welcome the amendments. I recall visiting Scotland Yard about a year ago, prior to the briefing available yesterday to members of the Committee. I went there in the course of my then new job as criminal justice spokesman to discuss the issue of internet pornography. It was brought home to me that there was a serious difficulty in that although there was clearly a deep anxiety about photographs taken of children that clearly involved abuse, there was a volume of extremely unpleasant material that was simply generated by computer, but which still had the same capacity to corrupt, particularly when aimed at the young. The Minister has taken on board the views of the police, and has incorporated them into the clause, so that showing such material will be a criminal offence.
It is striking that the Minister has decided that the provisions should be extended to vulnerable adults, and I welcome that. Perhaps it is dangerous to say so, but I suspect that all Committee members agree that that is a sensible course of action. However, it raises profound issues about child pornography. Such material is regarded as tending to deprave and
Column Number: 151
corrupt children and vulnerable adults, so it is noteworthy that we allow adults to be exposed to it to their heart's content, as long as the material is generated either by sexual activities between adults or—this is equally interesting—it involves visual images that may show sex between adults and children that are not photographs.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of that difficult issue, which worries the police but strays deeply into areas of civil liberties. I am quite satisfied that, in doing what he has done, the Minister is on the right side of the line. However, I cannot ignore the fact that my visit to Scotland Yard brought home to me that we have been somewhat complacent in our attitude to the large amount of material that does not fall foul of the law at present, but which is in fact extremely unpleasant and which can be used, as the Minister accepts, for even more unpleasant purposes.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Child sex offences committed by children or young persons
Mr. Dawson: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in
We have had an excellent debate, which seems to have lasted for a very long time. Frankly, my overwhelming feeling at the moment is one of relief that my own daughters are now well into their 20s. I am grateful to the three other members of the Committee who have put their names to the amendment and for the words of support for it that I have received from officials of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; from Rachel Hodgkin, who wrote the briefing from the Family Planning Association; and from officials of the Children's Rights Alliance for England.
This is developing into an excellent Bill. It makes a very strong statement about the importance that the Government and hon. Members of all parties attach to the issues. In that context, I strongly support the retention of the age of consent at 16. One of the best things that the Government have done was to equalise the age of consent at 16. Also, as I said earlier, I am very pleased with the concept that children under 13 are incapable of consenting to any sexual activity.
I am also pleased by the introduction of the offence of touching that is sexual, and I am happy with the definitions that are given in the Bill. The sexual abuse of children by other children is a very serious problem that was discussed earlier today. I do not believe that anyone is terribly clear about this, but the figures indicate that perhaps as much as 40 per cent. of sexual offences against children are committed by their peers. We must deal with that sorry statistic with openness and through education and the effective treatment of disturbed children, whether they are victims, offenders
Column Number: 152
or both, and we must have good services that are backed up by sound law.
In a broader context, I am concerned that too many children are losing out on their childhood. The pressure on children to engage in mock-adult behaviour and behaviour that is way beyond their years is immense and growing, and the current age of consent is under threat. How can it not be, when it is reliably reported in The Lancet and other places that 30 per cent. of men and 26 per cent. of women say that their first experience of intercourse occurred before the age of 16? Every Member of Parliament is concerned about the teenage pregnancy rate in this country.
4 pm
Clause 14 effectively outlaws kissing for under-16s on pain of five years imprisonment. That is how young people see it, but I do not know about other hon. Members. I attended a spirited debate at the annual assembly of the United Kingdom youth parliament in July when young people were well informed and aghast at the implications of the clause. I am extremely concerned that it is deeply flawed and that it will bring the age of consent of 16 into total disrepute and undermine it. The young people to whom I talked at the youth parliament and those from my constituency who visited Parliament earlier this week could not believe that such a provision was even being considered by anyone in this House.
I am concerned that the clause will prevent young people who are involved in consensual relationships from seeking advice on contraception, how to handle those relationships and the emotional implications of deep relationships before the age of 16. I am also concerned that it will leave some young people more vulnerable to abuse because of the need for secrecy. Who could fail to recognise the potential for emotional blackmail of a vulnerable child who is emotionally attached to a domineering partner of a similar age and who cannot tell what is going on because she would not want him to go to prison for five years? We want openness, education, sound advice, counselling and support, and that should be based on effective law that is rooted in the reality of children's experience. Touching may be coercive, but it may be mutually agreed, experimental and normal. Young people develop in maturity and understanding at different rates and the response of parents, family and professionals to the challenges of young people's sexuality should be proportionate, supportive, sympathetic and helpful.
Some of the amendments that we have discussed today are complicated. The Home Secretary said that the conundrum is so difficult that he is prepared to offer a magnum of champagne to anyone who can solve it. I think that we have made it too complicated by trying to allow for the vast range of possible situations in the Bill. That is impossible and the Home Secretary's champagne is completely safe.
The amendment is not perfect, but it is on the right lines. It would introduce an appeal to the common sense and reason not only of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, but of every parent of every teenage child, every teacher of every teenage child and
Column Number: 153
anyone who has contact with adolescents and is concerned about them. The amendment would not decriminalise anything. It would retain the backing of the serious sanction if and when it is needed, but it would set the matter out in a form that is understandable and explicable. It tries to strike the necessary balance between protection and allowing children to grow. If we over-protect children, we render them vulnerable.
My proposal would be understandable and explicable to young people and I think that we could make it acceptable to them. We need something clear and straightforward in the Bill. We need effective legislation to underpin a change of culture in this country. We need greater openness, understanding and sympathy for young people. We need a realistic point from which to promote a culture that says, ''Until you're ready, it's quite all right for you to say no.'' Amendment No. 11 would help to create that.
|
