|
The Solicitor-General: Thus, the definition of familial relationship in clause 29 extends beyond the immediate blood relatives of the child covered in subsection (2), who fall within the scope of the offence simply by virtue of that relationship. Subsection (3) covers more distant family members who are or have been part of the child's household, or who hold or have at any time held a position of trust in relation to the child.
Subsection (4) goes wider and covers those who live in the same household as the child and are regularly involved in caring for, training or supervising the child, or are in sole charge of the child. Such sexual relationships might be justifiable once adulthood is reached, but are within the scope of the offences in order to protect children from being manipulated or coerced into unsuitable sexual relationships before they become adult. Thus, a lodger who lives as part of a child's household and babysits for that child would be prohibited from engaging in any form of physical sexual activity with that child.
At present, persons who are or have been the step-parent of a child fall within the scope of subsection (2)
Column Number: 228
and are automatically prohibited from sexual activity with that child until he or she reaches the age of 18. We now believe that they should only fall within the scope of subsection (3), which refers not to absolute prohibition but conditional, only if they live or have lived in the same household as the child, or they are or have been regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of the child.
The reason for that proposed change is that anyone who is or has been the partner of a child's parent falls within the scope of subsection (3). The definition of a partner in the Bill—this is consistent with the definition used elsewhere in legislation—is someone who lives in an enduring family relationship with another person. A partner is in the same position in relation to his partner's child as a step-parent—that is, there is no co-sanguinity.
Step-parents and partners of parents may not necessarily live in the same household as their step-child, or have any role in their upbringing. For example, they might have no co-sanguinity and no role in their upbringing. For example, where a teenager acquires two step-parents after the remarriage of divorced parents, and the step-parent or partner-of-parent relationship results from marriage or partnership with one of the child's parents, the relationship with the parent is not, in the normal course of events, entered into to create a relationship with the child. On further consideration, we can see no reason to treat the two categories—step-parent and parent's partner—differently. Nor do we believe that those should be grouped in the same category as adults who have a blood, or adoptive or fostering, relationship with a child and have taken a positive step to create a parent-child relationship.
Amendments Nos. 109, 110 and 111 make it clear that a step-parent, whether by marriage or partnership, will only fall within the scope of the abuse of trust offences if he lives or has lived in the same household as the child, or is or has been regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising, or being in sole charge of the child.
Amendment No. 152, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, would remove cousins from subsection (3) and take them outside the scope of the offence. Cousins have always been included in the scope of such offences, although they are not currently included in the Bill. That was generally supported in another place. They are being moved from where they are at the moment to fall under the scope of the offence.
Mr. Malins: The Solicitor-General is being helpful. I think that I am correct in saying—perhaps she will confirm this—that we are dealing principally with first cousins, rather than distant cousins.
The Solicitor-General: That is right. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to subsection (5)(b), which says:
'' 'cousin' means the child of an aunt or uncle.''
We are not talking about second or third cousins once removed, but about people who are the child of an aunt or uncle who have lived in the same household, or
Column Number: 229
are regularly involved in caring. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
We believe that it is right to include cousins in the scope of the offences if they live or have lived in the same household as the child, or if they are or have been regularly involved in caring for, training, or supervising the child. We are getting to the relationship between two people, as well as the question of co-sanguinity. Where one cousin is so closely involved in the life of another, there will clearly be the opportunity for exploitative behaviour to take place and for an unsuitable relationship to develop. It would be wrong to exclude them from the scope of the offences. For that reason we do not accept the amendment. I hope that hon. Members will support the Government amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made:
No. 110, in
No. 111, in
Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Sex with an adult relative: penetration
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 154, in
Mr. Malins: Both amendments would add the same wording—
''uncle, aunt, nephew or niece''—
to two separate, successive clauses. Clause 65 deals with the ways in which A may be related to B—the amendment sets out some of the more obvious ones. It occurred to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and me that it would be appropriate to add uncle, aunt, nephew and niece. It would be helpful to know whether there was a particular reason why they have not been added.
The Solicitor-General has mentioned co-sanguinity—a principle with which we are all familiar. The question for the Government is why are aunts and uncles not deemed to be in the same position as half-brothers and half-sisters on the basis of co-sanguinity? That is an important question and I
Column Number: 230
would be grateful if the Solicitor-General let me know whether she thinks that we have hit upon an interesting point.
The Solicitor-General: As ever, the hon. Members who have tabled those amendments have hit upon an interesting point. I shall like to explain why the Bill is drafted as it is; perhaps they will feel that the explanation is acceptable.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 154 would have the effect of including the relationships between uncles and aunts with their nephews and nieces within the scope of the sex with an adult relative offences in clauses 65 and 66. They would prohibit—in the same way that clauses 65 and 66 prohibit mother, father, sister, brother, half-sister and half-brother relationships—a relationship with not only the child in that relationship of aunt, uncle, nephew or niece, but a relationship with an adult. It is currently prohibited for an aunt or uncle to have a sexual relationship with their nephew or niece up until the age of 18; thereafter, when it becomes an adult offence, it is not prohibited.
As I understand the amendment, it is based on the fact that the degree of co-sanguinity—oh, it says consanguinity, perhaps I have been using the wrong term—between such relatives is the same. The hon. Gentleman said that the degree of consanguinity is 25 per cent., which is the same as that between half siblings who fall within the scope of the offences. I am also aware that aunts and uncles and nephews and nieces are prohibited from marriage for that reason. At the moment, an aunt and uncle can have sex with a nephew or niece, but they cannot marry. The original incest offences in the Sexual Offences Act 1956, on which the offences are based, were founded equally on fears of genetic abnormalities in children born of a close blood union and on the public distaste for sexual relationships between such close blood relatives.
Although consensual sexual activity between adult family members may not be harmful to society as a whole, an adult's right to exercise sexual autonomy in their private life is not absolute. We believe that, even in modern times, society has the right to impose certain standards on behaviour, where they are intended to protect people within the family from abuse. In the interests of not interfering unnecessarily in the rights of adults to engage in consensual activity, we have decided to continue to restrict the family members covered by those offences to those already covered by the existing incest offences. However, in line with the general approach that we have taken in the Bill, we have gender-neutralised the offences. Clearly, the arguments about genetic abnormalities in offspring do not apply in relation to same-sex relationships.
In light of the fact that we class all forms of penetration—not only penile penetration of the vagina and anus, but penile penetration of the mouth—as the most serious level of sexual activity throughout the Bill, we have widened the scope of the offences to cover all forms of sexual penetration, and we have not restricted them to intercourse.
Column Number: 231
Although the argument about genetic abnormalities is therefore still valid, it is not the sole justification for the offences, and we need to be certain that it is right to extend their scope. The fact that close family members may be groomed from a young age into agreeing to sexual activity with a family member once they are 18 is one justification for creating the offence, and I realise that such a situation could exist between aunts and uncles and their nephews and nieces. I also understand that some people might find sexual relationships between aunts and uncles and their nephews and nieces unpalatable and capable of undermining the family unit. Nevertheless, and bearing in mind that the responses to the consultation document, ''Setting the Boundaries'', did not indicate a public appetite for widening the scope of the offence, I am not convinced that it is right to criminalise any further relationships.
However, I have to confess that, prompted by the amendments, we have given further anxious consideration to the matter. At the very least, hon. Members have exposed an anomaly. The question is whether we want to add more people to those who are not allowed to engage in adult sexual relationships with each other. Someone who does not want to widen the criminal law so that it scoops more adults into an offence when they have sexual relationships would be opposed to this amendment. However, someone who wants consistency between those of the same levels of consanguinity would be in favour of it. This is another matter that was raised here rather than in another place, and that was not identified by outside organisations.
I ask the Committee to reject the amendment. We could sweep more people into such offences for the sake of consistency by constantly widening the Bill's ambit, but we do not want to widen it too much. However, we also do not want the Bill to have inconsistencies. Therefore, I argue for the clause to remain as it is, but I also offer a commitment to hold further discussions by Report.
|
