Select Committee on Home Affairs Second Report


HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT: Sexual Offences Bill. Date: 10 July 2003

Paragraph No. and text Departmental response Outcome/Latest progress
Paragraph 39 In our view, it is neither appropriate nor desirable to criminalise legitimate activities, such as naturism. We therefore welcome the removal of the 'recklessness' element from the offence of exposure (Clause 68). We do not, however, accept that the offence should be further restricted by a requirement for a sexual motive. In our view, this may create more difficulties than it solves and runs of the risk of undermining the very purpose of the offence, which is to protect individuals from distressing—and potentially dangerous—types of behaviour. Government continued to resist pressure to introduce a requirement for a sexual motive. Accepted. Law passed without a requirement for a sexual motive, and implemented in May 2004.
Paragraph 47 There is much concern and disagreement as to whether this Bill will legalise sexual activity in public toilets. We recommend that sexual activity in public toilets should be a criminal offence and suggest that this could be dealt with by an amendment to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which makes it clear that "insulting" behaviour includes sexual behaviour. This would dispense with the need to prove specific sexual acts and also has the advantage of empowering the police to give a warning before making an arrest. We believe that it is appropriate for this offence to be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court, rather than in the Crown Court. Accept that sexual activity in toilets should be a criminal offence. Gov believed that existing law covered the offence, but was defeated in the Lords over an amendment to make it a specific offence in the SO Act. In order to make offence workable, Gov amended the provision to apply to all explicitly sexual activity as recommended by HAC, and to make it summary only. Accepted. The law was passed as set out in the previous column. Implemented in May 2004, along with rest of Act. The Government gave a commitment to monitor whether the offence was being used to target homosexual activity in a discriminatory fashion. Information will be collected on the gender of those prosecuted for this offence, and will be evaluated by the Interdepartmental Ministerial Group on Sexual Offending.
Paragraph 58 Whilst we accept the need for Risk of Sexual Harm Orders (RSHOs), we recommend that their use be carefully monitored by the Home Office and the numbers reported annually to Parliament. Will monitor the use of RSHOs but will not report them annually to Parliament. Will make the number of orders made available in response to PQs or public enquiries. Accepted in part. In response to PQ from Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby) (UIN 181075, Hansard 08/07/04) we have made it clear that information on the number of orders made will be collected from the courts annually and the figures for 2004 will be available in the autumn of 2005.
Paragraph 60 We recommend that Clause 121(5)(b), which requires a RSHO to be made for a fixed period of at least five years, be deleted from the Bill. The courts should be given discretion to make whatever length of order is needed to protect a child or children from harm. Accepted that 5 years was too long, and agreed to amend the minimum length of an order to 2 years. Accepted. Amendment passed and provision implemented in May 2004.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 9 February 2005