Paul
Goggins: I thank all members of the Committee who
participated in the debate. I shall first respond to the comments of
the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I was grateful for his broad welcome
for the order as a whole. I agree with him and other hon. Members that,
after the devolution of policing and justice powers, a piece of
legislation as large scale as this will have proper line-by-line
scrutiny in the Assembly, which will be able to amend what will then be
a Bill in their terms in more specific ways. I would welcome that. I am
on record as saying that I am trying to do myself out of a job. I want
that scrutiny done and the accountability to be held locally. We will
do everything that we can to move to that
position. I was pleased
that the hon. Gentleman underlined a number of important points. First,
in relation to the age of consent, the criminal law does not
criminalise the young person but the other person. That cannot be said
often enough in this Committee or more broadly. It is important that
that point is firmly understood. He spoke about his personal sympathy
with the argument for uniformity across the United Kingdom. He pointed
out that it is possible to get married at 16 in Northern Ireland with
parental consent, so there is something of an anomaly there. He then
asked, as others have done, particularly the hon. Member for Upper
Bann, why we have not taken advice from those who made strong
representations about the age of consent.
We have taken
careful note of the whole range of advice and representations that we
have received about the age of consent. Different people and different
organisations have recommended different things depending on their
particular experience and their engagement with young people. The
Government have had to reflect on the balance of that advice to see
where we ought to move the legislation and whether we should change it.
Given that we started from the position that there should be uniformity
unless there are compelling reasons why not, and having received advice
from a whole range of organisations that we should reduce the age of
consent to 16, in the end the balance of the argument seemed to point
absolutely to the reduction to
16. Let
me mention some of the organisations and individuals who have
encouraged us to believe that 16 is the right age. Leading child care
organisations such as the NSPCC and Barnardo’s, which do
tremendous work in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United
Kingdom, have been absolutely clear with us. Why? Because they work
with young people who need to come to them for advice and the
organisations fear that keeping the age of consent at 17 will deter
young people from seeking
that necessary advice because they feel that they
will be criminalised in some way. It is important that we heed that
advice. They want to provide the kind of welfare support, encouragement
and education that we all want to see. We are all concerned for
vulnerable young people. Those organisations think that keeping 17 as
the age of consent is a barrier. We have to take that advice
seriously. We
take the advice of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and
Young People. We take the advice of the health and social services
boards and eight of the 10 trusts in Northern Ireland. These are the
social services organisations working with children and their families
day in and day out. They tell us absolutely clearly that they believe
that 16 is the right age. The police recommend it. I will not repeat
the quotation from Dr. Farry, who chaired the ad hoc Committee that
looked at the order in considerable detail, but he was clear and
unequivocal in his
view. Indeed, there
have been other comments. On the television programme,
“Let’s Talk” in January, Sir Reg Empey, the leader
of the Ulster Unionist party,
said: “I think
there is a case for having things put on an even footing across the
country... It should not become a political
football.” The hon. Member
for West Tyrone (Mr. Doherty) who speaks for Sinn Fein
said: “I think
it might be sensible legally to bring it to
16.” David Ford, the
leader of the Alliance party
said: “I find,
on balance, that the arguments put forward by organisations such as the
NSPCC and Barnardo’s have the right
approach.” We have
listened to all those voices as well as the others who have criticised
our approach. It is not as though it is all one-way advice. We have had
considerable advice suggesting that 16 is right and we have heeded that
advice.
Mr.
Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for his
explanation and for quoting all the organisations that he has spoken
to. It seems that there is a rift between what those organisations are
saying and what an awful lot of other people—perhaps as
individuals or politicians in Northern Ireland—are saying. Can
he explain why that might be?
Paul
Goggins: Clearly, people’s different values or
beliefs persuade them to advance the opinions that they advance. I have
paid particular attention to those organisations working with children
and young people day in, day out—credible organisations that do
tremendous work. I have had to take their advice seriously. It would be
ludicrous if a Minister simply dismissed the views of organisations
such as the NSPCC and Barnardo’s, but that is not to undermine
or to criticise the authentic views that others have. It is critical to
focus on the fact that the young person and their conduct is not the
focus of the criminal law, it is the perpetrator—the other
person. We have to get that message across. I will return to that point
later on. The hon.
Member for Upper Bann told the Committee that the ad hoc Committee
passed a resolution that stated
that “the Committee
strongly recommends that there be no change to the current age of
consent of 17.”
The wording of the resolution was
“strongly recommends”, but that resolution was carried by
five to three so it is not as though the ad hoc Committee had a uniform
view—five to three is a divided view. The chairman of the ad hoc
Committee sided with the Government’s point of view.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury
asked what kind of message this sends out. I think it important that we
send the message that we want to avoid confusion in the minds of young
people. Having a different age of consent in different parts of the
United Kingdom could add to that confusion. In my view it does add to
that confusion. We want the message to go out that young people should
seek advice from advice agencies and social services organisations and
from the increasing amount of counselling and advice services available
through schools in Northern Ireland. We do not want young people to be
deterred. The hon.
Members for Upper Bann and for Upminster, and my hon. Friend the Member
for Broxtowe, all alluded in different ways to concerns about the
welfare of young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and
others expressed concern about levels of teenage pregnancy. That is an
issue of concern, but the good news is that there has been improvement
in Northern Ireland since 2000, through the teenage pregnancy and
parenthood strategy. In 2000, there were 222 pregnancies to under-17s,
but in 2007 that figure had fallen to 142. Obviously, there is still
considerable concern for those 142 young girls who became pregnant, but
the number is coming down because of the advocacy, education, support
and advice being provided by a range of
organisations. The
level of teenage pregnancies has nothing whatsoever to do with the age
of consent. Why do I say that? Because the Netherlands has 16 as the
age of consent and has the lowest rate of teenage pregnancies in
Europe. Denmark has the second lowest rate of teenage pregnancies in
Europe and the age of consent is 15. While teenage pregnancy and the
age of consent may often come together in the public mind, they are two
separate matters. The quality of the education, advice and support
available are the key factors in driving down rates of teenage
pregnancies, and, of course, we all want to see that.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury
ended his remarks by coming back to devolution and hinting that it
might be sensible to leave the matter for the Assembly to determine.
The process that has led us to this Committee goes back nearly eight
years, starting with the review initiated by the Home Office and
involving the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the subsequent review in
Northern Ireland, the considerable consultation in 2006 and the draft
order after that. The order is the culmination of a process.
Having worked
out what we think is the right thing to do on the balance of all the
advice and evidence that we have received, we would be remiss in our
responsibilities if we just dropped out the age of consent. It would be
wholly inconsistent. We have argued throughout that the basis of reform
in Northern Ireland should be consistency with England and Wales unless
there is a compelling reason why not to do so. We have not found that
compelling reason, so we want to sustain the policy. It would be wrong
for us to govern by proxy or play some second-guessing game about what
the Assembly
might do. We must do what we think is right while we
have responsibility. I do not deny that, some day, when the Assembly
has control of such issues, it might hold its own review and come to a
different conclusion, but I must tell the Committee today what I think
is the right thing to do, not give an opinion based on
second-guessing. I have
considerable respect for the hon. Member for Upper Bann on a range of
issues, particularly young people and sexual crimes. He has followed
the issue assiduously in parliamentary questions and debates, and
nobody should be under the illusion that he just hit on the issue
today. He has followed it consistently. I do not agree with his
conclusions, as he knows and said in his remarks. I repeat gently the
point I made: we received evidence from a range of organisations, and
we must take it seriously. It is not just the number of letters and
cards that we receive. We must weigh the substance of the evidence in
the balance. The hon.
Gentleman asked what kind of message we want to send out. There are two
messages that I particularly want to send out today. One is to those
engaging in sexual activity with people aged 14 or 15: there are a
whole lot of new powers and stronger sentences available to the courts
for dealing with them. If they abuse the position of a young person
below the age of consent, they can expect a heftier penalty than ever
before. The second message relates to the comments that he reported
about the possibility that sexual predators in the Republic of Ireland
and elsewhere will see the order as some kind of green light to go to
Northern Ireland to abuse children. That is absolutely not the case.
The message of the legislation could not be clearer. Abusers and sexual
predators who go to Northern Ireland will be hit with sentences that
have not been available there before.
We will not tolerate sexual
exploitation and abuse, but that has nothing to do with the age of
consent. It has to do with how we deal with people who behave in that
wholly unacceptable way. The hon. Gentleman gently chided me for not
having given a reason why the age should be reduced to 16. I think that
I have: uniformity, clarity in the minds of young people and
overwhelming evidence. I quoted from MLAs and other leading figures in
Northern Ireland politics to sustain my
view. The hon. Member
for Argyll and Bute always asks tough questions. I am genuinely
grateful for his support for the whole order, including the measures on
the age of consent. In relation to sections 37 to 40, he asked about
the distinction between causing or inciting and paying for the sexual
services of a child, arguing, as others have, that there should be
equal treatment in terms of penalties. It is worth pointing out that
both carry substantial penalties. Causing or inciting carries a maximum
of 14 years, and paying for sexual services has the potential for life.
They are both substantial.
We have taken the view that we
must have consistency and proportionality. In the end, the person who
directly sexually abuses a child should, in my view, always be open to
the greater penalty. Of course, if it is penetrative sex and the child
is under 13, the person who does the inciting can still be caught by a
life sentence. In the worst case scenario, whereby somebody had incited
somebody else to sexually abuse a very young child, they could still be
caught with a life sentence. I hope that offers some consolation to the
hon. Gentleman.
On the definition of
“persistent”, if the hon. Gentleman looks at section 58,
he will find the same definition as that which he shared with the
Committee: two or more occasions in a period of three months. We think
that that is appropriate. We have consulted extensively, and the Police
Service of Northern Ireland supports us, so we feel that it is an
appropriate measure with which to proceed. We have not received any
suggestion that it is not.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned
section 5, and again, as I said in my opening remarks, we have given
considerable thought to the issue whereby it is incumbent on somebody
who knows that a serious offence is being carried out to report it to
the police. The concern is that it could place other young people in
very difficult situations, whereby they may be expected to report other
young people whom they know are engaging in sexual offences. We cannot
simply do away with section 5 lock, stock and barrel. Owing to the
ongoing threat from dissident republicans, we in Northern Ireland still
must have the full force of the law available to ensure that if people
know about such terrorist activity, they report it to the police.
However, I accept that it is really not appropriate in relation to
children and young people.
We have discussed the issue at
length with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety
in Northern Ireland, and indicated that we have a provision in the
order to take away that requirement. However, we will do so only when
the safeguarding legislation is in place. We expect it to be in place
next year, and my officials will continue to work closely with Northern
Ireland health Department officials to move to that point and remove
the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman and of others. I acknowledge that
those anxieties are shared by some of the organisations that I have
been happy to pray in aid in other arguments this afternoon.
On the final
question, about why we have not taken up the NSPCC’s mandatory
guidance recommendation, I can tell the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute
that there will be with key stakeholders and others further
consultation on guidance, which will be issued prior to the enactment
of the legislation. Although that may not be mandatory in the way that
he suggested, it will be done in a serious and inclusive way, because
we very much need the advice and minds of such organisations to help us
frame the guidance so that it is practical and useful.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for
supporting the order as a whole and hope that my answers have, to some
extent, allayed some of the fears that other Members have expressed. I
wholeheartedly ask Members to support the orders.
Question
put:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes
1.
Division
No.
1]
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee
has considered the draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order
2008.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland Consequential
Amendments) Order 2008.—[Paul
Goggins.] Committee
rose at twenty-six minutes to Six
o’clock.
| 
