| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 28:
- Page 9, line 13, leave out from "B," to end of line 26 and insert—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 29:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 30:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 34.
Abuse of trust is an important offence and the Bill will extend it from its previous incarnation in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. The introductory print of the Bill included mentors and personal advisers in the offence. At Report stage the Government accepted my amendment to include part-time pupils as well as full-time pupils under the Bill's protection. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said on 2nd June at col. 1150 of Hansard that he would table amendments for Third Reading to bring children's guardians and supervisors within the scope of the offence. Those amendments have not been forthcoming.
I spoke with officials at the Home Office on Friday who informed me that they were awaiting advice from lawyers at the Department of Health who were not available on that day. The noble and learned Lord gave his undertaking on 2nd June, so why was it that the Home Office waited until Friday 13th June to seek advice on these amendments? I informed the officials that I would be tabling my amendments on supervisors and guardians once more in order to obtain a firm assurance from the Government about when the matter would be dealt with in the Bill.
I have also retabled an amendment on sports coaches. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who is present, first addressed that issue very elegantly and, I believe, made a very good case. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that he would consider the arguments raised, as, indeed, they were very persuasive. When we returned to the matter at Report stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, told the House that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Science had,
If the evidence is sufficient to lead to a removal of a licence and to the removal of someone from his post, it must be sufficient to constitute an offence under the law; it certainly should be if we are to protect young people. It is simply unbelievable to think that we have
The noble and learned Lord said that he would be happy to review the position and to consider using the order-making power attached to these offences to bring sports coaches within their scope. But I am unhappy about such a delay. There is an obvious problem here and it must be addressed now while we still have the Bill before us. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to use the order-making power to cover sports coaches within six months of the Act coming into force.
Youth and community workers are another obvious category where there is simply no excuse for leaving young people unprotected. Many thousands of parents commit their children to the care of youth workers for an evening a week, for the weekend, or for weeks away. Youth and community workers have great influence over those children. The idea that abuse of trust will not apply to a youth worker who uses his influence to obtain sexual gratification from those in his care is simply not acceptable.
At Report stage I cited the example of Michael Gregory in connection with a different amendment. Among other things, Mr Gregory ran a youth group in a church. He was convicted of indecently assaulting two girls. Had those girls been over 16, is it possible that he could have escaped conviction if it appeared that the activity was consensual? The abuse of trust offence would not apply.
I should add that I should have liked to address voluntary youth groups as an additional category to be covered by abuse of trust, but I realise that there is considerable overlap between voluntary groups and the definition of "youth and community workers". It is more difficult to devise a form of words which covers them with sufficient precision and, therefore, I have left them out of my amendment. None the less I hope that the noble Baroness will also consider using her order-making powers to address that area of concern.
Finally, I again seek for amendments to include ancillary staff within the abuse of trust offence. I am anxious that we do not pretend to ourselves that only those whose job descriptions require them to work directly with children are capable of abuse of trust. A caretaker is in a special position. We have only to remember the case of the young girls of Soham, Jessica and Holly.
A caretaker who lives in a school is unlikely to fall within Clause 23(5), which addresses education. To be caught he must look after,
All that contact with children at the school provides plenty of scope for abuse. The same is true for other ancillary staff in the institutions referred to in subsections (2) to (5) of Clause 23. Although technically they may not work with children, their presence in the institution and the confidence which other staff and children place in them may provide significant opportunities for abuse.
If we are truly to learn the lessons of the many child abuse scandals that have occurred, we must recognise that paedophiles work extremely hard to place themselves in all kinds of positions where they have contact with young people. If such a person obtains an ancillary job in a children's home or a school or a young offenders' institution simply in order to be around children and uses that position to manipulate a young person into having sex, he should be punished in the same way as a social worker, a probation officer or a teacher who commits the same offence. It is important that the Secretary of State considers very seriously how these categories of person can be properly brought within the offence.
Parents and families, especially children, should be protected from acts of sexual abuse committed by those who are officially in a position of trust and, in many cases, acting in loco parentis. I beg to move.
"(da) where subsection (1A) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and
(db) either—
(i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or
(ii) B is under 13.
(1A) This subsection applies where A—
(a) is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and
(b) is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances.
(1B) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
(1C) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section—
(a) it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and
(b) it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances,
it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances."
Page 9, line 39, leave out from "B," to end of line 7 on page 10 and insert—
"(ca) where subsection (1A) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and
(cb) either—
(i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or
(ii) B is under 13.
(1A) This subsection applies where A—
(a) is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and
(b) is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances.
(1B) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
(1C) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section—
(a) it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and
(b) it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances,
it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances."
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
"POSITIONS OF TRUST: SPORTS COACHES
Within six months of the coming into force of section 23, the Secretary of State shall, by order under section 23(1)(b), specify conditions relating to sports coaches registered under the sports governing bodies coaching scheme and who, in that capacity, look after persons under 18."
"identified weaknesses in sports coaching and set up a coaching task force to examine corrective actions".—[Official Report, 2/6/03; col. 1152.]
So, in that case, there is a problem. The noble and learned Lord went on to tell the House about discussions on a possible licensing scheme which may take until 2007 to implement. The noble and learned Lord told us, also at col. 1152, that once the scheme comes in,
"any coach who uses his position to manipulate a young athlete in his charge into a sexual relationship may lose his licence and his livelihood".
"persons under 18 who are receiving education at an educational institution".
His job description will not include looking after children, but he is frequently around children and he is often alone with them at the school and in its grounds. Children view him as part of the establishment. They learn to trust the caretaker. He may be the first port of call for children whose parents have not turned up to
collect them at the end of the day. He may even regularly invite children into his home on the school premises. That is not an improbable situation. Anyone who knows anything about schools will know that a number of children hang around school premises after school hours. Certainly the more vulnerable children are more likely to do that, or children who come from care institutions. They become very friendly with caretakers and strike up relationships with them. To suggest that that does not happen or could not happen is to set our face against a reality.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page