Clause 8 - Sexual assualt of a child under 13
Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
10:45 am
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
I have been struck by today's debate, which has been a reflection of the way that times have moved on. There has been only a tentative suggestion that one purpose of criminal law is to reinforce a social message, but for the prohibition of sexual activity for those under 13, that is exactly one background intention of past and, I suspect, current legislation. We have spoken about how bad it would be for a 12-year-old to feel that as a result of some playground activity, they had sullied themselves and left themselves open to great criticism. That is one anxiety, but the reverse is also true.
Picking up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove said, one reason for having a blanket prohibition is to enable parents to say to their children that something is not allowed and that they will just have to wait until later to do it. The Minister may say that I am wrong, but I believe that that is one intention behind the Bill. It has not been mentioned, because it has become a somewhat unfashionable concept, but it is not one that we should completely shirk. Things happen, and picking up on what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre has just said, if they do happen, we should not make a big fuss about them. However, the truth is that human experience has suggested that it is not a particularly good idea for them to happen. Two 12-year-olds spending all their time behind the bike sheds may have other ways in which to spend their time more profitably. We know that sexual experiences stir up passions and emotions of all kinds, which young people find it difficult to handle.
That is why I cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment, although I appreciate the intention behind it. I understand the thinking behind the first exception—that
''there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved''—
but the provision is woolly. It would be an absolute nightmare to disentangle in court, and it could sanction a physical relationship between two children who had become highly sexualised for whatever reason—perhaps because they had been abused in some other context—even if the relationship were extremely counter-productive to their own interests. Only the parental sanction would be left, and it is sometimes difficult to enforce. Therefore, I am unable to support the amendment, despite appreciating the intention.
Once we get beyond the age of 13, we could apply different criteria. However, again picking up on the
comments of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, we should just accept that there is a blanket prohibition under 13. Our children do not carry microchips that register in the police station every time that they go behind the bike sheds. We must be realistic. It is unlikely that there will be persecution of 11-year-olds for behind-the-bike-shed activities. That does not happen at present, although it could, under the laws of indecent assault, so perhaps we should not get too twitchy. However, guidelines that the public could see would be desirable.