Clause 8 - Sexual assualt of a child under 13
Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
10:15 am
Ms Sandra Gidley (Romsey, Liberal Democrat)
The amendments were tabled in an attempt to deal with a vexed question. Although we are not dealing with clause 14, I was taken with the simplicity and—dare I say it—common sense of amendment No. 11 to that clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I look forward to that debate, because there are many parallels between clause 8 and clause 14. The Liberal Democrats want to tackle the problem, but we realise that there are a number of approaches. The fact that we have supported four different amendments that purport to do the same thing does not mean that we are confused. I hope that hon. Members realise that we are genuinely attempting, in as many ways as possible, to find a solution that is acceptable to the Committee and to Ministers.
Amendment No. 173 is an attempt to keep things relatively simple. Hon. Members who have read the briefings closely will probably have worked out that it is a variation on an amendment suggested by the Family Planning Association. We have incorporated what can be regarded as the Finnish model, because we did not want to get too bogged down in age limits and maximum differences in age. There are many differences in maturity and physique even between people of similar ages, and the permutations are endless. One can always find a combination in any age definition that does not to work. The amendment is an attempt to resolve that problem.
The amendment could be interpreted as condoning sexual behaviour between a 12-year-old girl and an 18-year-old male. The Committee knows from my earlier comments that I would be unhappy about that. I will freely admit that there are some 12-year-old girls who—mostly for the reason that they have suffered abuse themselves in some way—might want to try to attract an older male. My assertion is that in those cases, the test of physical maturity would come into play, so that there would be no defence for the man. One can imagine an opposite situation in which a young man who had developed an unhealthy taste for young girls would try to work around that provision. That situation would also be provided for with the ''no great difference in age'' provisions. That is our
preferred way of dealing with the question, but amendment No. 174 proposes an alternative method and gives more detail about age differences. We have tabled parallel amendments to clause 14, including amendment No. 175, which we are discussing now.
The maturity of young girls and boys varies widely during the teenage years and putting aside basic differences, the most obvious is the different age at which the hormones kick in. As someone whose family is currently suffering from teenage hormones kicking in, I am aware of those problems. Guidelines would have to be produced for the CPS but that would not present a problem to the Minister, who was on the ''Today'' programme this morning suggesting that they will be produced anyway. Any of the amendments that we are tabling would also have to be backed up with guidelines as to what is and what is not acceptable, so I accept that there is a little more to be done.
Amendment No. 174 provides greater age definition: under its provisions the defendant would have to be between 13 and 18 and the age difference no greater than two years. Many agencies have suggested that an age difference of three years would be much more acceptable, as that would take into account differences in physical and mental maturity. The Liberal Democrats would be prepared to consider the amendment. The two-year age difference provides a tighter framework; it is already used in countries such as Canada to fairly good effect and it provides less scope for a mature older male—I am sorry, my maths has gone to pot—to try to develop a relationship with a relatively immature female. The two-year age difference provides a little more protection.
I am keen to hear what the Minister will say in response. We will press amendment No. 173 to a Division because it represents a simple and manageable way to deal with the problem. We will not press amendments Nos. 174 and 175 to a Division, because the Conservatives have tabled similar amendments that will be dealt with later, and it will be useful to have a wider-ranging debate at that point.