Clause 23 - Positions of trust
Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm
Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 145, in
clause 23, page 11, line 30, at end insert—
'( ) A shall have a defence if at the start of his work at the educational institution—
(a) A is under 21, and
(b) B is 16 or over, and
(c) the educational institution did not expressly draw his attention to section 23 of this Act prior to the start of any sexual relationship between A and B'.
In this clause we are dealing with positions of trust. Early on in Committee there was concern about schoolchildren—particularly head boys or girls, for example—who are just over 18 and in a position of trust as far as those just under 18 are concerned. That has been rectified, but there is still an issue that I would like to consider concerning line 30 in subsection (5). The amendment would provide an exemption in relation to two people, one of whom is being educated at a school, and one of whom is not.
The amendment would cover the case of a gap-year student. It relates to a most unlikely scenario, but we are considering unlikely scenarios to see what might happen if they arise. It is not unusual for a young man to leave school and return shortly afterwards as a gap-year student. I have in mind the school in Leatherhead in Surrey that my son has just left. He left in the summer term, and this term, one of his best friends, who left at the same time as he, has returned to assist with sports coaching for some months. He is not a pupil; in effect, it could be argued that, under the Bill, he is in a position of trust in relation to other pupils at the school.
Of course, the sixth form, lower and upper, of the school contains a number of girls whom the boy has known—indeed, he has been part of the education system with them. They were chums while he was in the sixth form. Let us take the example of a girl who was in the lower sixth when he was in the upper sixth. The boy leaves and comes back as a coach for a term or two of sport, and she moves into the upper sixth. The Minister will have got the point already. I want to know, first, whether that gap-year student is in a position of trust and, secondly, whether he will have committed an offence under any of the provisions that refer to breach of trust in relation to one of the girls in the sixth form, subject to their both being the relevant age.
My amendment would protect the boy because he is under 21 and she is over 16, notwithstanding that he is undoubtedly in a position of trust, because he would have a regular caring responsibility and so on for the young girls in the upper sixth. It is a probing amendment and I do not propose to press it to a Division, not least because our voting strength has gone down by 33.3 per cent. in the past few minutes, and if our numbers go down any further there will be just me. I think that our honourable Whip is coming to our rescue. There are various reasons why I will not press the amendment to a Division, but I would like to hear from the Under-Secretary about it.