Clause 23 - Positions of trust
Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
3:15 pm

Photo of Mr Paul Goggins

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe and Sale East, Labour)

I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) moved the amendment. I say to him in the gentlest possible way, because I know that that is the style he prefers, that, even if the amendment were right, it is probably in the wrong place, because it is in the bit of the Bill that deals with a position of trust. It should probably refer to the part that deals with the offences. Even if it were in the appropriate place, however, there are some flaws in his proposing that the person is under 21 when he starts work at the establishment and that the young person is 16 or over. I suspect that the purpose behind the hon. Gentleman's drafting was that those should be the ages at which the sexual relationship began. It is possible, however, for someone to have started work at the establishment when they were 19 and at the age of 40 mount a defence using the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

I strongly believe that age is no defence—the position of trust is the important thing. Age cannot be a defence. I am sure that the Committee will be united on that, and that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole would echo it, too.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of what an organisation and the professional bodies associated with it should do to ensure that people are aware of this piece of legislation. That is important. Under existing arrangements it is not solely for employers to inform teachers about their professional and statutory responsibilities. The standards for qualified teacher status, which were set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, require candidates to demonstrate that they are aware of and should work within the statutory frameworks relating to teachers' responsibilities. The Teacher Training Agency issues new teachers with guidelines on the legal framework within which they will be practising. People who are already teachers should be in no doubt about their responsibilities.

The creation of this offence in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2002 was widely reported and debated in the media and extensively publicised throughout the teachers' unions. Such behaviour has always been regarded as unprofessional and teachers have been liable to disciplinary action. It is right that even if a defendant were able to prove that he was not, for some reason, aware of his obligations under the law, that should not allow him a defence against this offence. The amendment would, in effect, provide an unlimited ''get out of jail free'' card for young teachers, regardless of whether they knew that their behaviour was wrong or constituted an offence.

We all know that in England and Wales ignorance of the law is no excuse. We cannot make an exception to that widely accepted principle.

Annotations

No annotations

Sign in or join to post a public annotation.