Clause 40 - Care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder or learning disability
Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
5:00 pm
Ms Sandra Gidley (Romsey, Liberal Democrat)
I rise to speak to amendment No. 185. Amendment No. 186 is in a similar vein and amendments Nos. 146 and 147 have been tabled by Conservative Members to achieve much the same end in a slightly different way. This subject was raised briefly on Second Reading. The problem is that there are some occasions, most notably in the teaching of deaf-blind people, where there is no other way to provide sex education than by the use of touch. The concerns are that the Bill as drafted will effectively criminalise workers in that sector.
The amendment seeks to introduce a very limited exception to the provisions. The last thing that anyone on the Liberal Democrat Benches wants to do in introducing such an amendment is to create a loophole that others can exploit. The people in question are generally the congenitally deaf-blind: people born without sight or hearing. Many in that category never acquire formal language skills and their only way of learning about the world is through touch.
We might ask why those people need sex education and wonder whether we can leave it to nature. The sad reality is that some deaf-blind people, as a natural reaction, might want to masturbate but do not know that what they are doing needs to be done in private and not when others are present. I am told that there are ways of getting this information over by the use of touch but that will happen fairly rarely. There are also occasions when things are not quite so natural. People may insert objects inappropriately. I read of a case in which a young woman was using soaps and deodorants inappropriately. Clearly, there is a need in such a case to do something to intervene to prevent further self-harm. That activity has to be replaced by something less damaging to the individual.
In drafting the amendment, I have made it very clear that the only purpose of such a provision could be for education. The person receiving the treatment must fall under the definition of having profound and multiple disabilities. To try to add further safeguards, we have said that there must be some element of protecting the person from abuse or harm. If someone is not familiar with the ways of the world and someone inappropriate is touching them in a certain way, whether it be a family member or whoever, somehow, that information also has to be communicated—that such behaviour is not allowed with that particular person. We are clear that there can be no other way of delivering that information. If there were another way to deliver that training or education, that would have to be tried first.
In an attempt to close all the loopholes, it was thought that it should not be just one person making the decision to provide that training, because a person
could say, ''That is a job that I might quite like'', act accordingly, and perhaps try to deliver more training and education than was necessary. As a final safeguard, we included the provision that the decision to provide that sex education must be the decision of the multidisciplinary team. I toyed quite seriously with the idea that such education should be supervised but I was less easy with that. Just because someone cannot see or hear, it does not mean that things should not be carried out in as private a venue as possible.
That is the thinking behind the amendments. I hope that, if the Government do not accept them, I will at least be given some assurance that that sort of necessary education will be allowed to continue in some way, and I would like to hear how that will be achieved.