| Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend is making an interesting and good argument. He will recall that in April this year the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, Mr. Peter Rook, appeared before the Home Affairs Committee. He and the CBA thought that so far as the forced oral sex offence was concerned, although it was an extremely serious matter, it should not necessarily come within the definition of rape. He was worried that if it were included in that definition, some juries might be less inclined to convict someone of rape. Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he takes me on to a key point. If Parliament states something in legislation as being something that members of the public do not view it as being, we will end up with a situation where there may be a reluctance to convict. Penetration of the mouth is a horrible thing and forced penetration of the mouth is revolting, but most people in my experience tend to view that as something quite different in nature and quality to rape, as we understand it on the statute book. I am anxious to ensure that the Committee is seen to have considered that important issue, and not Column Number: 7 simply to have said, ''That is what we want, so let's get on with it.''Vera Baird (Redcar): The Home Affairs Committee concluded that it had no difficulty with the proposal to extend the definition of rape to include forced oral sex, so it clearly was not convinced by whatever argument Mr. Rook put forward. What is the justification, for which the hon. Gentleman is groping, for a separate offence? Mr. Grieve: I think that the point was made by Mr. Rook, although I hasten to say that it was not at his prompting, nor with careful consideration of what he said to the Select Committee—although I have read that—that I tabled the amendment. My experience as a barrister is that forced oral sex is regarded as being different from rape. It is as simple as that. If that is the case, there may be a risk, and I think Mr. Rook highlighted it, that juries faced with a case of forced oral sex, especially a case where there are borderline issues about consent, for instance—the hon. and learned Lady and I know the difficulties of the issue from our previous correspondence—may be reluctant to convict for what is a very serious offence, because it would not be viewed as the offence charged: rape. I may be worrying about nothing, and if the hon. and learned Lady wishes to persuade me of that, I welcome it. However, I did not want the matter simply to go through with everybody nodding approvingly and saying that it is a very good idea, when some interesting, possibly beneficial but possibly difficult consequences may flow from extending the definition of rape to something that certainly would not have been considered such in the past, even by the ordinary terminology of English grammar. We need to be careful about that. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who has this opportunity to explain why the Government came to their decision. I would like to hear a little about the policy background, about why it was felt desirable to put forced oral sex with the other two possible offences of rape, namely vaginal and anal penetration, and about the benefits that the Government think will flow from the change. If the Minister can persuade me on those points, we can move on to other things. Mr. Chris Bryant (Rhondda): The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. However, his argument about English terminology and its grammar fails because the ordinary man or woman in the street probably thinks that Bill Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky, yet that was only oral sex, as far as we are aware. Presumably it is now accepted in the ordinary grammar of English terminology that oral sex is part of sex, and that oral penetration by force would therefore be rape. Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. All sorts of people say all sorts of things nowadays. Children will say that something is ''wicked'' when they mean ''terrific''. I am alive to the fact that terminology may alter over time, and I dare say that in twenty years' time ''wicked'' will mean Column Number: 8 wicked again, or will have altered its meaning. Of course I accept that. However, I am not persuaded—this is why I am interested in hearing the views of other Committee members—that people associate the word ''rape'' with forced oral sex. If I am right, there is potentially a problem.As I say, if other Committee members and the Minister can reassure me on the point, and explain why the approach has been taken, so be it. However, I do not think that we should blithely assume that the matter is quite as simple as it appears on the Bill. Sandra Gidley (Romsey): I am afraid that the Liberal Democrats will not support the amendments. The issue boils down to violation: the violation of a weak person, usually by a stronger one. In most cases, that means the violation of a woman by a man, but increasingly there are cases of gay rape, where forced oral penetration may be more of a feature. We have to accept that culture changes, times change and public perceptions change. In the Home Affairs Committee report on the Sexual Offences Bill, Kathy Halloran, who spoke for the Rape Crisis Federation, said:
I am thinking back to when the law was first introduced. It was some years after I was a teenager in the 70s that I realised that oral sex did not mean talking about sex. Paul Goggins: In which we are all now engaged. Sandra Gidley: I may have been a naive teenager, but I suspect that most of my peers were not as sexually aware as teenagers are today. There is much greater awareness in society of the fact that forced oral sex happens, and most people probably find it hard to imagine a time when such things were not readily discussed in newspapers and alluded to in the media. That is the context in which we have to put the issue. There is greater awareness of the problem, and we have to regard violation in this way as being just as serious. By creating a lesser sort of offence, we would effectively be creating scapegoats. If rape by oral penetration is made a lesser offence, might it become more common? That is something else to consider. Finally, I was most persuaded by the fact that all the experts involved with the Bill think that the measure would be a welcome move. I cannot really argue with bodies such as the Metropolitan police and the many rape crisis organisations that support the provision, so we will support not the amendment but the Bill as it stands.
9.30 amThe Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): I very much welcome the amendment and the motive behind it. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, it allows us to debate the issue and to hear the views of colleagues on the Committee. Column Number: 9 I think we are all aware that, under current legislation, forced oral sex is charged as indecent assault, with a maximum penalty of 10 years. As has been said, clauses 1 and 3 redefine the physical act of rape by including non-consensual penile penetration of the mouth within the scope of that offence. That change is also reflected in a number of other offences in the Bill that make a distinction in the maximum penalty available where the sexual activity involves penetrative sex. In those cases, the proposition is that oral penetration by the penis will be treated as being as serious as intercourse. The issue was debated extensively in the House of Lords, and following debate there, the amendments were withdrawn. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said, I first point to the weight of persuasive evidence submitted during the extensive consultation period to the sexual offences review, particularly by victims and victim support groups. That is one of the primary reasons why we have decided to include forced oral sex in the definition of rape. The great weight of that evidence was that, from the perspective of victims, forced penile penetration of the mouth can be just as abhorrent, demeaning and traumatising as other forms of penile penetration and is as psychologically harmful as vaginal and anal rape, and in some instances even more so. It is not unusual for women and children who have been violated in this way to have long-term difficulties with eating and drinking or visiting the dentist, and that often leads to poor health, as well as having a psychological impact. The argument has also been put that the general public—and perhaps more important, juries—may not accept that forced oral penetration amounts to rape. As has been acknowledged, we previously extended the definition of rape to include anal penetration. Looking back on those debates, we see that many of the arguments we have heard today on whether forced oral sex should be included were also made in relation to the proposal to include anal penetration. It was argued that broadening the scope of the offence from vaginal rape to include anal penetration would result in juries being reluctant to convict or the giving of lesser sentences, but there is no evidence that that has happened. I cannot give the statistics on convictions and sentencing that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked for because the figures are no longer broken down into vaginal and anal penetration. The evidence suggests that judges and juries examine the individual circumstances of each case, which is exactly what they are supposed to do. Whether a case involves vaginal or anal penetration, they base their decisions on conviction and sentencing on all the circumstances, which is what the law currently allows them to do. Everyone clearly understands that rape is an offence of non-consensual penile penetration committed by men on women and men. Society at large has embraced the change to the definition, which occurred some time ago. Taking into account the testimony of victims and victim support groups on the impact of forced oral sex, we can see no reason why juries, judges and indeed the public will not also Column Number: 10 embrace that change—there is no evidence that they have not already done so. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) made a very apposite point in that regard.The evidence suggests that the public and juries are open to our doing what we are doing, which is updating the definition of rape in line with the direction of public opinion. We are not anticipating public opinion, but we are introducing a definition that makes sense and builds on the evidence that we have received from victims and victim support groups. It therefore makes good sense for all forms of consensual penile penetration to be grouped together within the offence of rape. Even if Opposition Members pressed for the definition of a separate offence in a separate clause, we would certainly not want the penalty for forced oral sex to be anything other than the same as the proposed penalty for vaginal or anal penetration. The argument made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield supports that point. Juries and judges need the maximum possible flexibility in deciding the appropriate disposal for a particular person convicted of rape, whether it is anal penetration, vaginal penetration or forced oral sex, in order to ensure that they can take all circumstances into account. Broadening the scope of the offence of rape will ensure that the legislation properly reflects the seriousness of forced oral penetration and its potential effect on individual victims. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider not pressing the amendment. If he were to do so, we would have to resist it.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 9 September 2003 |
