Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]

---

[back to previous text]

Paul Goggins: I respond in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asked the question. The establishments—the training organisations, the professional bodies that represent people in that profession—have a responsibility to ensure that every teacher, whether new or current, is well aware of their responsibilities. I am trying to reassure the Committee that that already happens. Ignorance cannot be an excuse in the law, and, in any event, there should not be any ignorance because all the bodies involved instruct members of the profession to know fully their liabilities and responsibilities. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman that his concerns are taken on board in the Bill, and I hope that he will consider withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman has responded helpfully as always, and in just the sort of tone that is guaranteed to result in a withdrawal of the amendment. I do not blame myself for having raised the issue, but I am grateful to him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 207, in

clause 23, page 11, line 30, at end insert—

'() This subsection applies if A is appointed to be the guardian of B under Article 159 or 160 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)).'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 208 to 212.

Paul Goggins: I do not want to detain the Committee unduly. We have explored some of the wider issues related to abuse of trust. The purpose of the Government amendments is to widen the scope of the abuse of trust offences to include additional categories of persons who regularly look after children in the community on an individual basis or who, during the course of performing their functions, regularly have unsupervised contact with children.

By means of amendments Nos. 207 to 209, those persons will now include: children's guardians in family court proceedings; children and family reporters involved in family court proceedings affecting children's welfare; persons who supervise children pursuant to a care order, supervision order or educational supervision order; children's guardians in relation to adoption proceedings; and children's guardian ad litem in private law Children Act 1989 proceedings and in cases determining wardships. Some of those additional categories, in particular children's guardians and those who supervise children pursuant to a care order, supervision order or educational supervision order, are being added in order to honour an undertaking given when the offences were debated in another place. In conjunction with other

Column Number: 218

Departments, we have identified some additional categories for inclusion.

Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre): My hon. Friend seems to have missed out children who are accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. Is that a deliberate omission?

Paul Goggins: With his great experience, my hon. Friend makes an interesting observation that we may return to on Report. We want to ensure that all eventualities are covered in the Bill. I hope that he is satisfied with that assurance.

The categories of persons that we have identified can all play important roles in a child's life, and they have sufficient power and influence to justify inclusion within the scope of the offences. I trust that hon. Members agree, and I can advise them that the consideration of including additional categories is ongoing. With hon. Members' forbearance, we will return to the matter on Report. Amendments Nos. 207, 208 and 209 define the terms care order, supervision order and educational supervision order for the purposes of the offences.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 208, in

clause 23, page 11, line 33, at end insert—

'() This subsection applies if A, as a person who is to report to the court under section 7 of the Children Act 1989 (c.41) or Article 4 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)) on matters relating to the welfare of B, regularly has unsupervised contact with B alone (whether face to face or by any other means).'.

No. 209, in

clause 23, page 11, line 39, at end insert—

'() This subsection applies if—

(a) B is subject to a care order, a supervision order or an education supervision order, and

(b) in the exercise of functions conferred by virtue of the order on an authorised person or the authority designated by the order, A looks after B on an individual basis.

() This subsection applies if A—

(a) is an officer of the Service appointed for B under section 41(1) of the Children Act 1989 (c.41),

(b) is appointed a children's guardian of B under rule 6 or rule 18 of the Adoption Rules 1984 (S.I. 1984/265), or

(c) is appointed to be the guardian ad litem of B under rule 9.5 of the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (S.I.1991/1247) or under Article 60(1) of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)),

and, in that capacity, regularly has unsupervised contact with B alone (whether face to face or by any other means).'.—[Paul Goggins.]

Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Positions of trust: interpretation

Sandra Gidley: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in

clause 24, page 12, line 3, leave out 'regularly'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 150, in

clause 24, page 12, line 7, leave out 'regularly'.

Column Number: 219

No. 151, in

clause 24, page 12, line 8, leave out 'regularly'.

No. 197, in

clause 44, page 22, line 39, leave out 'regular'.

No. 198, in

clause 44, page 23, line 3, leave out 'regular'.

No. 199, in

clause 44, page 23, line 8, leave out 'regular'.

Sandra Gidley: This is a simple set of amendments to try to close what I, and others, regard as a potential loophole in the law. Clause 24, which refers to interpretation of positions of trust, states that

''a person looks after persons under 18 if he is regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of such persons.''

It is the word ''regularly'' that is causing great concern. In some cases, an adult might be in a position of trust where the contact with the child is limited—a supply teacher or a bank worker, for example—but it only takes one or two contacts to abuse a child. It is wrong that such an adult—who knows perfectly well that they are in what anyone would regard as a position of trust—could exploit this facet of the Bill.

3.30 pm

If the amendments are accepted and references to regularity are removed, the position will be much tighter because anyone who seeks to abuse a vulnerable child could decide that this law would make it too difficult for them to stay in one care home because it makes their position there untenable. They would be unable to carry on doing what they are already doing.

That person can put themselves in the hands of an agency or another organisation that enables them to abuse at a number of homes in an area. That situation is difficult: a fellow care worker may have suspicions, but the next day the abuser might be working in a different home, and it takes a while to build up a pattern of suspicion. Very often these people are in different homes or settings or educational establishments, so it is not easy to get together and to raise concerns. We are creating the potential for someone to commit abuse on a wide scale just because they are not having regular contact with a specific individual.

The ''position of trust'' definition also applies to anyone who works with children in schools in a way that could be regarded as regular, such as a peripatetic music teacher. What criteria are used to define what is regular in this context? The Government should think about these amendments carefully. Are they satisfied that they are not creating the loophole that I have described?

The issue was discussed at great length in the House of Lords, where an attempt was made to amend the Bill in this way. It failed. I do not know whether the Government have reflected on the matter since then. We all agree that the aim of the Bill is to protect the vulnerable, and we could achieve that in a better way in this instance.

Column Number: 220

Mr. Malins: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 150 and 151, which were drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. They would leave out the word ''regularly''.

I want to reinforce what the hon. Member for Romsey said. It would be helpful to get from the Under-Secretary—via his officials—a full definition of what is meant by the word ''regularly''. There are so many nuances in our language—in phrases such as ''from time to time'', ''frequently'' and ''regularly''.

In teaching and allied worlds in particular, there are many people who are undoubtedly in a position of trust but who may not be regularly in that position. I have in mind a few different examples of that. What about the person who runs a holiday camp for one week in the summer, where the children are dropped off by their parents and given sporting and other help and generally advised and looked after? Such holiday and sports camps are for one week a year, and then it is end of story. Is that regular? The peripatetic teacher was also a good example. However, what happens with the other teacher—the person who has control, is in a position of trust and who, once a month, drops in to a school? I suppose that such contact must be regarded as regular—or is it once every two months or once every three months? If I were on a jury, I should not want to decide such matters without knowing what the Government mean by ''regularly''.

Paul Goggins: I have been given helpful advice, which goes to the heart of the question, ''What does regular mean; how is it defined?'' which was asked by the hon. Members for Romsey and for Woking. Whether regular contact applies in particular circumstances is for the courts to decide. It is not one-off contact. It must have a pattern and be consistent. We have tried to draft the clause widely to capture several relationships that could be defined as regular. Clearly, a full-time class teacher or a member of staff in a children's home is in regular contact with the child. However, the peripatetic teacher who takes a music class once a week, about whom we have already heard, is also in regular contact with the child. The physiotherapist who gives treatment to a child one day a week has a regular relationship with the child.

 

---

Prepared 16 September 2003