|
Clause 37
Causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to engage in or agree to sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception
Amendments made: No. 64, in
clause 37, page 19, line 8, leave out 'or learning disability'.
No. 65, in
clause 37, page 19, line 10, leave out 'or learning disability'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Engaging in sexual activity in the presence, procured by inducement, threat or deception, of a person with a mental disorder or learning disability
Amendments made: No. 66, in
No. 67, in
clause 38, page 19, line 32, leave out 'or learning disability'.
No. 68, in
clause 38, page 19, line 34, leave out 'or learning disability'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to watch a sexual act by inducement, threat or deception
Amendments made:
No. 69, in
clause 39, page 20, line 1, leave out 'a photograph or pseudophotograph' and insert 'an image'.
No. 70, in
clause 39, page 20, line 7, leave out 'or learning disability'.
No. 71, in
Column Number: 240
clause 39, page 20, line 9, leave out 'or learning disability'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder or learning disability
Amendments made:
No. 72, in
clause 40, page 20, line 21, leave out 'or learning disability'.
No. 73, in
clause 40, page 20, line 23, leave out 'or learning disability'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
5 pm
Sandra Gidley: I beg to move amendment No. 185, in
clause 40, page 20, line 24, at end insert—
'( ) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section if—
(a) the touching was for the purpose of sex education, and
(b) B is a person with profound and multiple disabilities such that they require intensive and intimate support to understand and receive sex education, and
(c) there is no alternative means of delivering this sex education because of the nature of B's disability, and
(d) the education is carried out by qualified specialists or by staff who have received training to meet the specific needs of B, and
(e) the decision to provide such sex education has been recommended by a multidisciplinary agency.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 146, in
clause 40, page 20, line 44, at end insert—
'(5) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section if—
(a) the touching was for the purpose of sex education;
(b) B is a person with profound or multiple disabilities such that he requires intensive and intimate support to understand or receive sex education;
(c) there is no alternative means of delivering this sex education because of B's disability and
(d) the education is carried out by qualified specialists or by staff who have received training to meet the specific needs of B'.
Amendment No. 186, in
clause 41, page 21, line 9, at end insert—
'( ) A person is not guilty of an offence under this section if:
(a) A's action was for the purpose of sex education and,
(b) B is a person with profound and multiple disabilities such that they require intensive and intimate support to understand and receive sex education, and
(c) there is no alternative means of delivering this sex education because of the nature of B's disability, and
(d) the education is carried out by qualified specialists or by staff who have received training to meet the specific needs of B, and
(e) the decision to provide such sex education has been recommended by a multidisciplinary agency.'.
Amendment No. 147, in
Column Number: 241
(a) the touching was for the purpose of sex education;
(b) B is a person with profound or multiple disabilities such that he requires intensive or intimate support to understand and receive sex education;
(c) there is no alternative means of delivering this sex education because of B's disability and
(d) the education is carried out by qualified specialists or by staff who have received training to meet the specific needs of B'.
Sandra Gidley: 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
Column Number: 242
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.
Mr. Malins: I am grateful to Sense for the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I tabled. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said, and feel that it is important that the amendments have been tabled, so that the Government are aware of the issue and can respond as fully as possible. I do not think that I need say any more than that.
The Solicitor-General: Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 and 185 and 186 seek to provide a defence for care workers who provide hands-on sex education, such as teaching a person to masturbate or getting them to masturbate themselves, in the strictly limited circumstances that the hon. Lady laid out—that is, where there is no alternative way that sex education can be provided. We understand the point of view of care workers who believe that a hands-on approach to sex education is an important part of the care that they provide.
We have considered the issues surrounding a sex-education exception carefully, and took a wide range of soundings from relevant organisations both when the Bill passed through another place and when considering this proposal. We have not found any consensus as to the legitimacy of such forms of sex education among the learning disability charities, even in the more limited circumstances proposed in the amendments. Some of them believe that it is never appropriate. This is a contentious subject.
Sandra Gidley: I was talking about a very specific group of people. The charity Sense was mentioned; it is the group that is most closely involved. I argue that the other agencies with which the Solicitor-General consulted may not have direct experience of the problem. Can she elaborate on who was against the amendments, what their reasons were, and how they would provide the necessary help?
|
