Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.
Ashcroft, L.
Astor of Hever, L.
Blackburn, Bp.
Blatch, B. [Teller]
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Buscombe, B.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Elton, L.
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L.
Freyberg, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Goschen, V.
Gray of Contin, L.
Greenway, L.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Peckham, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hylton, L.
Jopling, L.
Kimball, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Lang of Monkton, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Hendon, B. [Teller]
Noakes, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
Onslow, E.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Rees, L.
Renton, L.
Roberts of Conwy, L.
Rogan, L.
St John of Fawsley, L.
Seccombe, B.
Selsdon, L.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Skidelsky, L.
Stewartby, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strathclyde, L.
Tebbit, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Ullswater, V.
Waddington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.
Addington, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Blackstone, B.
Borrie, L.
Bragg, L.
Brennan, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Burlison, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter, L.
Chan, L.
Christopher, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Falkland, V.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Goodhart, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Greengross, B.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Hamwee, B.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Haskins, L.
Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Levy, L.
Lipsey, L.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McCarthy, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Mitchell, L.
Monson, L.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Newby, L.
Nicol, B.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Orme, L.
Parekh, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Perry of Walton, L.
Peston, L.
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Redesdale, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rennard, L.
Richard, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rooker, L.
Roper, L.
Russell-Johnston, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Stallard, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thornton, B.
Tordoff, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Walker of Doncaster, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wigoder, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)
Williamson of Horton, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

17 Jun 2003 : Column 728

7.5 p.m.

[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]

Clause 26 [Sections 18 to 21: sexual relationships which pre-date position of trust]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 38:


    Leave out Clause 26.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 38 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 69. Amendment No. 38 would remove the pre-existing relationships defence to a charge of abuse of trust. Amendment No. 69 would remove the defence in the case of care workers. I also seek, by Amendment No. 41, to remove the defence from the familial abuse offence. That was inserted by the Government on Report. I am advised by the Public Bill Office that as

17 Jun 2003 : Column 729

that amendment was taken formally and not voted upon by the House, the House is free to vote on it at Third Reading.

I received a most disappointing reply from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when I raised on Report the issue of pre-existing relationships defences. The noble and learned Lord simply failed to deal with the arguments that I put. I shall not rehearse them at length here. However, I received no reply when I asked about the imbalance created in a pre-existing relationship once it becomes a relationship of trust. If a teacher meets a 16 year-old girl at a pub, he chats her up, they then begin a relationship and he later obtains a job at her school, there is a pre-existing relationship which falls under the defence.

The girl now finds that, rather than just being romantically involved with an older man, she is romantically involved with one of her teachers. His allure may be all the stronger for that; his influence certainly is. Perhaps previously he has not been able to persuade her to submit to full sexual intercourse. His new-found power over her may make that much easier. Perhaps previously she saw him only occasionally. Now she sees him every single day. He may flaunt his relationship with her in front of other staff and she may brag of her encounters with him to other pupils.

The Minister will no doubt say that the school's internal procedures should be able to deal with the matter, but is that really good enough? He would walk free because no offence has been committed under the Bill. On the other hand, a fellow teacher—this is really extraordinary—who starts a relationship with a pupil at the same school after he starts work there will face prosecution. So of those two teachers, one would face a prosecution if he has a relationship with a 16 year-old in school and the other, who may have met the pupil on a Saturday evening before he took up the post, has a defence. How are people meant to accept the blatant unfairness of that?

When it comes to familial abuse, I am astonished that the Government want to carve out a defence for this much-needed provision. What if a 25 year-old takes a shine to the 16 year-old daughter of his mother's boyfriend? What if the boyfriend then moves in? Under Clause 31 he would be able to continue his relationship with her. He would be able to move on from occasional trysts to regular sexual intercourse living under the same roof as the girl. How on earth are people meant to accept that these two, now living as brother and sister, can commit activities which are legal only because they began before they moved in together?

In all the cases covered by the pre-existing defence, there is a simple choice. The parties can restrain themselves until they become old enough, in other words past the age of 18; care workers and those in positions of trust, for example, teachers, can give up their jobs and move to another job or give up their sexual relationship again until the person has reached the age of 18. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, supported me in that (at col. 18 of Hansard for 19th June).

17 Jun 2003 : Column 730

Not only is a pre-existing relationship defence wrong in principle; it is also wide open to abuse. If a prosecution is brought and the perpetrator claims the pre-existing relationships defence, the "evidence" of the pre-existing relationship could be fabricated, and in many cases would be. I raised that point on Report and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, failed to mention it in his reply. It may be that a teacher begins a sexual relationship with a 16 year-old in his class and the two of them agree that if they are ever asked about this relationship they will claim that it started prior to the position of trust. Abusers are manipulative people. We know that. If we give them a loophole in the law, they will surely exploit it. For such a teacher there is an option. They can wait until the girl is 18 or they can move to another post.

It was said at the previous stage of this Bill that it is not a very healthy, professional experience for a teacher or care worker on the staff to have a relationship with the person in their charge. It is not good for the rest of the young people in a class or those in a care home. It is certainly not good professional behaviour. Although that is dealt with informally by guidance and the Department for Education and Skills saying that it is not good behaviour, there is no sanction whatever. It seems to me that there should be a sanction and, indeed, a protection in law. I beg to move.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page