Sexual Offences (Amendment) Etc. (Hansard, 28 October 1992)

§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976; to make further provision in respect of the offences of rape and sexual assault; to provide protection for women and children at risk of rape, sexual assault or domestic violence; to make related new provision in respect of compensation and legal aid, and consequential entitlement to certain social security benefits; to amend the Child Support Act 1991; and for connected purposes. Sex is fine, but rape and sexual assault are not and they must be criminalised. The important distinction involves consent, as against coercion, violence or threats of violence. The House needs to modernise the rape laws to make that distinction crystal clear.

On 21 February 1990, I introduced my Rape in Marriage (Offence) Bill, which secured some action. After that, I met members of the organisation Women Against Rape, who said that the rape laws in general were badly out of date and in need of reform. Working with them, I introduced my Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill—a version of my present Bill—on 19 June last year. Now, still working with Women Against Rape, I introduce the present Bill, which would bring about an even more comprehensive and radical update of the rape laws.

There are four crucial necessities, the first of which is recognition of the crime of rape in marriage, and the second a recognition of the crime of male rape. The third necessity is greater rights for survivors of rape, including increasing their physical safety, giving them improved protection in courts hearing rape cases and ending the discriminatory compensation arrangements which now work against them. The fourth necessity is a redefinition of rape, based on coercion and lack of consent.

First, the Law Lords made a judgment that rape in marriage should be a criminal offence, and the Government referred the matter to the Law Commission, which in January reported that legislation was needed to make the existence of such an offence absolutely clear. We are still waiting for a response from the Government.

It has been argued that, if rape in marriage were made a crime, vast numbers of women would bring charges, so, although the Law Lords made the recommendation, I shall still quote what Helena Kennedy QC said about that idea: The real position is that that's not going to happen because the evidence is going to be difficult to find … the Crown Prosecution Service is going to have a great difficulty in looking at the cases which will stand up evidentially in court, and those which will, will be ones where there's been a history of domestic violence or where there's going to be evidence of domestic violence". That sounds much like the law before the Law Lords' ruling. Clearly, the Crown prosecution service will not move unless the House lays down instructions for it.

What the judges can give they can also take away. Their discretionary powere should go. We need legislation so that there is no such discretion in cases of rape in marriage. There are no two ways about it; it is a serious crime and it must be written into the statute book.

Secondly, my Bill would for the first time make male rape a specific criminal offence. There is an assumption that only women can be raped, but that is not true. There is no law concerning male rape, but there is a law concerning indecent assault on a male, and the numbers of such cases are increasing. There was one in my constituency only yesterday, and in London the numbers 1022 of such cases have doubled over the past 10 years. More than nine out of 10 such cases are not even reported to the police, perhaps because of the fear, the humiliation and the shock which are felt or because of the fear of being criminalised or branded as a homosexual. A law on male rape is needed, so that victims have the confidence to come out into the open. As that happens, more such cases will be reported. Another reason why such a law must be on the statute book is that at present the rapists get away with it, perhaps to do the same thing again. That must be changed.

The third necessity is for greater rights for rape survivors. Those rights fall into three categories, one of which is the right to physical safety for the victim. My Bill would enable secure places to be provided for victims while cases were heard: a local authority would have to provide emergency accommodation. There would also be income support for a woman in danger from a partner who had raped her. With that assistance, women would not be forced to go back to the rapist.

Furthermore, bail would not be given to a man with previous convictions for similar offences. If bail were broken, he would be subject to immediate arrest. That would be in the interests of the victim's better physical safety. Victims would also have protection in court and there would be guaranteed anonymity. At the moment, discretion should be repealed and the victim guaranteed anonymity. Victims should have the right to legal representation in court and to have someone with them in court while the case is being heard.

The Bill would also end the discriminatory compensation arrangements that currently apply. It would extend legal aid to the victim in any compensation board hearing. A carer who has been raped may incur costs in the care of a child or elderly relative, and those costs should be reflected in the compensation. At present, there is a limit of £5,000 on the compensation that can be awarded to a woman who has had a child as a result of a rape. That goes nowhere near reflecting the costs of bringing up a child. The Bill would get rid of that limit.

The Bill would prevent any arbitrary assumptions made by the compensation board about the victim—for example, an assumption about the reason for a victim's delay in reporting a rape. Such delay should not be held against him or her. Similarly, the compensation board—and judges, too—often make assumptions about a victim's dress or alleged character. That should be stopped and should certainly not penalise the victim in any compensation arrangements. No social security benefit should be deducted from the compensation and compensation should be disregarded in calculating any means-tested benefit entitlement. The key point here is that women should not be prevented for financial reasons from using the law to leave violent husbands or partners.

The Bill would contain a redefinition of rape based on coercion without consent. That includes not only physical force but deception, economic coercion or threats to women or their children. The Bill would thus widen the definition of rape.

This change in the law is needed because the rape laws are out of date—just consider the fact that rape in marriage and male rape are not properly covered—and because victims cannot be confident of obtaining justice or even a fair and sympathetic hearing.

1023 Let me refer to the comments made by Mary Tuck, the former head of the Home Office research and planning unit and the chair of a working party that looked into these matters for the Home Office. She said: Dealing with domestic violence is the single most important preventive strategy we could put into practice against violent crime. Domestic violence is a central problem for society. I agree with that comment. The House must come to terms with domestic violence, which often includes rape.

A survey conducted by Women Against Rape in 1985, whose findings have been confirmed in other surveys since, showed that one in seven wives had been raped by their husbands; one in six women had been raped; one in three women had been sexually assaulted; one in eight black women had suffered racist sexual assault; one in five women had been raped or sexually assaulted as children or teenagers; three in four married women who had been raped had been prevented from leaving by lack of money and/or housing and one in 12 women who had been raped had reported the rape to the police. Those are amazing figures, and we need action on them from the House.

Immigrant women should not lose their right to stay because they leave a violent partner and a child support action—