§ Mr. ClappisonI beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 22, after 'full time', insert 'or part time'.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8.
§ Mr. ClappisonThis important issue arose in Committee. As the House will have gathered, we are concerned that the Bill does not give sufficient protection to 16 and 17-year-olds and is not drawn wide enough in respect of adults who should be in a position of trust. We should have liked additional protection for children under 16, but that has not proved possible.
§ Mr. HoggI am a little anxious about the amendment, which seems to extend to evening classes, or even Sunday schools. It is not clear to me why a relationship in an evening class between an instructor and a student should give rise to a criminal offence.
§ Mr. ClappisonMy right hon. and learned Friend makes a fair point.
The amendment would remedy a problem in the Bill. After listening to our arguments, the Government have accepted that there is a problem. As I said in the previous debate, we have concerns about which teachers are covered by the provisions. The Minister has admitted that, in some circumstances, supply teachers are not covered. The amendment is designed to deal with what many would regard as another loophole, which we raised in Committee, affecting students who are registered as being in full-time education at one establishment, but who attend a second establishment as part of their course.
We have asked whether such a student would be protected against an abuse of trust by a teacher or lecturer who worked at the second establishment and was involved in teaching, and caring for, them. To be fair, the Minister agreed to consider the issue after he heard our arguments in Committee. I understand that he accepts the force of those arguments and has tabled Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8 to cater for the situation.
We welcome the fact that the Government have seen sense on this important point. It is common for many 16 and 17-year-olds to attend a second establishment as part of their course. Before the amendments, it was hard to see how the Bill would cover a teacher at a second establishment.
A substantial number of A-level students in my constituency attend the local secondary school for two of their A-levels, but go to a local college of further education for another one. I was surprised to learn that there was uncertainty as to whether they would be covered by the Bill at the second establishment. If they formed a relationship with a teacher at the first establishment, the teacher would be in breach of trust because he would be in a position of trust, but the Bill would not cover a teacher or lecturer at the college of further education who formed a relationship with them. That had to be explored. I am pleased that the Government are seeking to put the situation right and are closing one of the loopholes in the 786 Bill. I regret that many other loopholes, anomalies and inconsistencies remain and cannot be put right—but at least this one can.
§ Mr. AllanIn Committee, I was also testing the extent to which those involved in education would be covered by the Bill, but I came at the issue from an angle different from that of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), because I felt that the provisions were drawn too widely. We tested whether issues such as residence or direct tuition should be requirements. We considered the difficult in loco parentis argument. There seems to be no strict definition of in loco parentis. I notice that, in becoming more modern, the Home Secretary has skipped a few centuries and gone to mediaeval French, with autrefois acquit as his latest legal jargon. In loco parentis is an important concept that requires further testing.
There are still problems with the amendments. We do not support the extension proposed by the hon. Member for Hertsmere into part-time education, but we believe that there are problems with the Government's definition of full-time education, in particular the number of hours required in the definition of full-time study. A test based on the number of hours that a pupil spends at school may mean that the right people are not always caught, in terms of natural justice. For example, a pupil who spent 20 hours a week in an institution, being taught for all that time by the same teacher, would not be covered because they would not be a full-time pupil; but one who spent 30 hours a week at the institution would be covered even if they had no direct contact in school with the teacher concerned. If one of the tests is the amount of influence that the person in a position of trust is deemed to have, judging the issue on the number of hours that the pupil spends in the institution gives rise to inconsistencies.
The Government amendments are sensible in that they are at least logically consistent. The Committee debates worked well on the issue. It was instructive for Opposition Members to see the Minister doing his best to argue manfully around the issue of people being part time at an FE college. The ground beneath him turned to quicksand as it became apparent that a pupil who spent Monday to Thursday at a school and spent Friday at an FE college was not covered. That is common in my constituency. The Government amendments are consistent and sensible in that respect.
I hope that the Conservatives will not press their amendment to a vote, because it would extend the provisions wider than we would like. We accept that the Government are sensibly trying to be consistent, but we hope that there will be further tests in another place of what sort of relationship between a teacher and pupil would be regarded as a sufficiently serious breach of trust for an otherwise consensual sexual relationship to be criminalised.
§ Mr. BoatengThe debate is a classic example of the justification of considering matters in Committee and giving them the care and attention that the Committee gave to the clause. The probing and discussion in Committee was of enormous assistance in teasing out the necessary amendments that the Government have tabled on Report. I owe a debt of gratitude to all who contributed.
Even in that spirit of generosity, I am afraid that we are not able to accept amendment No. 4, moved by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). We cannot do so 787 because we take the view—illustrated by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—that that would capture within the ambit of the Bill the evening classes which, in our view, simply do not give rise to a relationship the nature of which ought to occasion the degree of trust which, if breached, should lead to a criminal sanction.
I return to the four broad criteria that we have applied in the Bill: particular vulnerability; location; the special influence of the adult, the relationship being in loco parentis; and the lack of access to other adults and the absence of countervailing influence. In those circumstances, part-time education does not fall within those principles in a way that justifies the amendment.
The Government amendments would correct the anomaly in the Bill that was teased out in Committee. They bring into the scope of the offence those educational institutions providing education to full-time pupils or students who are registered or enrolled at a different institution, but receive part of their education at a second establishment. It is important that that be made clear. Education must be covered by the offence because the relationships of trust are particularly strong. That arises from the parent entrusting a child to the care of the school or college.
There may be additional factors that have the effect of making trust a significant factor whose breach ought properly to be penalised by the criminal law. However, it is right to recognise that that ought not to extend to part-time education. For that reason, we are unable to accept the Opposition amendment. The Government amendments perfect the clause in a way that I hope will cause them to find favour, without a division, in the House. On that basis, I commend them to the House.
§ Mr. HoggI am glad that we have avoided the danger of making evening classes subject to the regime in the Bill. However, I am a little troubled by the definition of "full-time education" and I suspect that the Minister may wish to reflect further on it, with a view to making changes in the other place.
The reason for my concern follows the observations of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). There are a number of courses in colleges of further education where the education provided is for 16, 17 or 18 hours a week. In one sense, that is not full time. In another sense, it creates the kind of relationship to which we wish to attach the obligations and criminal penalties in the Bill. I would be concerned whether higher education courses for 16, 17 or 18 hours a week meet the statutory definition in the Bill of full-time education. I rather doubt that they would, but that is a matter for reflection. If the Minister agrees, he may care to consider tabling amendments in another place.
§ Mr. BoatengWe can and will reflect on that, and I will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as our reflection develops apace, both here and in another place. We want to get it right, and we all agree that a category and class of young people needs protection. We want to make sure that legislation is as successful in achieving that objective as possible. Young people in receipt of education fall into an area of vulnerability that does, in my view, require protection.
788 We have to determine how best to define and identify that education, and that class or grouping of young people. We will reflect on how best to do that. At present, we have arrived at a definition and a balance that suits our purpose, and that will receive widespread support, not only from the general public—and parents in particular, who have concerns in this area—but from the teaching profession. Teachers will recognise that this measure must be embraced and welcomed—not least when it is underpinned by the codes of practice and guidance that we intend to issue to the Crown Prosecution Service—and should not cause apprehension.
§ Mr. ClappisonThis has been a worthwhile debate, as was the earlier debate in Committee. We wanted to explore the issue that was identified in Committee; we thought that there ought to be additional coverage in terms of the position of trust. It would be churlish not to welcome the fact that the Government have conceded the force of our argument, and have accepted the need for clarification. The position of trust has been extended to other people to whom many members of the public would feel it ought to be extended. In the light of the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Amendments made: No. 6, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'in an' and insert 'at an educational'.
No. 7, in page 3, line 23, leave out 'in' and insert 'at'.
No. 8, in page 3, line 29, at end insert—
'( ) For the purposes of this section a person receives full—time education at an educational institution if—
- (a) he is registered or otherwise enrolled as a full—time pupil or student at the institution; or
- (b) he receives education at the institution under arrangements with another educational institution at which he is so registered or otherwise enrolled.'—[Mr. Boateng.]