§ (" . For section I of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be substituted—
§ "Indecent conduct towards children.
§ 1.—(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, "child" means a person under the age of sixteen years.
§ (2) Any person who—
- (a) knowingly commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child, or who incites a child to commit such an act with that person, or with another;
- (b) travels with the intent of committing any act of gross indecency with or towards a child;
- (c) knowingly employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices or coerces a child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, an act of gross indecency with or towards any child; or
- (d) transports a child with the intent that that child engage in an act of gross indecency,
§ (3) Any person who—
- (a) abducts, detains or otherwise restricts the liberty of a child for the purpose of sexually exploiting that child; or
- (b) organises or knowingly facilitates such abduction, detention or restriction,
§ (4) Any parent, guardian or other person having for the time being custody or control of a child who knowingly permits that child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexual activity, or who knowingly permits the sexual exploitation of that child, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both.
§ (5) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.
§ (6) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).".").
§ The noble Baroness said: Any person who knowingly commits an act of gross indecency towards a child, travels with the intent of committing an act of gross indecency towards a child, knowingly employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices or coerces a child for the purposes of sexual activity or even abducts a child for sex should be punished severely. I stand at the Dispatch Box with the memory of Sarah Payne and too many other children who have suffered in this way. The time really has come to resort to legislation to make the punishment fit this crime. I beg to move.
§ Lord BachI do not want to repeat myself, but the Government have sympathy with the intention behind the amendment, in particular the extension of the offence to protect children up to the age of 16. However, we do not think that this is an effective way of increasing child protection. The law in this area is complex and confusing. Further piecemeal changes to the law on sexual offences and penalties should on the whole be avoided. That is why we are considering the comprehensive review of sex offences, resulting in the recommendations contained in Setting the Boundaries. That reported in the summer and the report is out to consultation. I am advised that it was set up under the present Government. Perhaps it does not matter. There is no party political point to be made here. There certainly should not be, anyway.
It is important that the structure of offences is looked at in the round to ensure effective and comprehensive protection. We oppose the amendment because it would increase the complexity and confusion of the present law. This needs to be thought through clearly in the light of the needs of today's world. The amendment seeks to introduce a whole range of new offences under the guise of one amendment. Many of these raise complex issues which need much more careful consideration. Some add to and some duplicate existing law. Others are quite new. I do not want to give many examples. One is the effect of including the word "knowingly". Is that a requirement attached to the age of the child or is it "knowingly" in relation to the acts? That is the kind of issue we need to make clear.
1564 Other points of detail could be challenged, but I do not intend to go into them now. I share the objective of wanting increased protection for children from sex offenders. We do not think that the amendment would achieve that. Indeed, it demonstrates why a wholesale review was needed, not a piecemeal approach. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
§ Baroness BlatchI am sorry the noble Lord feels like that. Perhaps I may address the word "knowingly". The amendment refers to a person who "knowingly" — in other words, not unwittingly—commits an act of gross indecency or unwittingly abducts a child. We know that these things are going on. We know that children are abducted. I am happy to say that some of them find their way back home, but many others do not—like little Sarah Payne. Something should be done.
The noble Lord referred to the sexual offences review. A sexual offences review was taking place at the Home Office before the election. It is just possible that that was wound up and a new remit was drafted. I agree with the noble Lord that this subject should never be a party political issue. We should concern ourselves with getting the legislation right.
I am sorry that nothing can be done at the moment to update the law to deal with a person who commits some of the actions set out in subsection (2)(a), (b),(c) and (d). I do not think people realise what an awful experience abduction is for the child and how frightening it can be. We should find a way of dealing with someone who transports a child away with the intention of indecently abusing the child.
I hear what the Minister says. I found his answer more disappointing than the previous one. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.