Standing Committee E
Tuesday 9 February 1999
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]
(Except clause 1)
4.30 pm
Clause 3
Meaning of ``position of trust''.
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 6, in page 3, line 22, leave out `full-time'.—[Mr. Robathan]
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 11, in page 3, line 22, leave out from `B' to end of line 23 and insert—
No. 10, in page 3, line 23, after `education', insert `from A'.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): You will recall, Mr. Atkinson, that before our lunch break, I was speaking in support of amendment No. 6, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), and against amendments Nos. 11 and 10, tabled by the Liberal party.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): Liberal Democrat party.
Mr. Leigh: I apologise; the Liberal Democrat party—speaking as individuals on a free vote.
I should like to reinforce what I said about amendment No. 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby. In recent years, an explosion has taken place in the number of sixth-form colleges and in many different types of post-16 education. Many pupils attend college for only three or four days a week. I do not see the logical reason why the Bill deals only with full-time pupils when the fastest growing group of pupils in sixth-form and technical colleges between the ages of 16 and 18 is of those undertaking part-time courses.
Regrettably, the Minister seems to be saying that he cannot accept any amendment that we table because it would create new anomalies and exacerbate the confusion. How serious is the Minister about the Bill? We know from Home Office guidance that he envisages only 10 to 15 prosecutions a year.Why is he drafting the Bill so tightly and excluding huge classes of pupils in sixth-form colleges?
I should also like to say a few words about the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The Committee may recall that I said that it would be absurd to prosecute someone because he had abused his position of trust in relation to a boarder but not if he had done so in relation to a day boy. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) seemed to repeat the slur against boarding schools that such behaviour is more prevalent there than in day schools. I do not know whether he attended boarding school. I did for a time, and never encountered such behaviour whilst I was there. I must admit that I hated my boarding school, but that is because I am of a shy, retiring, artistic and spiritual nature.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): Was it a Catholic school?
Mr. Leigh: It was a Catholic school; there is nothing wrong with that, of course.
I do not know where the underlying message in debates on the matter that boarding schools are far more dangerous comes from.
Dr. Julian Lewis: (New Forest, East): I am starting always to second-guess the Minister. I understand why the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has tabled the amendment, although the reason for doing so bespeaks the wider nonsense of the Bill as a whole—which I appreciate I am not allowed to discuss. If the offence is not confined to a definite, finite set of particular circumstances, such as the person's being in residence—
The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. Paul Boateng)—indicated dissent.
Dr. Lewis: No, for once I have not second-guessed the Minister correctly; he shakes his head.—[Interruption.] Well, if I were the Minister, to play devil's advocate, as Opposition Members who oppose the entire Bill must in addressing the amendments, I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that anomalies will ultimately result if the Bill does not specify clearly identifiable status such as residence or non-residence. Indeed, we shall find that the Bill in its entirety will result in anomalies.
Mr. Leigh: That is an interesting point, but I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood the Minister's position. I suspect that the Minister will oppose the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats. He is a robust politican and will accuse them of trying to wreck the Bill. Well, perhaps he will not do that; we know that the two parties hate criticising each other. I am speaking against the amendments in case the Minister is insufficiently robust in his rejection of them.
It may be true that those in residential education are more at risk than others, not because of the nature of the boarding principle, but because they are on the premises for longer. However, that is not a reason for narrowing the scope of the abuse of trust provisions. Those at greatest risk should be covered without neglecting those at a lesser risk, which is the purpose of amendment No. 6.
Dr. Harris: I wish to put the case for amendments Nos. 11 and 10, in addition to the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam. They go to the heart of our criticism of the Bill. By that, I do not mean the idea behind it, its general provisions or the objectives of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). The amendments illustrate our concerns about the wide scope of the Bill.
I want to examine whether the Minister took a reasonable approach when forming his four principles. As the hon. Gentleman said at our first sitting, the first principle concerns the vulnerability of some young people, while the second concerns young people in the care of those in a position of trust—hence the references to detention and care homes. I do not have a problem with those two principles, nor have I referred to them now to question whether the scope of the Bill is inappropriate.
However, if we examine the third principle, which concerns the special influence of the adult, we can narrow the scope of the Bill without losing what it is supposed to do. The Bill recognises that relationships such as those that we have discussed are inappropriate. They are wrong and they are generally covered already by professional codes—as are relationships outside the Bill, such as those between doctors and their patients, including their young patients.
Is it appropriate to make some disciplinary offences into criminal offences? A fifth principle needs to be added. We must be proportionate and ensure that we do not create a criminal offence out of something that need not and should not be so covered, when it is already dealt with by professional codes. The provision based on the special influence of the adult need not apply to teachers who do not directly teach students of the ages of 16 and 17 years. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam would not drive a coach and horses through the Bill. It asks that, for the position of trust to exist, the supposed victim of the offence must be educated by person A.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley): Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, a deputy head or a head teacher of a school who may not directly teach a young person, but who obviously has influence or authority over that young person, will not be covered by the abuse of trust provision.
Dr. Harris: No. If I were redesigning the Bill, I would ensure that those who had the ultimate responsibility for supervision and care and who were truly in loco parentis, with authority in the school, should be covered by the Bill. I am talking about teacher A, who has no educational contact with the 16 or 17-year-old B. If B is not having lessons from A, she may therefore feel in hock to A because of educational marks and so on.
I do not seek to remove from the Bill someone who has a pastoral role, as form teachers do, nor do I seek to remove headmasters or deputy head teachers, who clearly act in loco parentis, because authority within the school rests with them and the governors while the student is at the school.
Mr. Tom Levitt (High Peak) rose—
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) rose—
Dr. Harris: I am delighted to be so popular. I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
Mr. Clappison: The point made by the hon. Gentleman is important, but it leads to the question of who looks after a person for such purposes. Head teachers or deputy head teachers might not come within that ambit because they might not be regarded as looking after the person concerned.
Dr. Harris: We would argue that the provisions for looking after are covered in a later clause, to which we have tabled amendments. We are attempting to be consistent. The important aspect is the caring for or looking after. Indeed, a letter written by the Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), when he was Minister of State, Home Office, stated that the Government were looking to strengthen legal protection for young people against an abuse of trust by someone who owed them a duty of care. That term is much used in the codes of practice relating to the medical profession, doctors having a clear duty of care to their patients.
I believe that a similar duty of care exists between head teachers, deputy head teachers, form teachers and teachers in the classroom and pupils of 16 and 17. The teachers' role is to look after their pupils, or the student may feel obliged to the teacher, perhaps because of marks or favouritism, which may cause some duress. However, if that normal relationship does not exist, perhaps in a sixth-form college between a pupil and a teacher who does not teach that pupil, the usual professional codes of discipline should apply. Our motives in seeking to create a criminal offence would not then apply so strongly, and our actions in trying to make a criminal offence out of such a relationship would be disproportionate.
| 
