Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, line 31, before "inviting" to insert the following:

"in the case of a child who is more than 5 years younger than the person concerned,".

The wording of section 6(b)(e), concerning the definition of sexual exploitation, is peculiar. The Minister stated that no court would entertain a charge but the Bill concerns the consequences of grooming. The section refers to intentionally meeting or travelling for the purpose of doing anything that constitutes sexual exploitation. The definition of sexual exploitation refers to a child, anyone under 17. Section 6(b)(e) refers to "inviting, inducing or coercing the child to participate in or observe any activity of a sexual or indecent nature". This does not refer to anything illegal. We all wish that people would delay all forms of sexual activity until they are old enough to manage it, in which case none of us would ever start. None of us is immune to the pressures of it, unless there are saintly people on the other side of the House. From what I know of human beings, the most extraordinary mistakes are made in pursuit of sexual passion. I am concerned that teenage activities that are a part of growing up are being unintentionally defined as sexual exploitation. I support educating young people to make them aware of the joys and pitfalls of sexual activity and the potential human damage. The definition in the Bill includes inviting the child to participate in any activity of a sexual nature. Do we not mean any activity of a sexual or indecent nature that is illegal? I will not go into graphic detail of the intermediate stages between what is illegal and what is legal. The Catholic Church, and many of its adherents, spent 20 years of my childhood defining the phrase "How far can you go?". Many American Catholic journals advised teenagers about this.