I do not want to do permanent damage to the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but he will be surprised to know that I agreed with a large amount of what he said—that will come as a bit of a shock to him.
I rise mainly to speak to new clauses 2 and 3, although I am in an invidious position, because the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), in whose name they stand, has not yet spoken to them, and I do not wish to detract from her remarks or steal her thunder. I entirely support the comments by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) about the work that she has done. I served on the panel that looked into child sexual exploitation, and I found it an illuminating and at times emotional experience, but it was very rewarding. We listened to young people who had been exploited, and
to those who work in the legal system or courts, such as judges, as well as to the police who have to deal with these issues day in, day out.
I particularly support new clause 2. I do not wish to go into it in detail, because the hon. Member for Rotherham should have the privilege of doing that herself, but the fundamental point of reducing the number of grooming offences from two to one is something with which most people would agree. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the new clause, and even if they cannot accept it tonight I like to think that this will be a significant step towards introducing it.
Sadly, we are now all too familiar—partly from the various cases following Operation Yewtree, but from many other cases too—with the fact that child exploitation by adults appears to be far too common an activity. It is something that we in this House should all condemn, as I know we do, and we need to be able to stop it wherever possible. It seemed clear from the work of the panel and the evidence that we were given, that reducing from two to one the number of occasions that someone can contact children with a view to exploitation is perfectly sensible and reasonable, and—most importantly—could lead to a reduction in the number of victims. I strongly support new clause 2.
7.45 pm
I understand that the Government will have a little more difficulty accepting new clause 3, because it has probably been drafted a little more widely than had been intended, and would create offences that perhaps were not intended. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will take on board the key point behind the new clause, which is to create equality between the treatment of children in care and of those not in care. It seemed to the panel that although there is undoubtedly evidence that children in care are particularly prone to exploitation—they are more vulnerable; that is a self-evident consequence of being in care—there are countless examples of children who are not in care, and we heard from a number of them. Those children may not be very well parented—if I dare use that awful word—but they are not in care. They are also vulnerable and open to exploitation, and it seems odd that the age limit for those children should be lower than for those in care.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain to the House why there are other issues with the new clause, but perhaps when he responds to the debate he will go as far as to say that he fully understands my point, which is about the discrepancy between children in care and those not in care. If it is possible to draft the new clause a little more narrowly to address that point, I hope he will indicate sympathy with that, so that it might find acceptance from the Government in another place. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. Obviously, like other Members I have views on some of the other amendments, but I wanted to speak particularly to new clauses 2 and 3 and to add my congratulations to those paid to the hon. Member for Rotherham.