The hon. Gentleman has told us what he thinks that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield would have said had he been here to move the amendment. I rise to say what I think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would have said in response to the amendment were he responding to it.

I think that the hon. Gentleman has got to the right point, and perhaps I can reassure him on it. We have potential benevolent duplication here, but it is for a purpose. Amendment No. 203 would remove the specific reference to those aged under 13 from the offence in clause 28 of inciting a family member to engage in sexual activity. However, since the offence applies to all children aged under 18 unless the defendant reasonably believes that the child is 18 or over, the amendment has the effect of making the reasonable belief in age provisions apply to the under-13s as well as to those aged 13 or over but under 18.

The offences in clauses 27 and 28 are designed to protect children in familial and quasi-familial settings. It is sadly clear that much sexual abuse against children is instigated in such settings, where children should be at their safest.

Our debate on clauses 6 to 9 highlighted the Government's policy intention to afford maximum protection to those aged under 13. The offences in clauses 6 to 9 make no provision for reasonable mistaken belief in age, although they could involve sexual activity with a child not known to the offender. That is defensible because, despite the fact that some children can look older than they are, maximum protection should be afforded to children under 13, however old they may look.

There are two reasons why the argument against providing a mistaken belief in age defence is even stronger in respect of clause 28. First, the clauses cover abuse in familial settings in which it is easier to establish the actual age of the child involved before engaging in sexual activity. Secondly, the offence applies to children aged up to 18. It is hard to mistake a child aged 12 or under for one aged 18 or over; the age gap is simply too great.

If the purpose of the amendment is completely to remove children under 13 from the offence in clause 28, I would like to explain why such children are included in these clauses, although we would generally expect an offence under clauses 6 to 9 to be charged where the child victim is under 13. We included the under-13s in the offences in clauses 27 and 28 to close a potential loophole—not the one spotted by the hon. Member for Woking—albeit one that would rarely arise.

The loophole would arise in the course of a trial for an offence under clause 28 against a child believed to be 13, when it became clear that she was in fact 12. The defendant could not be convicted of a clause 27 or 28 offence if they applied only to children aged 13 or over, but he would be liable for an offence under clauses 6 to 9. Because some of those offences have higher penalties, the judge might not allow the indictment to be changed because the offender would not have had an opportunity fully to prepare his case in answer to the more serious charge. He might then have to be acquitted, even if the evidence had established that he had engaged in sexual intercourse below the age of consent.

Extending the offences at clauses 27 and 28 obviates that problem. For those reasons, the clause is right as drafted, and I ask the Committee to resist the amendments.