Home Page

Column 1257

House of Commons

Friday 30 April 1993

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Orders of the Day

Sexual Offences Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

Abolition of presumption of sexual incapacity

9.34 am

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out "(whether natural or unnatural)".

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on successfully steering the Bill through Second Reading and Committee. Indeed, it jumped the queue for private Members' Bills and, after today's debate, it may be considered in the other place. The Bill has not been considered as closely as it should have been ; it has slipped through and there is scope for closer scrutiny of it. The Bill's intention is correct. In law, children under 10 are incapable of committing a crime and, under common law, youngsters under 14 are incapable of sexual intercourse. In reality, that clearly is not true. Girls under 14 give birth and we heard recently about an assault by a 13-year-old on a teacher ; more frequently we hear about children sexually assaulting other children. The Bill rightly recognises that such offences can occur and that the common law should apply to them.

The short title of the Bill is significant. It proposes to "Abolish the presumption of criminal law that a boy under the age of 14 is incapable of sexual intercourse."

That refers to sexual intercourse, yet clause 1 refers to "The presumption of criminal law that a boy under the age of 14 is incapable of sexual intercourse (whether natural or unnatural)". The words "natural or unnatural" are the subject of my amendment and the hon. Member for Harlow owes the House an explanation. The words must be considered in the context of sexual

intercourse--penetration. The assumption must be that heterosexual sex is natural, and gay sex--homosexual sex--is unnatural.

Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow) indicated dissent.

Mr. Cohen : The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he owes the House an explanation. The clause applies only to sexual intercourse. It is insulting to the millions of homosexuals who practise gay sex to have that practice described as "unnatural". Millions of people around the world will find it insulting because "natural" and "unnatural" are the wrong terms to use ; they are much too wide. When I suggested that the hon. Gentleman was using the term "unnatural" to describe homosexual sex, he shook his head. Perhaps he can list what he means by the

Column 1258

terms "natural" and "unnatural", especially "unnatural" if he does not mean it to be applied to gay sex. The House could then consider each of the hon. Gentleman's suggestions in turn. As the Bill stands, the term "unnatural" has too wide a scope.

I hesitate to say that it is a habit of the Conservatives, but it is part of their political approach that they tend to do it more--

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : Do what?

Mr. Cohen : They regard things as "natural" or "unnatural". I am talking about the terms, not whether they practise gay sex more, although that is perhaps what the hon. Lady thought. It is part of their political approach to use the terms "natural" and "unnatural", but such use is inappropriate.

Such usage allows a generous leap to be made : from talking about unnatural practices, which presumably means unnatural intercourse, one is soon talking about their being practised by unnatural people. That involves only a short leap, and there is a danger that judges could interpret the Bill in that way.

Males could be considered the more aggressive gender, in an historical context and perhaps also today in view of current crimes. There is and has been a great deal of rape, but is it to be considered natural because men carry it out? That is a dangerous argument. We legislate against rape not because it is unnatural but because it is socially unacceptable behaviour and we want to protect women from it. The use of the terms "natural" and "unnatural" is wrong in this context because they could be used to argue that such aggressive behaviour is natural. The hon. Gentleman is confusing the terms with acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and that is my main beef with him. He should remove from clause 1 the four words in brackets.

We should remember that the Bill is about children. As the House will know, experts believe that the great majority of children go through a phase of homosexual behaviour of one form or another. It is usually an experimental or mild form, and the children often grow up heterosexual.

Mr. Piers Merchant (Beckenham) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cohen : I shall in a moment. However, it is wrong that children should be branded as practising unnatural behaviour.

Mr. Merchant : A number of things that the hon. Gentleman has said have puzzled me, and I am not sure that I have followed the drift of his argument. I cannot let him get away with his last assertion. Recent studies have shown that the proportion of men who have been involved in homosexual activity is very small. Some of the latest figures suggest that that applies to between only 1 and 5 per cent., so how on earth can the hon. Gentleman say that the majority of people have been involved in homosexual activity?

Mr. Cohen : Different experts have different views. Studies have shown that children go through a homosexual phase, but I said that it was a mild form and part of experimenting with sexuality generally.

Column 1259

9.45 am

Lady Olga Maitland : Could the hon. Gentleman provide evidence that the majority of young people indulge in homosexual activity? What are the sources and cases that he can cite to support such a sweeping statement?

Mr. Cohen : I do not think that I said it was the majority, but I leave it to the experts to argue about that. The hon. Lady is coming close to saying that children do not experiment with sexuality, but they do. Any schoolteacher or anyone who works with children will tell her that children experiment with different forms of sexuality. One of my objections to the Bill is that they would be branded as unnatural if they did not conform to the hon. Gentleman's idea.

Lady Olga Maitland : Has the hon. Gentleman had any meetings or discussions with teachers on this issue?

Mr. Cohen : I have met teachers to discuss all sorts of issues. Many teachers have told me that they favour sex education in schools precisely because of children's experimentation. As I have said many time before, I am shocked that some Conservatives Members often block sex education for dogmatic reasons. If they had their way and if sex education in schools were stopped, there would be no information at all.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) : Has the hon. Gentleman seen the new draft circular on sex education issued by the Department for Education? If he had, he would not have made that statement.

Mr. Cohen : That circular was issued only after considerable pressure had been applied. Before the recess, I made a speech in the House, adding to that pressure. The circular was greeted with howls of protest, not from Labour Members but from the Conservative lobby opposed to sex education. The Conservatives' objections were quoted in the press, so the hon. Gentleman should be talking to his colleagues.

Lady Olga Maitland : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the advice being proferred by the Government became controversial only when a Minister was asked on "The World at One" whether the Government would consider making condoms available in schools? It had nothing to do with the advice in the circular.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes) : Order. Before the debate continues, I must point out that we are debating an amendment, not a wider issue, which this threatens to become.

Mr. Cohen : I have no desire to make it a wider issue. As I am always helpful to Conservative Members, I have been trying to respond to their points.

Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : I do not seek to challenge your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker--

Madam Deputy Speaker : I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Couchman : I am always obedient in these matters. I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Bill was given a Second Reading on the nod and there was only 20 minutes of debate in Committee. A number of us have considerable worries about the Bill. Is it your preferred option that we should reserve the expression of those worries for a lengthy Third Reading debate or will you be

Column 1260

fairly tolerant with our casting our comments reasonably widely during our debate on the two groups of amendments?

Madam Deputy Speaker : I am concerned only with relevance. How long that may take is not for me to judge.

Mr. Cohen : I always try to abide by your rulings, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not seek to prolong the debate and I am trying to keep to the amendment. The intervention by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) may have extended the debate a little, but my initial comments related purely to the amendment and to my wish to remove the words "whether natural or unnatural". Again, I call on the hon. Member for Harlow to say exactly what he means by those words. I believe that he has confused those terms with the concept of socially acceptable or socially unacceptable behaviour. That is what worries me most. I am worried about how judges or others will interpret the terms when dealing with children. Children may be branded as practising unnatural behaviour and I do not believe that that is right. I shall say more about the other implications when I speak to anmendment No. 2.

I am the promoter of a similar Bill, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, which is far more extensive than this Bill. It deals especially with the issue of rape. My Bill would make male rape a specific criminal offence for the first time. It would do that simply by changing the definition of the victim from "woman" to "person" and it would thus allow men to be considered in law to be the victims of rape.

In this Bill, we are talking about young boys, for example, practising what the hon. Member for Harlow calls "unnatural" acts. Despite his shaking his head earlier, my great suspicion is that he is really referring to homosexual acts. The Bill, as its short title shows, is about sexual intercourse. It will be interesting to hear him describe to what other unnatural acts the Bill refers. Boys, like men, may be involved in male rape. Perhaps that is one of the offences to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Male rape is not a specific crime at present and I believe that it should be. There is an assumption that only women can be raped, which simply is not true. Men and young boys could well become the victims of rape. The police record the number of offences of indecent assault against men, and those numbers have increased. In London, they have doubled over the past 10 years. It is a serious problem which should be addressed. The Metropolitan police to whom I have spoken believe that more than nine out of 10 cases are not reported because the victims fear that they may be criminalised, that they may be branded homosexual, or that the police will take no action because the offence of male rape does not exist. It is necessary to make male rape a crime. That gap in the law remains under this Bill. This is the age of bringing legislation to bear on sexual offences, such as child abuse, so legislation on male rape should be introduced. The mere fact that the subject is brought out into the open--this is part of what the hon. Member for Harlow is attempting to do by recognising that such offences can be committed between the ages of 10 and 14--means that there will be more openness about reporting such offences and that action can then be taken. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman more questions on that when I speak to amendment No. 2. I hope that there will

Column 1261

be more openness about male rape as well. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in using the words "natural or unnatural". I shall be most interested to hear what he has to say about that. I still believe that those words should be removed from the Bill.

Lady Olga Maitland : I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on having the imagination and alertness to recognise that there has been a serious anomaly on the issue. An attempt to put the anomalies right is long overdue. To date, it has been deemed physically impossible for a child under the age of 14 to commit an act of rape. Instead, the charge has been sexual assault. The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) seeks to withdraw the words "whether natural or unnatural". He seemed to say that some believe that only natural sexual intercourse--in other words, between a boy and a girl--is acceptable and that it is unfair to suggest that sexual intercourse between two boys or two men is unnatural. We are really saying that sexual activity by force by a young boy against another person, whether a boy or a girl, should be included in the Bill. The Bill is not an attempt to be positively unfair to people who have indulged in homosexual activity.

It is important to say that we are not going down the route of homosexual bashing. There is nothing like that whatever. It is extremely important to point out that we are not trying to put homosexuals into a separate category. However, we are well aware that clarification is needed in the Bill. It would be iniquitous to concentrate only on heterosexual sex by force, without taking into account homosexual sex or other practices that may later be elucidated.

Mr. Cohen : Is the hon. Lady saying that homosexual sex is unnatural in terms of the Bill?

Lady Olga Maitland : Yes, I am saying that homosexual activity is unnatural. My reason for saying that is simple. The vast majority of human beings on this earth are heterosexual with only a very small minority of people who are born with a natural instinct for homosexual activity. That does not make it the norm, and I am talking about the norm.

Mr. Cohen : So is the hon. Lady saying that hon. Members, including Conservative Members, who practise homosexual activities, are practising unnatural activities?

10 am

Lady Olga Maitland : Yes. As far as I am concerned, it does not matter who is or is not indulging in such activities ; I think that they are unnatural. I do not want to go in for name calling or identifying of the individuals concerned. We are simply reflecting on the state of natural human beings today. It is important to clarify in the Bill exactly what we mean by rape and to make it clear that we are referring to all the different circumstances.

The unnatural element causes concern not least because, as a result of the tremendous amount of gay publicity on the television and in the press, young children are getting the idea that homosexuality is something with which they should experiment. I find that very worrying. It is worrying, too, that some teachers in some schools believe that they need to promote homosexual activity and heterosexual activity as being of equal value. Given that

Column 1262

that belief seems to be on the increase, it is all the more important that we should clarify in the Bill the fact that unnatural sex is included.

The hon. Member for Leyton seems to be suggesting that we are being unfairly hostile to unnatural sex. Should not we consider for a moment the victims of sexual assault--particularly assault that involves unnatural sex? The victim could be an adult, but is more likely to be another child, who may be emotionally and physically crippled for life as a result of the experience. A case in my constituency comes back to me with appalling clarity. A thoroughly normal, decent family could not understand why their little boy aged five had been unable to control his bowels for a number of years. The mother eventually noticed physical marks on the child's body, particularly around his anus, and managed, through careful questioning and by seeking advice and counselling, to discover that that child had been repeatedly raped by another boy over a period of years.

It is tremendously important that the child who perpetrated that offence--a school kid of about 13--should be brought to court under the new law and made responsible for his behaviour. At the moment, that child is no doubt running wild in a playground ; he may be catching other children, taking them into cars and doing them appalling damage. The mental and physical effects are felt not only by the child who is the victim but by the family which makes it all the more tragic. Therefore, it is essential that we make it absolutely clear that unnatural behaviour, by which we mean homosexual behaviour, is included in the Bill.

I hope that the Bill will be given a fair wind. In a wider context, it is important that children should be educated about sexual responsibility and behaviour. Teachers must not positively encourage homosexual behaviour as if it were the accepted norm ; in fact only a very small minority of people engage in it. It worries me that chidlren are encouraged in this way against their natural instincts. Our whole case rests on the fact that it is possible for rape to be committed by a boy on another boy. That must be made clear in the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : The clause worries me considerably. It seems to me obvious that, if we pass the Bill, it makes little difference whether we include or omit the words "whether natural or unnatural". If they are left out, the clause will read : "The presumption of the criminal law that a boy under the age of fourteen is incapable of sexual intercourse is hereby abolished." Presumably that will then mean all forms of sexual intercourse. The words "whether natural or unnatural" neither add anything to the Bill nor take anything away from it. Their excision would make no difference to the meaning of the Bill or to any other matter about which we need to be concerned this morning. I therefore support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I do not see any need to mention what form of sexual intercourse is implied or intended and I do not think that we need discuss what is natural or unnatural sexual intercourse.

The Bill provides that boys under the age of 14 who commit sexual acts can be charged under the criminal law. I am not certain that that is wise. As the hon. Member for Leyton said, sexuality starts from birth. That is my experience and is the experience of all the professionals.

Column 1263

Sexuality is a gradually learnt matter about which we should be honest and straightforward and which should be discussed, especially at home. Incidentally, the form that sex education in schools takes needs to be examined carefully. Sex education should be treated very sensitively and ought to include teaching about the emotional content that should go with the whole experience of sexuality. The absence of any emotional content from such learning is a serious mistake. It seems to me that we are not talking about rape. Most of the debate this morning has been about forced sexual intercourse, which is abhorrent at any age. In my view, however, the Bill would make it a criminal offence for any sexual intercourse to take place between children of whatever sex. I do not believe that the criminal law is the right way to treat such matters. I feel that we should adopt a much more sympathetic attitude to such activities among children--one which does not criminalise them and stigmatise them for life. We need counselling and thoughtful intervention and we need very carefully thought out procedures.

Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow) : Before my hon. Friend proceeds any further along that line, I remind him that the Bill is all about rape ; it is about penetrative sex. It does not deal with consensual sex between teenagers of whatever gender or orientation, which must always be a matter for the sympathetic discretion of the prosecuting authorities. There is no way that, in reasonable consensual circumstances, the prosecuting authorities will prosecute young men under the age of 21 for homosexuality or any other similar offence. The Bill is specifically about rape.

Mr. Wells : I am grateful for that explanation, and I hope that it will be noted carefully if the Bill reaches the statute book and if any action is taken in a court of law. I do not believe that that is what the Bill says. It may be what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) intends, but it is not what the Bill says.

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I believe that there is an air of puzzlement about the debate. The Bill does not force on us all the interpretations and ramifications in respect of the law that have been suggested. It simply ends a nonsense ; it removes a legal myth. The common- sense interpretation is that which is being placed on the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and that is why he moved his simple amendment. There is a certain amount of common sense and sympathy in relation to the removal of those words. However, we must consider what that will do to the way in which the Bill is interpreted in relation to other Acts, which may be unsatisfactory but which are already on the statute book. It would be sensible if the House tried to ensure that we did not frustrate the intention, upon which we are all united, of ending this nonsense. I hope that we will not simply apply common sense because the law does not always work in a common-sense way, as I am sure the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) would agree. We must be very careful to ensure that we do not do something that we do not intend to do in respect of the Bill.

Column 1264

Mr. Wells : I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. We must be very careful indeed about the ramifications. On the surface, this is a very sensible piece of proposed legislation. We all know that children are capable of penetrative sex, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) described. Therefore, we should, in common sense, change the position.

However, what are the ramifications? There is a law which forbids sexual intercourse below the age of 16. Many hon. Members and members of the public believe that that age of consent should be lowered. However, if we combine that with this Bill, if sexual intercourse is entered into freely-- and is not rape--it becomes a criminal offence for which both parties could be taken to a court of law.

Mr. Hayes : I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for giving way to me again. The Bill is about the presumption of capacity. In other words, it does not matter whether the act of penetrative sex has taken place ; the child is presumed in law, if he is under the age of 14, to be incapable of that act. I believe that that is manifest nonsense, and that is the anomaly and absurdity which the Bill seeks to redress.

Mr. Wells : It is, of course, absurd in common sense and human experience. However, it seems to me that the law has the effect of protecting boys under the age of 14 from being accused of a criminal offence for taking part in consensual sex between the sexes.

Mr. Hayes : I disagree with my hon. Friend because the law allows for a prosecution of a lesser offence of indecent assault. As was said in Committee, and has been said elsewhere, it is ridiculous that a young man under the age of 14 who has committed a physical act of rape cannot be charged with the offence of rape. He can be charged only with indecent assault. That does not reflect the gravity of the offence.

Mr. Wells : I am not even certain of that. Although I find abhorrent the whole concept of rape and any kind of force involved in the sexual act between any partners, none the less, the act of rape in those circumstances, and at the ages about which we are concerned, is something which I am not certain we should criminalise. Would we put someone who has committed that act in prison or in a place of restraint? Is that the kind of law that we want imposed on the children of this country? I honestly do not think that we should do that.

Lady Olga Maitland rose --

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Before the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) makes her intervention, may I point out that the debate is now broadening out once more. We must return to the amendment.

Lady Olga Maitland : It is important that I reply quickly to the point about whether the offence can be committed by these young people and whether it would be right and appropriate to lock them up. Children have committed rape. I visited a secure unit this week and saw a 14-year-old boy who had committed a rape, although he was obviously charged with sexual assault. He was in that secure unit because he needed psychological and psychiatric help. That was the best place for him to receive it.

Column 1265

10.15 am

Mr. Wells : I will return to the narrow point about the amendment after I have replied briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam.

Of course, boys under the age of 14 are capable of rape : I know that that is the case. However, I question whether such sexual intercourse, natural or unnatural, should become a criminal offence. Is that the right way to deal with it?

Sexual intercourse, whether natural or unnatural, should not be included. All sexual intercourse, particularly if it is narrowly defined in respect of rape, should be included in the Bill. However, I am not sure whether criminalising it is the right way to treat such cases. There should be psychiatric treatment, counselling and restraint. However, it should not be criminal.

Mr. Merchant : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on introducing the Bill, which will correct an anomaly in the present law which has clearly been seen to be having a major effect on society, the legal system and the maintenance of law and order.

I agreed with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) when he said that on some occasions we must be blind to common sense so far as the law is concerned. As he represents an Opposition party, I am tempted to say that he perhaps experiences being blind to common sense rather frequently. However, when we consider definitions in law, it is clear that at times the use of phrases appears somewhat contradictory, simply because legalistic matters are phrased in rather ana-chronistic language.

I have been goaded into intervening in the debate by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I fear that the amendment, which I accept is well intentioned, might frustrate the intention of the Bill. I should hate to see that happen and that is why I want to answer some of his points.

The purpose of the Bill is clear. So long as its drafting is in harmony with the law as it is drafted in other areas in respect of these matters, we should be content with that and aim to support the greater objective of ensuring the Bill a safe passage.

The Bill deals with matters that have changed over the years. In that respect, I refer to the age of maturity and the capacity to rape which is linked with that. There is little doubt that the age of maturity has changed over the years for many reasons, primarily because of the healthier way in which our children are brought up these days. As a consequence, a law that may have been perfectly satisfactory some time ago, has now ceased to be so. Apparent anomalies are occurring which result in young men--which is what they are--performing acts that the laws says that they are unable to perform. Adjusting the law to enable prosecutions to take place when they clearly should take place is an important tidying-up measure which must be welcomed. Therefore, in a sense, the Bill aims to abolish an archaic presumption and must be phrased in the way in which the existing law is phrased when dealing with these matters. The phrase "natural or unnatural" falls into that set of definitions.

I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Leyton. He always deploys his arguments in a unique way, and I enjoy listening to them. I know that he was speaking from the heart on this matter and feels strongly about it.

Column 1266

However, I still feel that he is missing the point. We must consider what the phrase "natural or unnatural" means. As I see it, it does not simply refer to heterosexual or homosexual sex : it refers to sexual acts that the law has se it is merely a legalistic phrase which is well accepted in the law and appears in all sorts of other laws dealing with this subject. It is a form of archaic prose, but it is well understood and well defined in legalistic terms. That is significant in a law such as this, because the law must be precise.

When a law is being defined and interpreted in a host of different cases, those who are intepreting it must know precisely what the words mean. The words in the Bill are well defined in terms of the law. They should not be read as a common man or a man in the street might read them : they should be read through the eyes of lawyers--and that applies a totally different analysis and definition.

Mr. Wells : I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the law is a stranger to common sense. I wonder whether he could help the House by telling us where the phrase "natural or unnatural" occurs in other laws that deal with this subject.

Mr. Merchant : I cannot give my hon. Friend chapter and verse. All I can say is that the phrase "natural or unnatural" owes its origin in legalistic terms to the middle ages. It is present in a series of legal judgments and laws that were cast in the middle ages. Since then, the phrase has been well used in the law courts.

Mr. Hayes : The phrase comes from section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

Mr. Merchant : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for filling in a gap in the knowledge of the law that has eluded me recently. I am sure that he will agree that the phrase does not exist solely in the Act. Nor was it invented solely in those terms.

I run the risk of moving too far away from my specific subject, which is that the phrase "natural or unnatural" should be interpreted from the legal point of view. The phrase is used in the courts and understood by lawyers, and it should not be intepreted--as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was doing persuasively, but inaccurately, in this context--through the eyes of the ordinary man in the street. In other words, it is not meant to condem people as unnatural people, which is what he said. Nor is it meant to be used in a scientific sense, literally meaning what nature intended. Instead, it is used to describe different forms of activity in a shorthand legalistic phrase and in a way which is understood by lawyers and the courts.

I conclude--because I do not want to detain the House--by saying that the hon. Member for Leyton has allowed himself to become overexcited by clause 1 and has perhaps created an unnecessary debate. To omit the words "natural or unnatural" would leave the Bill more or less intact. However, we would run the risk of allowing it to run into difficulty in practical application because of the technical language used. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to compromise and accept that the words will not be emblazoned on buildings outside and upset people in the street or cause people to change their behaviour, but are

Column 1267

technical words to ensure that the Bill achieves its objective--an objective with which I am sure he would not disagree--they should be welcomed, and we should not make too much over three words.

Mr. Hayes : I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) for his common-sense approach to the matter--I wholeheartedly agree with him. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) who gave us a sensitive rendition of some of the difficulties. I am not sure whether I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), but he is a dear and personal friend. I am grateful to him, and he can buy me a large drink later.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). He is a tireless campaigner for human rights in all sorts of areas. I agree with much of what he said. The purpose of the legislation is to clear up an anomaly, an absurdity. The law must be 100 per cent. clear. The word "unnatural" is an anachronism which goes back to section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. It is not a word which I especially welcome in legislation. However, if it is not in the Bill, it makes nonsense of the legislation.

My hon. Friend the Minister will listen most carefully to what has been said today. If he chooses at some stage in later legislation to have a careful look at section 44, I should be the first to welcome it. Hon. Members should not think for a moment that I am homophobic. I sit on the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) which specifically examines discriminatory laws and suggests to the Government how such laws can be changed, so this is not an attack on the gay community, and should not be seen as such.

Mr. Wells : I wonder whether my hon. Friend could explain his arguments. He is saying that he needs the words "natural and unnatural" in the Bill to make it consonant or work with other legislation on this subject. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) said, that is archaic and comes from the middle ages, or presumably from Shakespearean language, why should we continue to use these archaic legal jargons in shorthand? Why should we not be straightforward in our legislation and make it abundantly clear to the ordinary people in the street? We should not have wretched lawyers, who are paid immense fees, interpreting the law and therefore making it so much more expensive. Let us be

straightforward. Let us not have "natural and unnatural" in the Bill.

Mr. Hayes : As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right : let us be straightforward. This is not the legislation in which we can change the anachronism. The difficulty is the interpretation by judges in other places. Judges will look at section 44 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 for the definition of "penetrative sex". If my hon. Friend wants that straightforwardness, the 1956 Act should be changed, not the Bill. We need clarity in the law. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leyton when he said that this is not the time and the place to get the clarity that we want.

I did not want before lunch to get into other areas of unnatural sex, but the hon. Gentleman rightly wanted a further definition. Of course, the definition spreads much wider than anal intercourse : it also involves animals and

Column 1268

bestiality. Perhaps there are all sorts of changes that my hon. Friend the Minister may wish to examine at another time--this is not the time and the place to discuss them--whereby there can be clear definitions of "anal intercourse", "vaginal intercourse" and "intercourse with an animal". I submit that this is not the time and the place.

I ask the hon. Member for Leyton to listen carefully to what has been said today. The House is not unsympathetic to the argument put by the hon. Gentleman, who talked a lot of common sense ; perhaps it is time for a review. I ask him to remember that the Bill is designed to clear up an anomaly, an absurdity, in the law. We are talking about penetrative sex and, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford said, we are not talking about offences that would criminalise people, because those offences have been criminalised already. We are talking about an offence that properly reflects the gravity of the act. I ask the hon. Member for Leyton to withdraw his amendment.

10.30 am

Mr. Michael : It is clear that the amendment would improve the language of the Bill so that ordinary people could understand it better, but it would damage it by retaining the assumption of incapacity in relation to such things as bestiality and other forms of intercourse. The problem is that the Bill clears up one anomaly in the law--it disposes of one piece of nonsense--while leaving plenty of other anomalies and anachronisms to be tackled by the House at a later stage.

It is dangerous for the House to try to do too much, particularly under a private Member's Bill. To delete the three words "natural or unnatural" from the Bill would not do what my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton sensibly seeks to achieve. If a new definition replaced those words, it might meet my hon. Friend's aim, but that in itself would pose a danger, because new words are always open to interpretation by the courts. In any event, that alternative is not available to us. Perhaps that can be considered in another place at the appropriate time. If we introduced a new and wider definition, we might fail to achieve what the House intended.

For that reason, I encourage my hon. Friend, whose argument was taken seriously by hon. Members on both sides of the House, not to frustrate the intention of this simple piece of legislation by pressing his amendment.

Next Section

  Home Page