| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Norman Fowler: The point I am seeking to make is that we should proceed with a certain amount of humility on moral issues. I suggest that that is not a bad lesson for any of us, however strongly we may feel about the issues. I add that the history of this century has shown that it is better for the Government and Ministers to give practical advice, rather than seek to put over a moral message without the practical advice. During the 1914-18 war, the advice to "think of King and country" in terms of sexual habits proved to be spectacularly unsuccessful.
That brings me to the second lesson that I took from the AIDS campaign. We were posting leaflets to every house and every home in Britain, so we agonised about the message--how explicit should it be, and what language should be used? I have been criticised or taken off in the press for other messages, most of which are now in folklore. It is totally untrue, but there is nothing I can do about denying it. One of my earliest advertisements was challenged by a senior Minister on the ground that the words "having sex" were not the kind of language that we should use; so we had some difficulty in getting the message across.
The public response to our leaflets was emphatic: there were next to no complaints, and we were criticised neither for the directness of the message nor for the fact that we could have been perceived as protecting the gay community. The British public took a mature and sensible attitude: they thought that we were right to warn and, by implication, they thought it wrong to leave people to their own fate as, tragically, some countries did.
That was significant, because I contend that, just as the public are sensible and mature in their attitude to an issue such as AIDS, they show equal common sense today on
the age of consent. The Home Secretary is entirely right to say that the public do not want men in their 20s and 30s--let alone in their 40s and 50s--to be prosecuted for consensual sex. They regard that as a matter for personal judgment, not for the criminal law.
The public's concern comes when the age for consent comes nearer and nearer to what they regard as childhood. In 1994, a Gallup poll suggested that 71 per cent. supported the status quo for the age of consent at 21. Interestingly, when NOP divided the question and gave a choice between 18 and 16, the majority--48 per cent. as against 44 per cent.--favoured 18; but, significantly for this debate, only 13 per cent. favoured 16.
That opposition to going this further stage, from 18--which we introduced only in 1994--to 16, has remained in the opinion polls. At the end of 1997, one poll showed 53 per cent. opposed to lowering the age of consent and 35 per cent. in favour. Perhaps the most interesting of the later polls was the Gallup poll last August, which was taken after the House had voted to lower the age of consent to 16 and the House of Lords had voted the other way. When the public were asked whether they personally thought that the age of consent for homosexual men should be 16 or 18, 26 per cent. said 16 and 65 per cent. said 18.
I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that public opinion is unreasonable on the age of consent or that those surveys show an inherent prejudice against the gay community. Many of the public who are polled are parents and are concerned about the impact that a change in the law could have on 16 and 17-year-olds.
The House would do well to take note of the public view. If I am right, and two thirds of the country are against lowering the age of consent, we should take note of that and consider some of the reasons that are advanced. Some, like the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), will argue, as he did in our previous debate on the subject, that there is a particular need in our culture to support young people. He said:
Sir Peter Lloyd (Fareham):
On the question of protection, does my right hon. Friend agree that the present law is very successful in deterring homosexually inclined and active 16 and 17-year-olds from obtaining medical and moral advice?
Sir Norman Fowler:
I do not agree with that. My experience with the AIDS campaign was that we were able to succeed in making advice available to people using drugs and to the great many more who were committing
Mr. Bercow:
The opinion poll evidence invoked by my right hon. Friend is important. The House should listen to it, but not be slavishly bound by it. My right hon. Friend said that he would offer us his personal view: will he say to what adverse consequences he fears that equalisation at the age of 16 would lead?
Sir Norman Fowler:
I shall come to that point in the second part of my remarks. However, I question what my hon. Friend says about public opinion. I think that we should listen to it, as it is important to take public opinion on this matter into account.
Mr. Bercow:
I said that we should not be slavish in our response to it.
Sir Norman Fowler:
What that normally means is, "I'll listen to it, and then I'll ignore it." I think that public opinion on this matter is so pronounced that the House would be well advised to listen to what is being said.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington):
The right hon. Gentleman told the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) that he did not believe that young people of 16 would be disinclined to seek medical advice. If he were shown to be wrong about that, would he change his mind?
Sir Norman Fowler:
I would not so much change my mind as try to change the response of young people. If they were shown to be disinclined to seek such advice, that would be a problem which we should examine and try to resolve. However, whether that amounts to an argument for going as far as reducing the age of consent for everyone to 16 is another question.
I believe that, in respect of the Bill, many people will feel that many more children than those under supervision are in danger and at risk. Will reducing the age of consent make their position more perilous and increase the risk that they face? That is the question which the House must consider. In making that judgment, we must assess the size of the threat.
It is obviously extremely difficult to evaluate the risk of sexual abuse, but an indication of the scale of the problem can be found in the study edited by Donald West of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology. That study drew attention to one piece of research, in which it was found that 12 per cent. of women and 8 per cent. of men reported that they had been sexually abused as children. If accurate, that research means that we are talking about several million adults who have been sexually abused.
Even those who contest those figures would not deny that sexual abuse poses a massive threat. It is not surprising that many parents are worried about what is an inherent fear for them, nor that they feel that the problem could or would be made worse by lowering the age of consent. In that connection, it is worth recalling the words of Sir William Utting, who was quoted in our previous debate and whose advice lay behind the amendment
tabled then by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. In his 1997 Department of Health report, Sir William said of sexual offenders:
Sir Norman Fowler:
No, I do not. That is an issue, but I am arguing that the position should not be made worse. I heard the hon. Gentleman's earlier intervention and he seemed to be arguing for changes that go beyond the Bill--far beyond it. It is all very well arguing such a case, but I am arguing that the position should not be made worse, nor the risk greater. It is a matter of judgment for the House and for the hon. Gentleman--whom I suspect does not exactly share my view on the subject--how seriously one estimates that risk. I happen to consider it serious. I was Secretary of State for Social Services for six years, so I recognise the problem. I feel that it is a serious risk and a serious issue, but I am speaking personally.
"Pressures are at work to legitimise any and every life style, irrespective of any difference of value and quality between them. The Church believes that those pressures should be resisted."--[Official Report, 22 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 795.]
Others will agree with the Lord Bishop of Winchester, who spoke for many other religious leaders when he warned against undermining the position of marriage in our society. Above all, my view is that the public generally feel that we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to prevent young people from being affected by harm or abuse. Indeed, the Government have obviously accepted that principle, as it is the reason for the second part of the Bill. We can debate whether the protection is adequate, but the Government have accepted the principle of seeking to protect.
"Persistent sexual abusers are a scourge of childhood. Their numbers are difficult to estimate but each one who adopts a lifetime career will amass hundreds of victims. They inflict unspeakable psychological and physical harm. Some of their victims will become abusers. Their success depends on their ability to ingratiate themselves with adults and children . . . They establish themselves as trusted friends, colleagues or employees. Exposure may be a matter of chance, often after many years of abuse."
Mr. Borrow:
I assume that the right hon. Gentleman's points about child abuse relate to abuse under the age of 16. He argues that a reduction in the age of consent for gay men from 18 to 16 would increase the risk of such abuse. If that is the case, given the figures that he gave, which show that, nationally, more women than men have been abused as children, does he advocate that the age of consent for heterosexual men and women should be increased from 16 to give them more protection from child abuse?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |