| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.14 pm
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North): Tonight's debate is not only about young men growing up. In many ways, it is about us growing up as a society. I have been greatly impressed by many of the comments from both sides of the House, although I have been saddened by many of the representations made to me, some of which were of the same type as those mentioned earlier in the debate.
Some of the most lubricious details that have been sent to me contain an element of denial. I suggest that people who send so much information are perhaps asking questions that they should answer.
Overall, however, I am asked why I--as a Christian, and a person who tries to lead my life in the imitation of Christ--would, as I intend to, support the Bill tonight. Like many others who have spoken, I have no doubts, no fears, no worries and no concerns about that. The essential, core element of my Christianity is the love that Our Lord showed us, and in my view it is far better for us to include than to exclude. Tolerance is better than intolerance, and recognition of reality must be the way forward.
We have heard tonight that this is the thin end of the wedge. I consider that to be an intellectually fraudulent argument. I know of no Labour Member who has any
hidden agenda to extend the legislation to loose mere anarchy on the world, and to reduce us to a libertarian society, if such a thing exists. With the exception of the repeal of the iniquitous section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988--which I hope every one of us with half an ounce of wit or sense will seek to repeal at the earliest opportunity--I am aware of no move towards any further legislation or to furthering lowering of the age of consent; quite the reverse, in fact.
The other equally offensive and intellectually fraudulent argument suggests that homosexuality is a fad--something that a teenager assumes like this year's fashions, and then discards. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) spoke of the experience of young matelots on the deep sea. I recall little sexual activity on the blue waters when I was a 16-year-old sailor; what there was, it must be said, tended to be of a solitary nature. To imply, as my hon. Friend did--in an extraordinary expression, which completely failed to appreciate the reality--that young men could be "turned" in that way is contrary not only to my experience at sea, which admittedly was not very long, but to my experience of human life and of human nature. With respect, I must say that people are not "turned"; they are inherently what they are. It is not a fad.
Many speakers have referred to the heart-searching that they have done in deciding how to vote. They have talked about their children, and I think that is right. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) spoke eloquently and poignantly about her son; I am sure that every hon. Member will join me in paying tribute to what she said tonight and in June. I too have a son. I am something of a failure in west London Roman Catholic circles in that, as the eldest of eight children, I have only two of my own, although that may be due to the political life.
My son is not yet 16. I love my son, and I hope that I will always love my son. I do not know whether he will be gay, straight or bisexual--that is up to him; that is what he will be--but, if he comes out as a gay man at the age of 16 or 17, I would like to show my love and respect for him by saying that I value and respect his sexuality just as much as I respect his sister's sexuality.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
Like the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), I spent some time at sea, as a utility steward on a P and O liner. My cabin mates gave me this advice: if I went for a drink with the welfare officer and the welfare officer invited me to discuss my sex life with him and asked me to shut the door, I should shut the door, but should make sure that I was on the outside. I took that advice.
This has been a serious debate. I am sorry that those hon. Members who have vigorously supported the Bill have tried to portray those of us who deeply and profoundly oppose it as bigots or intolerant, saying that we do not care. That is far from the truth. It takes a lot of
guts to fight for one's cause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) did superbly, because the accusation is quickly made that one is intolerant and uncaring.
Let me address the key issues. First, the debate and the Bill are about the protection of young boys aged 16 or 17. We are not talking about the principle of homosexuality. We are talking about the issue as it applies to young boys of 16 or 17.
Secondly, as I said to the Home Secretary, the House has to understand what message will be sent from this place to our constituents, to the wider public and to the nation as a whole on how we wish society to be organised. That is the question that will go out from the House tonight. The Government are trying to have it both ways.
The Bill is not a Back-Bench measure; it is a Government Bill. The Government say that they are inclusive and all the rest of it, and wish to curry favour with certain sections of society, but, at the same time, they publish a weighty document on the family because all their polling says that the family is a good thing, so that is what they need to support if they are to continue to curry favour with voters.
The Government's document, much of which I agree with, says:
I say that because, like the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), whose contribution was extremely courageous, frank and accurate, I do not believe that homosexual activity is the same as heterosexual sex. The procreation of children cannot, by definition, take place within a family of homosexuals; it is not possible. The nation continues through heterosexual relations.
My fear is that the Bill reinforces the idea that is already being broadcast through various organs of the media--newspapers and, particularly, television, which is the most instrumental and influential--that a young person can choose between two equally valid life styles. That is not my view. I am sorry if others disagree, but I do not believe that that is the way in which to build a sound society.
The matter was well summed up by Baroness Young, who said:
My second point concerns the question: is the Bill the thin end of the wedge? Although others have argued that it is not, I believe that it is. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made it clear
that he views the Bill as a limited measure and wishes to go further; he set out ways in which he felt that that could be done. Labour Members have said that they wish section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 to be repealed. Indeed, the other day, I heard the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), on the radio, assuring someone on a programme about homosexuality that the Government would introduce measures to repeal section 28 at the earliest possible opportunity.
My third point concerns health. I must point out to the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) and for Salford (Ms Blears) that the National Blood Service refuses to accept blood from any man who has had sex with another man. If anal sex does not cause HIV, what does? Why is the National Blood Service giving that clear instruction to all those who come before it?
Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East):
In the few moments available to me, I should like to dwell on at least two speeches that I have had the privilege--in one case the dubious privilege--to hear, because they were both extremely honest. One was by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who took us through the struggles that he had had with the issue, coming from a deeply Christian background. He came out in favour of tolerance and all that is virtuous about Christianity by coming down in favour of the Bill.
The second very honest speech--I do not know about courageous--was by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann). He said clearly what many of those who oppose the measure are scared to say: that, in their opinion, homosexuality does not equate in any way with heterosexuality. I entirely dispute that view, but it is sincerely held, even if the speech was rather strange.
I have no truck with the mean-minded, nasty little speech, bereft of any humanity and laced with intolerance--as expected--by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). It was unmitigated nonsense from start to finish. Sadly, he is not here at the moment. When I see him, I shall remind him of what I have just said. He needs to be told and have that put in his face. More than any other hon. Member, he probably shares, hook, line and sinker, the feelings that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich had the courage to stand up and express, but he hid behind all sorts of tricks and loquaciousness to avoid saying so. That was a disgrace.
The only substantive argument that we have heard against equalising the age of consent today--or in the previous debate on the issue--is the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, which fails to recognise homosexuality as natural or normal, regarding it only as a perversion or an aberration. On that basis, many of the arguments against the Bill are at least logical. They are still profoundly wrong, but at least they can be
viewed as logical and, to some extent, honest. I do not support those arguments, because they are unsustainable, un-Christian, intolerant and logically and morally flawed.
"This Government believes that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships."
It goes on to say:
"we do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children."
The Bill sends a message that conflicts with that one. It strikes at the heart of the concept of the nuclear family forming the basis of society.
"It is said that this whole issue is one of equality. I do not myself believe that there is a moral equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Furthermore, I think that boys and girls are not equal in emotional development. I believe it is a very doubtful argument to bring equality into this issue at all. In many respects it simply does not apply. We are not talking about equal things."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 939.]
I entirely support what she said in her courageous fight in the other place.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |