| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.9 pm
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said one thing with which I profoundly agree--the fact that one disapproves of an activity is not a good reason to make it criminal. That is an observation that might inform more people's approach to fox hunting than perhaps it does. It is true that one may disapprove of something without thinking that it should be made the subject of the criminal law. This is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill and the first time in 20 years that I have spoken on this subject. That notwithstanding, I shall be brief.
There are parts of the Bill with which I agree. I find the provisions of clause 2 correct. We have debated whether it goes far enough: I suspect that it does not, but that can be dealt with in another place or by the review, and the Minister has been good enough to indicate that special attention will be given to the concept of people in loco parentis, and those in their charge.
However, I do not agree with clause 1. The essential argument underpinning it is that it is desirable to establish equality in the criminal law for males and females. I hope that the House will forgive a very old-fashioned remark, but I believe that it is one that has greater resonance than we care to admit. One of the curses of the age is the lack of restraint on people's sexual appetites. The truth of that contention is evident in the enormous number of teenage pregnancies and of children born out of wedlock, in the very large incidence of abortion, in the many cases of venereal disease, and so forth.
That lack of restraint is a curse that has disfigured society, and that will continue to undermine its cohesion. I am reluctant to accept as valid the argument that, because 16 is an appropriate age of consent for females, we should make it the age of consent for young men. I am willing to accept that it is not possible to increase the age of consent for young women. Whether to do so would be good or bad in an ideal world does not matter--it is not realistic in the present age.
However, the question that we are asking is whether we should reduce the age of consent for young men. Against the background of my anxiety about society's willingness to succumb to sexual appetites, I am bound to say that I am very cautious about that proposition. In the course of my life--at school, at the criminal Bar, in the House and so on--I have become aware that older men can be predatory vis-a-vis young men. That is a fact of life, and much to be regretted. The Bill significantly increases the pressure on young men, and I oppose it for that reason.
I hope that the House will forgive another old-fashioned remark. I have never wanted to persecute homosexuals. In general, I do not think that they should be treated in a discriminatory way and, when asked, I have always said so. However, I do not believe that the
homosexual way of life is a wholly satisfactory existence. Further, I believe that the sexual orientation of many people is not fixed at a young age, and probably is not fixed even at 15, 16 or 17. I am very reluctant for the House to do anything that would encourage people to adopt the homosexual way of life, if otherwise they would not have done so.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is looking at me disapprovingly, and he will no doubt draw on his experiences as a doctor. However, I have years of experience at the Bar and elsewhere to draw on, and I have seen people who I suspect have changed their sexual way of life as a result of experiences when young. On balance, I think that they have had a less full and happy life than they would have had if they had become heterosexual.
Dr. Harris:
I rise briefly to make two main points about the medical aspects of the Bill.
It is entirely wrong for Conservative Members to justify their opposition to clause 1 on medical grounds, when all the medical opinion--in the world, not just in this country--is that clause 1 is necessary to protect health. If Conservative Members want to bring health into the debate, they must recognise that the medical arguments favour reduction in the age of consent, to allow information about sexual health to get through to people who are sexually active.
Mrs. Ann Winterton:
I hope that I am not jumping the gun, but will the hon. Gentleman say whether he believes that the Bill when it is enacted--as it will be--will mean that figures for AIDS and sexual health among young men will be considerably better than today? What happens if they are not?
Dr. Harris:
I have worked with HIV, in prevention and as a clinician, and my experience tells me that, all other things being equal, the fact that the Bill enables young people to access important information on sexual health will reduce the number of new HIV infections among young gay men. That is not just my view: it is shared by all the relevant organisations, especially the medical ones. As I have said on previous occasions, the council of the British Medical Association--not a radical organisation--was unanimous in its recommendation of a unified age of consent at 16.
Mr. Swayne:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Harris:
In a moment. The reason that the BMA council gave was that such a change would reduce the spread of HIV among young people. Other experience shows that the criminalisation of an activity drives it underground, with the result that people cannot get the information that they need.
Mrs. Winterton:
How do you know?
Dr. Harris:
The same thing happened, in the Victorian era, with back-street abortions. What is needed is
Mr. Swayne:
Should we therefore lower the age at which it is permissible for children to purchase tobacco products so that they can have greater access to health information about the consequences of smoking?
Dr. Harris:
No. I do not believe that there is anything--other than the budgets of health education authorities--to prevent health educators passing information about the dangers of tobacco on to young people at risk. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), when he was Minister, referred to scientific and expert opinion a great deal, but those who want to use health as an argument must recognise that the expert opinion supports those of us on my side of the argument.
Conservative Members are entitled to their opinion and--I do not mean the term derogatively--to their prejudices. However, without scientific opinion to back them up, they should not try to impose their views on other people.
Other arguments in favour of decriminalisation have been framed in terms of human rights. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham talked about reality, so he will know that the European Court of Human Rights--which is not a European Union institution--is about to find against this country in that respect and that the European Commission of Human Rights has instructed the Government to let the House think again. So there are judicial reasons for the proposed equalisation in the age of consent. None of the hon. Members who say that the age of 16 is too young have tabled an amendment to raise the age of consent for girls, which at least would be consistent, if unrealistic.
Finally, Conservative Members implied that most predatory older men are homosexual. Of course there are predatory men who are homosexual, and I deplore some of the storylines recently on television, just as I have serious reservations about the contents of the famous Nabokov novel that has been made into a film. However, I do not recommend book-burning on that basis. The fact is that there are more predatory men also on the look out for girls--the proportions are probably similar.
I must tell the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) claimed not long ago that that was not so, and that, in fact, 15-year-old girls were recognised as hunting for older men and wanting relationships with them. The people who have spoken against the Bill on predation seem to want it both ways, but they cannot have it every which way. There is predation, and it should be condemned. However, it cannot be distinguished by sexuality. More sex education would give young people the power to say no.
Those without power, such as those in care homes, are entitled to the protection provided by clauses 2 to 4, and I agree with all that my right hon. Friend the Member for
Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said on that. My only concern on those clauses is how wide ranging they are. They cover teachers, even those who do not have a direct educational relationship with the people with whom they are having consensual sexual relations. Disciplinary codes already exist to punish behaviour that is wrong. To bring in the criminal law seems to be going too far.
In Committee, I raised the problem of Scottish higher education institutions, at which the majority of first-year students are 17. Anyone, even a postgraduate involved in teaching, will be subject to the Bill's provisions if he has sexual relations with a 17-year-old whom he knows to be an undergraduate, even if he is not teaching that student, but is doing some teaching as a postgraduate student.
A 22-year-old and a 17-year-old--and in many cases people meet their future life partners at university--will be subject to the provisions of the Bill. Even if not prosecuted, they could be subject to worry, guilt and potential blackmail. It is strange to set apart 17-year-olds--both male and female--so that they will not be able to have relationships with their postgraduate peers. I hope that the other place will try to get rid of some of those problems.
I am sorry that the Minister is not here, as I need not have made my final point if he had allowed me to intervene even once on his closing remarks during one of our earlier debates. The point that I want to put on record is this: the Minister outlined the Government's motives for introducing the Bill. They had been forced to do so by the European Commission of Human Rights, and they would give the House a free vote on the age of consent. The welcome provision to decriminalise under-16s would provide protection for the young. There was, it seemed, no intention of recognising the other reason--equally valid in my opinion--that there is currently discrimination between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The Government rejected other amendments to equalise the law between heterosexuals and homosexuals outwith protection of children issues.
I hope that the Government will be clear about their intentions. I have spoken to many people outside the House who have felt that that was not what they understood the position of the Labour party to be. In the party's election manifesto, there was a commitment
The Government should be clear whether the gay community--and those like myself who are outside the gay community, but who feel strongly about the issue on human rights grounds--is correct in understanding the Minister to mean that there will be no wider reform in this Parliament and that the motives for this reform on under 16-year-olds did not include equality.
"to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
Yet the Government have said that seeking to provide equality in criminal legislation during this Parliament is not on their agenda. Any measures that are taken will be a side effect of child protection, which is, of course, valuable in itself.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |