| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Bill is long overdue for the statute book. I hope that the House will again give it the overwhelming support that it deserves, and that we can pass it to the other place. We have had ample discussion on it.
Mr. Straw:
We need to move now to action, to ensure equality and justice, and better protection for our children and young people throughout the United Kingdom.
2.33 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): As was the case the last time this measure was debated in the House, the Opposition will be having a free vote tonight. The concerns that I shall express are my own, but I know that they are shared by many Opposition Members, and I should be glad if the Minister would address them in his winding-up speech.
My own opposition to the Bill is probably fairly well known. I am glad to have the opportunity to give some of the reasons for my opposition to it, but first I should like to look at the handling of the Bill and raise certain questions about that.
It is very unfortunate that the Government have decided to curtail debate on the Bill. Today will be the only opportunity that Members of the House will have to discuss the matter--unless, of course, amendments are made in another place. However, in the House there will be no Committee stage, no Report and no debate on Third Reading.
Given the interventions that have already been made on the Home Secretary, I should have thought that he would have wished to have seen a much fuller discussion in the House of the adequacy of at least the abuse of trust provisions in the Bill. There should have been an opportunity for concerned Members to table amendments to reflect some of the worries that were raised in the short time for which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking.
Although I acknowledge that the measure has been debated more than once by the House during the current Parliament--and, indeed, in another place--that is not in itself a valid argument for cutting off the proper scrutiny of the House, even if the Government have decided to invoke the Parliament Acts.
On Monday, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), said in the House that it would be open to another place to suggest amendments to the Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out at the time, the Government have denied that opportunity to hon. Members, despite the fact that the Parliament Act 1911 makes provision for the suggestions procedure. Therefore, I wonder whether the procedure that has been adopted is the most wholly appropriate, given the concerns that exist.
For example, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) wished to table an amendment to the Bill, but has been denied that opportunity. That amendment would have addressed one of the concerns that has been raised about the European convention, because it would have equalised the age of consent at 18. The Government should have at least given the House the opportunity to examine that issue, and to examine the arguments for and against which hon. Members might wish to make. If the Government wish to base their argument in favour of the Bill on the fact that the House represents the democratic will of the people, perhaps the Government should have allowed hon. Members from both sides a little more democracy in considering its provisions.
The reason why the Government have resorted to the Parliament Acts is that these measures were rejected after a long debate and very substantial consideration by another place. Similarly, the Government's proposal to abolish section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was recently rejected in another place. Perhaps, when the Government reflect on those two decisions, they may come to the view--as I have long come to the view--that the views that have been expressed in another place on both these issues better represent the views of the majority of the people of this country than do the actions of the Government.
There is also the matter of Scotland, which was briefly touched on by the Home Secretary. Clause 7 states that the Bill will extend to Scotland as a pre-commencement enactment, despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament
now has full competence in this area. I should be grateful if the Minister, in his winding-up speech, would address some of the issues that arise from that.
Will the Bill, in so far as it concerns what is now a devolved matter, be a unique case, or is the Minister aware of any plans by the Scottish Parliament to amend the provisions of the Bill, if enacted, which it could certainly do? Are there plans for different commencement dates in Scotland, and will it be the Scottish Executive or the Home Secretary who decides on the commencement? Can he confirm that the only reason why this legislation is now to extend to Scotland as a result of whatever will is expressed in the House, is to allow the current Bill to be pushed through unchanged under the Parliament Acts?
I shall now discuss the substance of the Bill. The age of consent is one of the major issues of conscience, and I know that there is a wide range of views on both sides of the House, and that those views are sincerely held. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said during the previous Session, I believe that we should continue to give the protection of the law to vulnerable young people, and very especially to young people in their mid-teens who may not have a fully developed sense of their sexuality. I believe that it is appropriate that the age of consent for homosexual acts should allow for that fact, and I believe, as my right hon. Friend did during the previous Session, that there is widespread support in the country for such a position.
We must, after all, remember that the age of consent for homosexual acts was reduced from 21 to 18 as recently as 1994. I do not believe that issues of equality should override the imperative to protect young people; and it is, in my view, wrong that a young person of 16 should be free in law to embark on a course of action that might lead to a life style that would separate him, permanently perhaps--
Mr. Ben Bradshaw (Exeter):
Has the right hon. Lady ever met anyone, gay or straight, who has told her in all honesty that their sexual orientation was a matter of choice? She has just used again the term "life style", which implies that it is a matter of choice. She should know better.
Miss Widdecombe:
Whether people choose to practise any particular way of life is a matter of choice. What they are inclined towards may not be, but what they choose to do--heterosexually or homosexually--is a matter of choice. I am never going to contend that heterosexuals have no choice over what they do; that would be a false contention. I will not patronise homosexuals by pretending that they have no choice, either.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton):
We are debating essentially a matter of degree. My right hon. Friend said that it was only a few years ago that the age of consent moved from 21 to 18. Has that made any difference to people's conduct?
Miss Widdecombe:
I believe that it probably sent quite a powerful signal. It is not a signal that I want to reinforce or to expand on in the course of any further changes.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Miss Widdecombe:
I would like to finish the paragraph as I was in the middle of it. I shall then give
It is in my view wrong--I stand by that position--that a young person of 16 should be free in law to embark on a course of action that might lead to a life style that would separate him, perhaps permanently, from the mainstream life of marriage and family. In particular, I believe that such a person needs protection from older men.
Mr. Bercow:
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) was, to put it mildly, a trifle opaque. Would she be good enough to tell the House to what specific damaging consequences the reduction from the age of 21 to 18 has led?
Miss Widdecombe:
I think that that was one of a series of deliberate measures and of practices in society that has led to a signal that there is somehow equal validity between the homosexual life style and marriage and family. That measure was a part of a signal that I personally reject.
As I made clear in my opening remarks, I am aware that some Conservative Members do not share those views, but the views that I am putting need to be put. We have had a clear speech in favour of the Bill--a personal commitment as well as a political imperative--from the Home Secretary. It is right and proper that there should be an opposing speech giving the other point of view. That is what I intend to do.
Miss Widdecombe:
I am now going to move on to the next paragraph.
Most parents, I believe, want to see their children grow up and raise a family. Overwhelmingly--[Interruption.] Perhaps people do not agree. Overwhelmingly, that is how most children and young people see their future. I would therefore like to point the House towards a topical argument on the subject and one that I hope will be addressed further in the debate.
I remind the House of the words of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), when he spoke on the procedural motion. He said that, since the Bill was last considered by the House,
"nothing has changed that would affect the provisions then agreed."--[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 89.]
However, at least one factor in the equation has changed. The Government appear, as the Prime Minister restated in the House yesterday, to be fully intent on abolishing section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. That move by the Government changes the context in which we must view the provisions of this Bill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |