---

Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): I very much share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). Although I wish to speak to amendment No. 192, which I tabled, I realise that since it was devised the hon. Lady has tabled amendments that are more clearly drafted and suit the purpose of dealing with teenage sexual activity more effectively.

Members of the parliamentary Labour party have received a briefing note on the Bill today that states:

"The age of consent for all sexual activity is 16. This is well known, well respected and well understood".

Well, I disagree. I think that most people believe that the age of consent relates to penetrative sexual activity, not to the sort of thing that many young people get up to as part of their normal activity—the sort of kissing and cuddling or even heavy petting in which young people engage, and in which I suspect many hon. Members engaged when they were younger. Many people would be shocked to discover that we are introducing laws that will criminalise such activity.

The Minister told me in a letter that

"under the existing law, children are not prosecuted for engaging in harmless sexual activity and"

the Government

"do not expect this Bill to make any difference".

He added that the Government would introduce guidance to ensure that that was the case. Of course, he repeated those assurances in Committee. Although the Government state that their aim is not to criminalise young people, that is exactly what the Bill will do. The reason why nothing serious happens at the moment is that, as I have said, the law is not understood or is ignored.

I am very concerned that the new offence replaces old terms, such as "indecency", with the much broader and more easily proved term, "sexual activity". As other Members have said, these measures will do nothing to enhance the reputation of parliamentarians among young people, who will be alarmed that we are considering criminalising the sort of activity that many of us will have engaged in when we were young. Even if the guidance makes criminal charges unlikely, a new law

3 Nov 2003 : Column 620

sends strong messages even when not enforced—the obvious example is section 28, which had a blighting effect on education about homosexuality for a whole generation of children.

8.45 pm

Finally, will my hon. Friend tell me how complaints to police using the literal wording of the legislation will be avoided? Is he not concerned that third parties could easily bring forward complaints under this legislation as it stands, causing distress to young people involved and wasting police time? I hope that the Government will consider introducing amendments that have the effect of ensuring that young people are safeguarded from inappropriate sexual advances, while at the same time not criminalising normal sexual activity in which young people engage, in the way that the Bill currently proposes.

Mr. Grieve: I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made on both sides of the House about the problems that this part of the Bill has presented. On Second Reading, I said to the Home Secretary, in response to his challenge, that I hoped that one of us—I hoped that it might be me—might obtain the magnum of champagne that he had promised to anyone who solved the conundrum of how to deal with providing protection for those aged between 13 and 16 while not overtly criminalising activities that everybody regards as perfectly normal. Amendment No. 145 is my last attempt at doing that. It is similar to the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), and seeks, with an age difference of two years, to permit sexual touching that does not involve penetration. It is a simple amendment, and if it were accepted by the Government, it would meet that problem.

I cannot escape the fact that, as we debated this matter in Committee, it became clear to me that if my amendment were accepted, it would decriminalise activities between a 16-year-old and a 14-year-old or a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old that many might regard as extremely undesirable. The question that I asked the Minister in Committee was: notwithstanding that, might it be proper to say that however undesirable it was, it was not a matter on which the criminal law should be invoked if it were to happen? Other sanctions might have to be applied—or other disciplinary regulations imposed—if it were in a school setting where it should not take place.

I accept that this is a big problem. I can see that the Minister has a point, which he made perfectly properly in Committee. There will be occasions when the nature of the relationship, and the anxiety about the relative absence of proper consent because of a dominance by one party over the other, gives cause for serious concern.

I must therefore say reluctantly that the Minister has persuaded me at least to the extent that I am not willing to press my amendment to a vote this evening if it does not meet with the Government's approval. I am not saying that I am happy with the situation: I remain as concerned about the matter as I was when I first raised it on Second Reading. Having said that, I accept that the Government's approach to this matter has been

3 Nov 2003 : Column 621

reasonable and measured, even though the end result remains unsatisfactory. I suspect that the Minister shares that view, but sometimes I fear that Parliament may simply be left with unsatisfactory consequences of perfectly acceptable legislation.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I will deal with clause 13 and the amendments to it in a moment.

On amendment No. 187, I fully understand the desire to ensure that young offenders who are at risk and in need of care receive appropriate advice and protection. However, for the reasons that I outlined in Committee and that I would explain again now if we had longer, I remain unconvinced that imposing a statutory requirement would add anything to the current arrangements. I want to encourage the statutory services and voluntary organisations to continue to develop those arrangements.

Many of the amendments exemplify an issue that has focused my mind for the best part of the past six months. Since Second Reading, in Committee and through the summer, I have sought with officials, colleagues and others to try to find a solution to the problem that we face. I wish to place on record my appreciation to all those who participated in that—whether they were politicians, non-governmental organisations, officials or whoever. A genuine attempt was made to try to find a solution, but I have concluded that the solution that people were looking for is simply not available.

The Bill tries to balance concerns about innocent, consensual sexual activity between under-16s with the need to provide protection for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was right to point out the level of sexual assaults carried out on children by other children. In that context, I visited the Haven project in London, one of the sexual assault referral centres—[Interruption.] I am advised that it is in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. Such is the level of concern, the centre has found it necessary to develop a specialist service for children.

I want to re-emphasise that my aim is not to criminalise children and young people, but to protect them and ensure that we do not have confusion but clarity in the law. I know that hon. Members on both sides have tried to find different ways of resolving the problem. The first was by reference to age, but we immediately hit the problem that age is not a proxy for maturity. Children and young people of a similar age may have very different levels of maturity.

The amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) refers to people of a "similar age", but there is no definition of what we mean by "similar". Does it mean a difference of one or two years? Such issues are extraordinarily difficult. Amendment No. 117 refers to children under 13 and to children over 13, but it does not tell us what we would do with children who actually are 13. Many difficulties arise from trying to resolve the issue by reference to age.

Others have tried to resolve the problem by reference to type of activity, drawing a distinction between penetrative and non-penetrative sexual activity.

3 Nov 2003 : Column 622

However, there are many forms of non-penetrative sexual activity which, when undertaken by children, would be extremely serious. We cannot, as Members of the House, ignore their seriousness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre tried to resolve the problem by referring to the welfare of the children, but whose welfare does that mean? What happens if issues of welfare conflict between the two children involved? There is also a public interest in such decisions.

Mr. Dawson: I do not find my hon. Friend's argument at all conclusive. Balancing the interests and welfare of the children concerned will be a prime consideration in any case.

Paul Goggins: It will be a consideration in relation to deciding whether to prosecute. The interests of children are taken account of at all stages in the criminal justice system. Nothing is added by my hon. Friend's amendment. The interests, welfare and background of those who commit offences when they are children are always taken into account in decisions about whether to prosecute and in the outcome in court if they are found guilty.

---