Paul
Goggins: I have not given detailed consideration to that
issue. However, I recall—as my hon. Friend does—that in
the debates on the Sexual Offences Bill, there was a retrospective
element in relation to those who had been criminalised but who would
not be caught by the new legislation. I am prepared to look at the
detail of that, and to write to my hon. Friend and other members of the
Committee with my
conclusions. The focus
of my speech has been the main order. The draft Sexual Offences
(Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order is by and large a
short, technical piece that allows the main order and the Sexual
Offences Act 2003 to work together in a UK context. It also amends the
list of offences that attract the sex offender notification
requirements of part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act, and adds the new
offences to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for the purposes of sentences
for public
protection. In
conclusion, I am pleased to bring before the Committee this fundamental
reform of the criminal law on sexual offences in Northern Ireland. The
new framework of sexual offences is about better protection for all
against unacceptable sexual behaviour. It will improve protection for
children, young people and other vulnerable groups against sexual
abuse, and it will help to tackle prostitution and commercial sexual
exploitation. I commend both orders to the
Committee. 4.46
pm Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I welcome you to
the Committee, Mr.
Atkinson. As
we have said so many times on statutory instrument Committees, this is
a rather cumbersome way of introducing legislation because there may be
parts that one agrees with and parts that one disagrees with. That is
very much the case today, in that even if I do not necessarily disagree
with the most contentious part—the age of consent—it
certainly seems that an awful lot of people in Northern Ireland do,
while welcoming the general emphasis and scope of the
order. Very
few people could disagree with what the Minister is trying to achieve.
If the order adds protection to many vulnerable people, particularly
younger people, we of course welcome it. However, the age of consent
seems to be a contentious issue. While the Minister did his best to
explain a different meaning of “age of consent” to
us—I probably was aware of what it meant—and while I
understand that he is looking at it not from the point of view of the
young person, but from that of the person who would become a criminal
if the other person were under the age of 16, feelings are strong in
Northern Ireland. People have contacted me about that, and that puts me
in difficulty with regard to the measure.
The Minister rightly makes a good
case for uniformity across the United Kingdom on such an issue, but
there are certain differences in legislation between Northern Ireland
and England and Wales, and between Scotland and England and Wales.
Scotland has a slightly different marriage law, for example. People can
get married at 16 without parental consent in Scotland, at Gretna
Green, whereas in England and Wales they cannot. We do not seem to have
run into too many difficulties over that difference. However, I
understand that the Minister desires that criminal law, in particular,
should be
uniform. When
I looked into the issue further, I discovered that with parental
consent one can get married at 16 in Northern Ireland. It appeared that
sexual consent could only be offered at 17, but in a marriage situation
it can apparently be given at 16, so there is a complication. While
initially I was persuaded that if one can get married at 16, the age of
consent in Northern Ireland should be 16, looking more closely, I found
that there is a complication. Therefore, that argument would not
necessarily attract me to support the
order. Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree
that, where both individuals in a sexual relationship are aged 16 and
there is an ensuing pregnancy, neither of those 16-year-olds, if they
are unmarried, is likely to be able to take emotional, practical or
financial responsibility for a child? If the age of consent is changed
legally, it could encourage more sexual activity in very young people
who are not in a position to take responsibility for the
outcome.
Mr.
Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that
powerful point. Most people would agree that 16 is very young. A
16-year-old has not even reached the age when he or she can vote. We
must be careful about sending the wrong message to people. When the
Government reduced the classification of cannabis, to use an analogy,
not only did it make people more vulnerable, but it sent out the wrong
message. We have to be careful about the message we send from this
place. Parliament is about not just setting the rules and regulations,
but sending messages. That concerns me, partly for the reasons that my
hon. Friend
described. Having said
all that, let me explain my biggest problem with the order. Before the
Assembly was reinstated, we dealt with an awful lot of important issues
in these Committees. We dealt with water rates, changing the number of
councils in Northern Ireland, education and quite a few other matters.
I frequently asked why, if the Government were, quite rightly, so
determined to get the Assembly up and running again, and the prospects
of that were so good, it was necessary to take through so many pieces
of legislation in Committee. Surely it should have been left to the
people of Northern Ireland to decide those
issues. I feel a little
bit the same today. We are assured that devolution of policing and
criminal justice is, to paraphrase the Minister, just around the
corner. The Secretary of State and the Minister are hopeful that it
will not be too far away. The St Andrews deadline has already been
passed. I know that the Government are anxious that these issues are
devolved. Is it so necessary, therefore, to introduce this measure now,
especially when it seems to go against what an awful lot
of people in Northern Ireland, including politicians, think? I accept
that that does not apply to all the order, but it applies to the
important part. I have a bit of difficulty with that. I can see the
logic of the order. It contains many sensible things that everyone
would agree with. It clarifies many things. It puts into statute what
was previously common law. I do not have a huge difficulty with the age
of consent being 16, if that ties in with England and Wales, but I am
concerned about the signal that it sends. I am concerned about the fact
that the Government went out to consultation, but appear to be ignoring
the responses to part of that consultation exercise. For all those
reasons I have a little bit of difficulty in supporting the order as it
is. I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say about
it. 4.54
pm David
Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): I welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Atkinson. I will not detain the Committee long as I know
that many hon. Members wish to get away to another meeting. It will
come as no surprise to the Minister that I oppose the order. Although
it contains several welcome proposals, which he has outlined, the
proposal to lower the age of consent for sexual activity in Northern
Ireland from 17 to 16 is totally wrong-headed. It is dangerous
and overwhelmingly opposed by the people of Northern Ireland and their
elected
representatives. The
procedure that the Government are using to legislate for lowering the
age of consent is intended for non-controversial issues. We cannot
amend the order and, strictly speaking, the procedure today is merely
to consider the order. At the end of our proceedings, I will ask for a
vote. The proposal to lower the age of consent is so controversial that
the Committee should oppose the order, so that it can be removed and
re-tabled. The
Minister mentioned consultation. Between July and October 2006, the
Northern Ireland Office held its first public consultation on reforming
the law on sexual offences in the Province. It proposed lowering the
age of consent. Among the many responses, an overwhelming
number—more than 4,000—opposed a number of proposals,
including the plan to lower the age of consent. That is recorded in the
Northern Ireland Office summary of responses to the consultation paper.
That is an unprecedented number of responses to a public consultation
in Northern Ireland. In contrast, only 24 respondents supported a
reduction in the age of consent. The second Northern Ireland Office
consultation on the draft order closed in February 2008. Of the 369
responses that the Minister referred to, more than 93 per cent.
supported the retention of the current age of consent. Less than 2 per
cent. advocated lowering the age of
consent. The opposition
of the Northern Ireland people to lowering the age of consent was
confirmed by a recent public opinion poll, which showed that 73 per
cent. of adults in Northern Ireland oppose any reduction in the age of
consent. That includes 80 per cent. of the Protestant community and 72
per cent. of the Catholic
community. As the
Minister of State said, the Northern Ireland Assembly established an ad
hoc Committee to consider the draft legislation and devise a formal
response. It considered written and oral evidence from interested
bodies, the Minister of State and representatives of the Northern
Ireland Office. The Committee finalised its report and presented it to
the Assembly for approval. The report included the following
recommendation in paragraph
50: “The
Committee strongly recommends that there be no change to the current
age of consent of
17.” Assembly Members
considered the Committee’s report and proposed that it be
submitted to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as the
Assembly’s formal response to the consultation. The motion was
carried unanimously and no division was
required. Following the
endorsement of the report by the Northern Ireland Assembly and its
submission to the Secretary of State, four Assembly Members—two
nationalists and two Unionists—tabled a no day motion calling on
the Secretary of State not to lower the age of consent, but to maintain
it at 17 years. That motion has been signed by the majority of MLAs
right across the political divide. It is currently the no day motion
with the largest number of signatures on the Assembly website. It is
the only motion signed by a majority of elected Members. Clearly, if
this issue was to be decided by the Northern Ireland Assembly, the age
of consent would not be reduced to
16. Dr.
Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman
comment on why it is felt that 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland are
less mature than those elsewhere in the UK? Should this matter be
devolved, is it the intention of the Northern Ireland parties to
reverse the
change?
David
Simpson: I will take the second question first. I believe
that the Assembly would reverse the change. The feeling in the Northern
Ireland Assembly is very strong and it has a major issue with this
proposal. On the question of maturity, we have one of the largest
problems with under-age pregnancies in the UK. The proposal to change
the age of consent to 16 causes concern across the
Province.
Chris
Bryant: With respect, I suggest that the hon.
Gentleman’s last comment gives away his whole argument. The
number of teenage pregnancies in Northern Ireland is already very high,
and the UK has the highest level in Europe by a considerable way. If
youngsters are already having sex at 16 and 15, why criminalise their
behaviour?
David
Simpson: To criminalise it would perhaps be wrong, but I
believe that 17 carries more maturity—that is the overwhelming
opinion of the Northern Ireland Assembly and of organisations to which
I shall refer in a moment—which is why the age of consent should
remain at 17. If I can continue with my speech, I might be able to
explain myself a little better for the hon.
Gentleman. Mrs.
Ann Cryer (Keighley) (Lab): I would be interested to hear
whether the Northern Ireland Assembly has tried to gauge the opinion of
the 16-year-olds whom they are attempting to preclude from
today’s measures.
David
Simpson: I would have to ask whether this Committee has
tried to ask that question through the Northern Ireland Office. As I
said to the hon. Member for Rhondda, I shall explain in a moment that
young people have been consulted through various
organisations. Clearly,
if the proposal was to go to a vote in the Assembly, the age of consent
would remain at 17. The concerns of the general public are echoed by
what might be termed as the key stakeholder organisations—the
Northern Ireland rape crisis and sexual abuse centre, Love for Life and
leading young people’s organisations have all publicly stated
their opposition to lowering the age of consent. Commenting on the age
of consent proposal, Eileen Calder, the director of the rape crisis and
sexual abuse centre,
stated: “Our
concern is to protect vulnerable young men and women from older sexual
predators...What we are concerned about is men in their 20s, 30s, 40s
and older preying on young people. And that applies to the gay
community as well as the heterosexual
community”. Love
for Life is a charity providing relationships and sexuality education
to young people in Northern Ireland. In relation to the consent issue
and sexual education as a whole, it delivers programmes to and consults
more than 20,000 young people every year. Its chief executive, Dr.
Richard Barr, has publicly opposed the plan to lower the age of
consent, stating
that “lowering the age of
consent from 17 to 16 in Northern Ireland will send out the wrong
message to young
people”. Northern
Ireland’s largest young people’s organisations, which we
all know about—the Boys’ Brigade, the Girls’
Brigade and the Girls Friendly Society—have voiced grave
concerns about lowering the age of consent. Opposition in Northern
Ireland to lowering the age of consent cuts right across traditional
divisions. It is a travesty of democracy that the order continues to
retain proposals to lower the age of consent when the findings of the
public consultations and the cross-party opposition of locally elected
representatives have been so
clear. What
was the point in the Government holding public consultations on the
issue if they had no intention of considering the views of the people,
and why are we debating such a controversial measure in a small
Committee that is powerless to do anything about it? Neither the
Minister of State nor the Northern Ireland Office have provided any
positive justification for lowering the age of consent in Northern
Ireland, except for consistency across the United Kingdom. When
addressing the ad hoc Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the
Minister of State was specifically asked if there were technical or
legal reasons for lowering it. He
replied: “I
would not argue that there are technical and legal reasons why it would
be difficult to have a different age of consent in Northern
Ireland.” By his own
admission, he has provided no technical or legal reasons for the
proposed change. It is
worth remembering that the age of consent in Northern Ireland has been
17 since it was raised from 16 by a previous Stormont Parliament in
1950. Despite an almost 60-year period of what the Government call
inconsistency, the NIO has not cited a single occasion when such
inconsistency caused legal difficulty.
The Republic of Ireland is the
only jurisdiction to share a land border with Northern Ireland, and the
age of consent in the Republic is 17. If the age of consent is
reduced in Northern Ireland, that could create confusion among young
people living in border areas and would give sexual predators living in
the Republic an incentive to cross the border to abuse young people in
Northern Ireland. That incentive does not exist at present, but many
nationalist politicians have already highlighted concerns about that
issue. Mickey Brady, a Sinn Fein MLA, was quoted in The Irish
News on 15 January 2008 as saying that “sexual predators may be encouraged
to take advantage. There are people out there who may well take
advantage of that situation and that is a real fear that young people
would like to have addressed...As it stands at the moment there
will be a disparity”. Mary
Bradley, a Social Democratic and Labour party MLA, told The Irish
News on 1 May 2008
that “it is frustrating
that despite opposition from many local assembly members this is still
going through the House of Commons. Now we have the ridiculous
situation that in border areas we have two different ages of consent
and that could be open to
abuse”. Legal
age limits are founded on the principle of protection. Young people
under 18 are prevented by laws from engaging in activities such as
gambling and buying certain solvents. Until recently they could buy
knives, but that is also now illegal, again because the law deems that
to be dangerous for young people until they attain a particular
age—18 in this instance. The Government obviously felt that
legality encouraged a certain type of behaviour, so they discouraged it
by making it illegal. Therefore, they have to accept that legalising
sex with 16-year-olds will encourage it.
For the reasons given, I ask the
Minister to withdraw the order and encourage members of the Committee
to register their protest by voting with me on
this. 5.8
pm Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I welcome you to the
chair, Mr. Atkinson. I hope that the Minister’s
confidence is justified and that policing and justice will soon be
devolved to the Assembly so that decisions on important issues such as
this can be taken in Northern Ireland. I hope that this is the last
time we discuss a thick and detailed order in such a Committee.
However, until the political parties in Northern Ireland agree on the
devolution of policing and justice, such legislation has to be approved
through the House of Commons, and we have to exercise our own judgment
if we are members of the Committee involved.
I certainly welcome and support
the order, which is the outcome of a fundamental review of the
legislation on sexual offences in Northern Ireland and aims to
modernise the law. I welcome the codifying of all the sexual offences
in Northern Ireland into one statutory order and hope that will make it
easier for those involved in the use of sexual offences legislation to
use it effectively. I support the order’s provisions, so I will
not go through them in detail, but I want to raise a few points with
the Minister and hope that he will be able to provide the Committee
with some
clarification. My first
point relates to articles 37 to 40 and picks up on a concern that was
raised by the Assembly’s ad hoc Committee. The Committee stated
that it was “persuaded by
arguments in favour of equalising the penalties for causing or inciting
abuse of a child through prostitution and paying for the sexual
services of a child”.
The Committee points out an apparent
anomaly—that the perpetrator of the latter offence could receive
a sentence of life imprisonment, whereas the person who controls the
child could receive a maximum sentence of 14 years. In their evidence
to the Committee, the NSPCC and Barnardo’s argued that the
tariff for both offences should be the same, and that it should be the
higher tariff of life imprisonment. I agree with those submissions,
because it seems illogical that a person who controls a child and
exploits them again and again could attract a shorter sentence than a
person who pays once for sex with that child. Will the Minister explain
that apparent anomaly in the
order? Will
the Minister clarify the definition of “persistent” in
article 61, which relates to persistent soliciting? The Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which received Royal Assent a few
weeks ago, contained three clauses relating to prostitution that were
removed in the Lords. One clause had provided a statutory definition of
soliciting that is “persistently” carried out. It defined
“persistent soliciting” as behaviour that takes
place “on two or more
occasions in any period of three
months”. That definition
would have broadened the offence beyond the previous interpretation of
persistence, which
was “soliciting on two or
more occasions in the same
evening”. Concerns were
raised that broadening the offence in that way would increase the
vulnerability of sex workers. As a result, the clauses were removed
from the legislation. However, the word “persistent” is
in the order, so I would like the Minister to clarify how the term will
be interpreted in Northern
Ireland. Another
concern raised by the ad hoc Committee of the Assembly, and also by
organisations that gave evidence to that Committee, was how section 5
of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 will operate in
relation to the provisions of the order. Section 5 requires the
reporting of an arrestable offence to the police. In its evidence to
the Committee, the NSPCC said that its research into the operation of
section 5 showed that there was little evidence to suggest that it
better protected children and young people, and that it might be
counter-productive in terms of young people’s access to
services. Will the Minister explain why the Government have not taken
the opportunity presented by the order to repeal or amend section 5 of
the 1967 Act? That is particularly relevant, as parallel legislation in
England and Wales has been
repealed. I
want to raise the issue of children who engage in sexually harmful
behaviour. Approximately one third of adult sex offenders start
offending when they are under 18, and research has shown the success of
early intervention and treatment. Children who sexually harm must have
access to treatment programmes in the context of multi-professional
assessment. Will the Minister explain why the opportunity was not taken
in this legislation to address that matter? Can he also explain why the
order was not amended to take up the NSPCC’s recommendation to
make provision for a requirement on the Secretary of State to issue
mandatory guidance in the form of a prosecution protocol that would set
out processes and considerations for making informed prosecution
decisions, and the use of discretionary youth conference arrangements,
which are available under part 4 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act
2002?
I support lowering the age of
consent in Northern Ireland to 16. It is important to emphasise that
the order sets 16 as the age at which it is no longer a criminal
offence to engage in sexual activity. It does not encourage young
people to engage in sexual activity. It is often the most vulnerable
young people who engage in early sexual activity, so it is vital that
they feel that they can access information and advice about their
sexual health. It is important that the change in the law is
implemented in tandem with a strategic approach to the sexual health
needs of young people. I thank the Minister for introducing the order
and look forward to his responses to the issues I
raised. 5.15
pm
| 
