Clause 16 - Sections 10 to 15: marriage exception
Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
10:15 am
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield, Conservative)
The Solicitor-General has been helpful and has provided a degree of reassurance about the Government's reasoning. I tabled the amendment because of my slight uncertainty about the territoriality of the clause, which was why I included the term ''outside the United Kingdom''. I accept that that is the wrong issue and that it is an all-or-nothing clause. We either delete it entirely or we keep it.
I remain curiously unhappy about the clause. It was noted that this matter was not debated in the other place. I do not wish to cast aspersions on the age of those in the other place, but there is a generation gap—a good thing in the context of legislation—between the other place and ourselves. I have no doubt that they did not focus on the clause because, when they examined it, they saw that it simply repeated the existing law, given that such sexual intercourse would be lawful because it occurs within marriage whereas the old offence of unlawful sexual intercourse applied to intercourse outside marriage. Given the circumstances, they did not see any reason to intervene.
This may be a generational matter, but we are producing a Sexual Offences Bill for the 21st century. We are making a number of radical changes to how the state views sexual activity. We have gone to great lengths to ensure that the legislation does not, for example, discriminate against homosexuals, which the previous law did. We are going to considerable lengths to introduce new offences because we think that children need protection—we will, for example, consider sexual grooming in a moment, and we have chosen to decriminalise some other areas.
We have had a lengthy debate about appropriate sexual behaviour for under-16s, although we know that many under-16s will not behave appropriately. I tabled amendments concerning the behaviour of children aged between 13 and 16 acting consensually with others of similar ages. They might have gone some way to meeting the issues in this clause, but not entirely, because they would not have permitted full sexual intercourse.
I believe in the sanctity of marriage, I am a practising member of the Church of England and I appreciate the need to respect other people's cultures. However, taking all those things into account, a bit of me still says, ''I cannot see the rational basis for someone coming into this country being exempt from our laws, which state that a child under the age of 16 should not be allowed to have full sexual relations, because they are married. We live in a world in which more than the odd individual will enter this country. Large numbers of immigrants will enter this country for long-term settlement, and we are in serious danger of ending up with two-tier systems of justice. What is prohibited to one section of society will be allowed to another on more than an exceptional, one-off basis. Quite a few people in a community will enjoy a right—some would say an abusive right—that other people do not have.
It is time to examine the matter again. I appreciate that such legislation interferes with private rights, but I am bound to say to the Solicitor-General that if the success of a marriage is based on whether it is permissible for sexual intercourse to occur although one of the parties is under the age of 16, that marriage's future may not be rosy. We know the remark, ''Absence makes the heart grow fonder,'' but I do not know whether abstinence makes the heart grow fonder. Such arguments could be advanced in relation to a child. Given what we are seeking to achieve, I am not persuaded that the exception is right.