division_name: Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
motion: <p>Order for Second Reading read. 
  
   
  
  <p>
   I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  <p> 
  
   The Bill falls into two quite separate parts. Both apply to the United Kingdom as a whole. The first, in clause 1, is the issue of the age of consent for male homosexuals. That is a subject on which we all have our own personal views. As on previous occasions, it will be subject to a free vote. I will be voting in favour of equalising the age for male homosexuals with that of heterosexuals at 16. That is because I believe in equality before the law.
  <p> 
  
   The second, separate, issue is abuse of trust. That arises from widely shared concerns about the need to protect vulnerable young people. We are dealing with the matter in this Bill because of the very strong views about the vulnerability of 16 and 17-year-olds of both sexes expressed during debates on equalising the age of consent held in the House and another place last summer. Proposals to change the age of consent brought that concern to the surface. We decided, therefore, that it was only right to deal with it when we brought the issue of age of consent before this House for a second time. I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House for the tenacious and constructive way in which they raised the issue.
   
  
  <p> 
      Mr. Donald Anderson  (Swansea, East):  
   My right hon. Friend speaks of equality before the law; but cannot the principle of equality often give way to broader public interest considerations, such as the protection of younger people? Given the widespread concern about older men luring younger men into a life style that is not their own, will my right hon. Friend explain why he did not include safeguards in the relevant clause of the Bill that became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and why the safeguards are now so limited--excluding, for example, vicars and boy scout leaders? Why is he being so timid and so limited on that subject? Given the importance of the protection issue, why did he not consider it earlier?
   
  
  <p>
  I understand that as far as it goes, but I maintain--and other hon. Members agree--that the provisions of the sex offenders register should not apply prospectively from the time that the offence for which a person is included in the register ceases to be an offence. That would be bizarre. We are not proposing letting people out of prison--that is a separate question--but we are asking whether they should remain subject to the provisions of the sex offenders register. Indeed, I believe that most hon. Members support clause 1 because they do not consider that consenting sexual activity between men over 16, in which there is no abuse of trust by an older person in loco parentis, should ever have been covered by the sex offenders register.
  <p>Question put,  That the Bill be now read a Second time:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 313, Noes 130.
  