I also oppose the amendment for some of the reasons the Minister of State has outlined but those very reasons should give us pause to consider the operation of the Bill in these terms. I have always believed, for example, that a far better way of dealing with these issues is the principle of consent. I am aware that is awkward because it would have to go to a court and a judge, or some kind of panel, would have to determine whether consent actually existed but the Minister of State said it all when she said that any of these lines are arbitrarily drawn, and when these lines are arbitrarily drawn there will be cases where moral injustice or damage is done to young people.
I notice the Minister of State referred to the girl under 15 years but this is not confined to girls. There is no recognition or understanding of the whole area of gay sexuality in the Bill and my experience of this area, in founding counselling organisations and so on, is that whether society likes it very frequently and, in most cases, viewed positively by the subject, a young gay man's experience is in partnership with somebody who is some years older and seen by the younger person as a secure and reassuring entry into the full expression of sexuality. I do not believe there is any understanding of this fact in the Bill because the Minister of State simply referred to "a girl" and that is the way in which people think. They do not accept the area of gay sexuality at all.
Even the language in which many of these matters are couched is questionable. The Minister of State spoke about the defilement of a girl. This, presumably, is something that can take place with or without consent because the girl is under a certain age. Is this language we should accept in the 21st century as appropriate to describe a consensual sexual relationship, even though I accept that parents may be concerned because of a difference in age or because they believe their child, young woman or young man, is too young to have any experience of sexuality? There is a whole area therefore that has not been taken into account by those framing the Bill.
The Government's amendment, No. 18, appears to be in the same area – I am surprised it is not linked but I am sure there is a technical reason for this – where it specifies prison terms for persons found guilty of sexual assault and so on. If somebody is under the age of 17 years, regardless of whether there is consent, in legal terms it is defined as an assault. No consent can be deemed possible by a person under a certain age so a situation may arise where the relationship is perceived by the two parties engaged in it as consenting, yet the law describes it as assault and defilement and apportions severe penalties in terms of imprisonment or the social stigma of being added to a register.
I accept the enormous public concern about this issue, especially because so much tragic information has been given to the public in the area of paedophilia. The Minister of State used the word appropriately but unfortunately often in these discussions it is not used appropriately and people assume that certain types of behaviour of which they disapprove are paedophilia when they are not. I am against the idea of arbitrary age considerations and in favour of a principle of consent. Since that appears not to be available I support the Minister of State's view.
I ask the Minister of State and her advisers to bear in mind this area. I do not ask them to necessarily take what I say as fact but to contact those agencies that deal with young people with troubled sexuality, especially young people in the gay community who are coming to understand their sexuality. I also ask them to listen to what the people who deal with young people in this area have to say. Surprising conclusions may emerge which might affect the way these legislative provisions are framed in the future. I welcome the Minister of State's indication that this may be possible and that in future when such legislation is being framed these kinds of contacts will be made. As it is, a whole area of human sexuality is totally ignored in the consideration of this legislation.