HC Deb 23 June 1967 vol 748 cc2195-200
Sir C. Osborne

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9 to leave out 'twenty-one' and to insert 'twenty-five'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

With this Amendment may be discussed Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'twenty-one' and insert 'twenty-five'.

Amendment No. 18, in page 3, line 3, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.

Amendment No. 23, in line 9, leave out 'twenty-one' and insert 'twenty-five'.

Amendment No. 25, in line 15, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.

Amendment No. 29, in line 31, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.

And Amendment No. 30, in line 36, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.

Sir C. Osborne

An hon. Member has just shouted to me that this is a wasted day. I do not think so. My colleagues and I, who may not be absolutely right, but at least our motives are honourable, have done our best to protect youth. Yet a so-called learned Member of the House says that it is a waste of time to protect the young and the weak. I am ashamed of him. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter with me.

Among the many letters I have received is one I should like to quote and which is germane to this point. A man writes to me: I am a doctor, have been concerned with youth activities for some 30 years, and have written on the subject of homosexuality in the medical Press"— So this is someone who, I suppose, is qualified to have a reasonable opinion on the subject— I believe most General Practitioners agree with me that it is a most dangerous Bill for the youth of the country. Imagine what would happen in a bad patch in almost any university or college where the students were roughly halved by the age of consent. It would just become a jest. I am pretty certain the bulk of the medical profession is with you.

Those of us who have done work in various youth clubs and youth movements, as I did 40 years ago, know from experience that there are some who mature young and some who mature older. [Laughter.] Also, like certain hon. Members opposite, there are those who never mature at all and who show themselves up by their hilarity at what I consider to be a very serious subject.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach (Stockport, South)

Is that why the hon. Member has a smile on his face?

Sir C. Osborne

What else can the hon. Member expect me to do when I am looking at him? It may be that I take this subject too seriously, but I think it is better to take it seriously rather than pay no serious attention to it at all.

Mr. Russell Kerr

Keep going. The hon. Member is doing a great job.

Sir C. Osborne

I am trying to help the weaker section of the community, whom the promoter of this Bill has said he desires to help. I am seeking to take temptation out of the way of our weaker brethren. I should think that is a legitimate thing to try to do. As a fairly large employer of labour I know that there are fellows who are mature when they are 17 or 18 years of age while there are others who are not mature even when they reach the age of 25.

Reference has been made to the power of the employer or managing director over the younger members of his staff who are looking for promotion, who are looking for this and for the other, who are hoping to improve their position in life and whose prospects of doing so depend upon somebody in a superior position. The younger they are, generally, the more they are liable to succumb to temptation. I want the House to agree to increase the age of consent from 21 to 25 years of age.

In Clause 3—and I hope hon. Members will not giggle about this so much—we are asking, in page 3, line 31, to leave out 'sixteen' and to insert 'eighteen'. The Clause reads: The maximum punishment which may he imposed on conviction on indictment of a man for buggery with another man of or over the age of sixteen shall, instead of being imprisonment for life as prescribed by paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act of 1956, be— instead of imprisonment for life— imprisonment for a term of ten years except where the other man consented thereto. This means that the Government—the Home Secretary is really responsible—are reducing the protection which is at present afforded by a life sentence to a period of 10 years' imprisonment.

It may be argued that when a man is given a life sentence he comes out of prison in about nine years. But assuming that the penalty gives a certain degree of protection, this Clause weakens the protection given to those between 16 and 18 years of age. A man who is found guilty of this crime at the moment is subject to life imprisonment, but according to this Bill that sentence is to be reduced to a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. Why make that decision? What justification is there for it? We say that lads—because they are mere lads—between the ages of 16 and 18 should have the maximum protection of the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. I would have thought that any reasonable hon. Member would have accepted that proposition.

If a life sentence is to give any protection at all, in any case it is obvious that it should be retained as long as possible. The two years between 16 and 18 are a very vulnerable period in a developing lad's life and during this time he should be given the utmost protection of the law. Clause 3(1,b) says: in the said excepted case, imprisonment for a term of five years if the accused is of or over the age of twenty-one and the other man is under that age, but otherwise two years; Is the Home Secretary saying that the position in the country regarding homosexuality is such that it warrants smaller and lower penalties? That is what Clause 3 suggests. But the figures I read out earlier from the criminal statistics show that what we need at present is more discipline and more punishment and not less. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) nods his head in agreement.

Mr. Heffer

No. In amazement.

Sir C. Osborne

Nodding one's head usually means agreement.

We seek to prove that the maximum sentence for buggery of a young man should remain life imprisonment. We used to think that punishment was meant to fit the crime and that punishment was the deterrent in social and individual life as the bomb is the ultimate deterrent internationally. But it seems that the protection given by the punishment of a life sentence accorded to youngsters between the age of 16 and 18 is now to be removed.

I cannot understand how hon. Members, no matter how fascinated they may be with the whole subject, can support this provision in the Bill. It is an incredible thing at a time like this that they should go back to their constituents and say, "We, the guardians of youth in this country "—because this does deal with the youth of the country—"have walked through the Lobbies in order to reduce the sentence on men who abuse lads between the ages of 16 and 18." It is inconceivable. Yet that is what hon. Members are proposing to do.—[Laughter.] They think it is funny. The Home Secretary grins about it. He thinks it is funny. If my words do not commend themselves to him, at least the thing I am seeking to promote—the protection of the young—should surely meet with his approval and not with his sneers. Mr. Speaker, I hope that I am in order.

Mr. Speaker

When the hon. Gentleman is not in order, I will let him know.

Sir C. Osborne

All through the debates in both Houses the two threads which have run through the arguments of hon. Members have been clear. The first was that the Bill was an attempt to stop blackmail, and we all agree about that. The second was that it was to protect the youth of the country. Those are the two basic hopes and ideals behind the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend would say that, if he had the power of speech once more. But for the moment he is under a vow of silence.

We are asking that the age should be increased from 16 to 18 in Clause 3, at least to attract the lower penalties which the Home Secretary feels are adequate. Let us not forget that, but for the Home Secretary's support, the Bill would not be here today. This is Government time.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the Amendment.

Sir C. Osborne

The presence of the Home Secretary tempts me to stray. It is my urgent desire to do my best for the youth of this country that causes me to say that we should accept the Amendment, and I hope that the House will do so.

Mr. Mawby

The Amendments we are discussing are concerned with two main points. One is the question whether 21 should be considered the age of consent. I suppose that it was natural that the sponsors should choose that age, because it is normally regarded as the age when a boy reaches adulthood. I believe that we should raise the age, although I would not put it as high as a noble Lord did in another place. I do not think we need to put up any great argument to support our view that the age should be 25.

The second point is much more important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) has said. Throughout the chequered history of Bills on the subject of homosexuality one of the main claims of the sponsors has been that although the Bill would permit consenting adults to perform such acts done in private it made it more difficult and tightened up the law against anyone having relations with someone who was not an adult, by imposing heavier penalties. Yet Clause 3 reduces to 10 years a penalty which is now normally life imprisonment. This shows that the sponsors are not as eager to protect youth as they seek to show by their speeches. It may well be that they have felt that a life sentence normally means only about 10 years and therefore wonder why the judge should be put to the trouble of passing a life sentence. But I understand that that is true about only murderers where the Home Secretary has special powers under which he can release a person on licence, whereas his powers in other cases are much more limited.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins) indicated dissent.

Mr. Mawby

I am obviously wrong about that, as the Home Secretary shakes his head, but that is what I understand the position to be. I therefore take it that even where a person had been sentenced to life imprisonment for committing buggery with a young man over the age of 16, the Home Secretary could intervene and release the prisoner before the life sentence was completed, if he wished. May I take it that that is the case? If that is so, there is no need to provide that the sentence shall be ten years rather than life imprisonment, because, obviously, if the Home Secretary of the day felt in certain circumstances that a person ought to be released in the interests not only of himself but of society as well—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.