§ Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make rape in marriage a criminal offence in England and Wales.Rape within marriage is already a crime within case law in Scotland, as was recently confirmed by a judge there. My Bill seeks to extend that to England and Wales. There is an anomaly in the law in England and Wales dating back to the 1650s. The law is outdated. It does not reflect the present reality of marriage where a wife is not a husband's chattel; nor does it reflect society's attitude to rape, which is viewed as a crime to be punished without exception because it is a brutal sexual assault.I want to give the House a couple of examples. This week I received a letter from a woman who wrote:
This is the man whose wife knows everything there is to know about him, including how hard he can punch.The other letter was published in a national newspaper earlier this week:accusations thrown at me nightly … This did not hinder my husband from forcing me to have sex which I did not want. It isn't long before love turns to fear.John Tilley, a former Member for Lambeth, Central, raised the issue in the House in 1983 when he said:The circumstances in which rape is legal occur when the victim is the wife of her assailant. However unwilling the woman is, however fierce her resistance,"—I might add, however brutal the advances—her assailant has only to produce a marriage certificate to escape all legal blame or punishment."—[Official Report, 29 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 185.]That cannot be right. A wife is not her husband's property. She has rights over her own body. Just because at one time she says, "I do," that should not deny her the legal protection later to say, "I do not wish to."The legal anomaly applies particularly to women who are separated but not yet divorced. Their husbands, soon to be ex-husbands, can rape them without legal penalty. A survey of 1,000 women by Middlesex polytechnic showed that one in eight women were forced to have sex with their husbands despite clearly refusing. Another survey by Women Against Rape in London showed that one in seven were raped within marriage. A "World in Action" survey produced similar results.
Other countries, as well as Scotland, have abolished a husband's immunity from penalty. Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, Israel, 18 states of the United States and three territories in Australia have decided that immunity is no longer appropriate.
The Government are stalling on the issue. Following the announcement that I was to present a Bill on the subject, they responded by saying that they were referring the matter to the Law Commission. In the Home Office Minister's statement of 12 February, he said that the Law Commission would produce
a working paper for consultation early next year. The Government will consider the conclusions most carefully."Consider most carefully" is parliamentary jargon for saying that it will be two or three years before they legislate. That means that many women will be unprotected by the law in the meantime.The Government have three reasons for not acting immediately. The Minister said in the statement: 946
The question raises issues about the nature of marriage, and about violence in the domestic context, beyond the scope of the criminal law.I cannot believe that violence in the domestic context is beyond the scope of the criminal law. Is the Minister saying that violence is acceptable in marriage? Surely not. I think that he is saying that the criminal law should not intervene in family cases. But it already does. To quote just two examples, it intervenes in cases of incest and wife battering. Why, therefore, should not the criminal law intervene in rape cases?The Government are also trying to put off dealing with the matter because of the attendant cost. More women would probably live in hostels for battered women while their cases were being dealt with. The Government should not be mean; they should provide more money for the hostels. The fact that more money would be involved ought not to affect the principle that rape should be a crime.
The Government also say that rape would be difficult to prove in court. I acknowledge that, but that applies to all rape cases. It would be difficult to obtain corroborative evidence, but it would be for the courts to decide. The fact that a crime is difficult to prove is no reason for saying that it is not a crime.
A simple moral decision has to he made. I and many others believe that rape is unacceptable, regardless of where, when and against whom it is committed. Other people do not believe that, so they equivocate, as the Government seem to be doing.
There is immense popular support for this proposed change in the law. According to the Middlesex polytechnic survey, 96 per cent. of the women who replied supported a change in the law of this kind. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) is one of the sponsors of my Bill. She is the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Labour party on this issue. The Labour party is therefore committed to changing the law if the Government insist on pussyfooting around. The Government ought to welcome the Bill. There should be no further delay.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)I oppose the measure with some trepidation. The time of day has probably passed when much publicity will be given to the proceedings of the House. If it has not, I dare say that hatpins and needles will be sharpened against me and the views that I propose to put forward.
No one doubts that many men behave violently towards their wives. No one doubts, either, that many women behave badly towards their husbands. However, remedies exist—those of separation, injunctions against molestation and other court procedures—to protect women. Assault of husband on wife, or assault of wife on husband, is a crime and can already be dealt with by the courts.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I understand his reasons for introducing the measure. However, I believe that it is absurd. It is an example of hard cases seeking to make bad law. It is motivated by a combination of some distressed and unfortunate women, who need our help and support and whose problems probably need to be addressed further, and those whom Private Eye calls "wimmin"—the ghastly feminist lobby who seem to think that all men are evil and 947 that some are more evil than others, that men are made of slugs, snails and puppy dogs' tails and that women are made of sugar, spice and all things nice.
Whatever may be the hon. Gentleman's motive, I believe that his measure would lead to a gross abuse of the institution of marriage, for two reasons. The far lesser reason is that it would create two tiers of marriage. There would be the church wedding, where the wife would promise "to love, honour and obey until death us do part." Under those circumstances, lawyers would advise that rape was legally impossible until the courts had intervened. There would also be the register office wedding, after which rape would be possible, if the law were changed. We should avoid the creation of two different tiers of marriage.
The far greater reason is that the hon. Gentleman's proposals would be unenforceable. The Criminal Law Revision Committee considered the matter. For a while, it thought that it was worth pursuing for parties who are not cohabiting. However, the committee could not define "cohabiting". Therefore it threw up its hands in horror.
Rape is sexual intercourse without consent, the man knowing that consent has been withheld. How on earth can it be proved beyond reasonable doubt that rape has occurred between a cohabiting husband and wife? Where on earth would one get the corroborating evidence?
§ Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar)In the same way as in other cases.
§ Mr. MarlowThe hon. Lady says that it could be proved in the same way as other cases. It is notoriously difficult to prove rape when people have a relationship. The law would become unenforceable. The law would become an ass. Put flippantly, if the good lady has "a headache" it would be inconsiderate for the husband to proceed. If she had a bad headache, would it be rape? Where do we draw the line and how could it be proved?
Undoubtedly there are evil men: equally there are a number of evil women. What impact would the changed law have on a manipulative wife seeking to humiliate her husband? Rape has to be reported to the police who are obliged to investigate. What would be the impact of such a police investigation on a relationship that would otherwise survive? What would be the effect on the children of a marriage of a police investigation on a charge that had been levelled in the heat of the moment and which on cooler reflection would be withdrawn?
What would happen, for example, if the wife succumbed and then regretted it and her husband in the hiatus of emotional confusion persisted when his wife said no? Would that be rape? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Would we define that as rape? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Opposition Members should address the position of the arranged bride who says no on her wedding night but whose husband is deaf to her pleas. Would that be rape? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] What would the burners of "The Satanic Verses" say about such a law?
It is well known that some women accuse their husbands of child sex abuse when they are seeking custody of their children. How much easier it would be to cry rape.
The hon. Gentleman called on other jurisdictions in support of his Bill. We believe that the laws of England are superior to those of other parliaments. If he wishes to call 948 the laws of other countries in support of his argument, does he favour the death penalty and would he support it because it exists in other countries?
The law provides most of the necessary protection for wives who are subjected to violence. The law quite rightly allows women and men to nullify unsatisfactory marriages. More law would not help marriage; it would damage it.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in his Bill?
§ Mr. SpeakerTo the contrary?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am on my feet. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must pursue his objection at least to the point of saying no. I shall put the Question again. Does the hon. Gentleman have leave to bring in his Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "Aye."] To the contrary? [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules. It is not in order to oppose the Bill, to make what is effectively a free speech, and then not to pursue the matter.
§ Mr. MarlowNo.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Ayes have it.