David Norris (Independent)

Splendid. I congratulate the Minister and the team involved in that case. This is a very good day. I am not a vengeful person but I am glad to hear the good news that this man will pay for his crimes, for crimes they were and of a most loathsome nature.

I brought a case to the attention of the Iranian ambassador recently, which concerned two youths, one aged 16 and the other 17, who were having a consensual sexual relationship in Iran. They were arrested by the religious police, beaten and then hung from the back of a lorry on a crane. That is appalling. Sexuality among people such as those young men should not be criminalised. A gay man who is 16 and a half is capable of giving consent. That is what I have been told by the gay community. It is not just my own lived experience. The Government should take this into account.

On the issue of the question of a defendant making an honest mistake, I have suggested, by way of amendment, that the term should be "reasonable" rather than "honest". A judge could know what a defendant thought about the age of the other person, but he or she could determine whether the defence is reasonable.

In his speech, the Minister referred to the question of various sexual acts taking place between married couples and said that they could not possibly be of concern to any court. That might be so, mercifully, in this country, but we take a lot of legal precedents from the United States of America and in that country many states presume to interfere and tell married couples what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

On the question of language, I do not like the use of the phrase "defilement of a child". This suggests that a child is defiled and is spoiled goods, so to speak. In the case of, for example, two 16 and a half year old gay people, a consensual sexual act is not defiling. Furthermore, an age of consent set at 17 is too high.

I have mentioned the principle of consent and am not happy that a girl should be held to have no responsibility whatever in the area of casual sexual relations. That is not right. I note that one section of the Bill provides that it should be left to the DPP to decide, in matters involving two teenagers, whether a prosecution should be pursued. That looks to me like an acceptance of the principle of consent, but with one very signal failing. There is no requirement or reason to give an explanation. In a court, however, such a requirement would exist. It is undemocratic for the DPP to decide on a nolle prosequi without providing an explanation. I would prefer it if the Minister re-examined the principle of consent.