David Norris (Independent)

I would like to tease out the amendment because I cannot remember whether the Minister had returned or whether his replacement was dealing with the issue on his behalf. I did make the point that he spoke about mens rea and how it was such a fundamental part of the Constitution and so forth and that it was implied that it would be taken so by the courts and so on and then that we had the possibility of removing it again. It appeared to me there was a certain conflict which leaves me slightly confused. In cases where people are close in age, say, 16 years and ten months, it can be confusing. People are very different now. I am nearly 63 years old. When I was young, children were children. They looked like children. They were the size of children. By and large they behaved in a way that was regarded as appropriate for children.

However, there has been a substantial change in the 50 to 60 years since I was a child. In view of diet, for example, children are now considerably bigger. They have matured at a much earlier age. They express themselves sexually at a much younger age. It may be regrettable — I believe it is — but there is no question that young girls are being sexualised at very young ages. One has only to look at the clothing shops and the kind of merchandise that is being promoted as well as the magazines.

It is possible that a person would be at the borderline age and might well give the impression, having the appearance, behaviour, mannerisms and so on, of somebody who was of an appropriate age and was sexually experienced. In view of this there is a case that this defence should survive. In those cases it should be available for a judge to decide upon whether it is correct. Perhaps it will in some way. I understood the Minister to say that it is in force at present because of the mens rea provision but we might be getting rid of it in the referendum about children.