Virgina Ironside: A confused approach to sex and children

There is an argument that consensual sex between children under 16 should be decriminalised

The dramatic case of 12-year-old Shevaun Pennington, apparently seduced into a Paris trip by a 31-year-old US Marine, highlights the complete confusion that surrounds the whole area of adults having sex with minors. So there must be many people who sighed with relief when they heard that the Sexual Offences Bill had its second hearing yesterday. It is the result of a White Paper called Setting the Boundaries, which was designed to examine and improve the current law.

The paper argues that the present legal framework is "archaic, incoherent, discriminatory and inadequate to deal with the needs of modern society". To remedy this it recommends legislation to ensure that the sexual abusers of vulnerable people don't escape the law.

One problem, however. The law it proposes would itself be bad law. When I was 15 I danced cheek-to-cheek with another 15-year-old, one Ian Ogilvie, later to become the star of The Saint series on television. He held me very close and I think he may have slid his hands seductively around the skirt covering my bottom. When I was 15-and-a-half I had my first full-blown kiss from the late Reginald Bosanquet, newscaster and heart-throb.

Had the Sexual Offences Bill been in existence both these respectable men could now have a criminal record. Careers completely ruined. But of course I, too, would also have a criminal record, because when I was 19 I used to pop into the lift at The Sunday Telegraph, where I was working, to have a quick snog with a 15-year-old office-boy, Keith.

Indeed, most of the population of England would be in line for a criminal record. Because this ill-thought-out Bill actually criminalises any sexual behaviour at all between anyone under the age of 16. And sexual behaviour does not mean just sexual intercourse. It means kissing - or even inappropriate touching through clothing.

At its most extreme, the Bill means that a 12-year-old boy who has sexual intercourse initiated by a girl his age will automatically be guilty of the offence of rape of a child. This would come under clause 6, carrying the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. At the other end of the spectrum, two 15-year-olds who indulge in consensual sexual touching, which includes kissing, will both automatically be committing criminal offences. Under clause 10, they could be imprisoned for up to five years.

The latest research from the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles in Britain shows that a quarter of women and nearly a third of men have their first sexual experience when they are under 16. Every year that goes by, children are maturing, sexually, earlier and earlier. But even 20 years ago I was receiving letters asking for advice from mothers describing "doctors and nurses" games played by children - boys and girls - as young as seven and eight. Boys will be encouraging girls to take their knickers down behind the bike-shed in return for a lolly, whatever the law says.

It's easy to shrug and say that it's not worth making a fuss about these provisions, as no one in their right mind would bring a prosecution against a child who stole a kiss from a willing giver in a broom cupboard. But having an offence that no one prosecutes because everyone agrees it is harmless, brings the whole criminal law into disrepute.

And why enact a law that isn't going to be enforced? It would play into the hands of right-wing moralists who would press for prosecutions. And they would be completely within their rights. If I were a right-wing moralist, I'd be rubbing my hands with glee at the prospect of getting all those horrible sexy young adolescents behind bars.

The other effect of this Bill could well be that children will become completely confused. The soft porn shown late on Channel Five is quite enough to make even my liberal eyebrows raise; Big Brother is packed with sexual innuendo, and Graham Norton is astonishingly explicit in his show - the other night he actually got a poor man's girlfriend to bring in what was called his "wanker's sock" and show it to the audience.

Everyone complains that "sex is everywhere". And yet at the same time the Government is proposing to make any sexual activity between anyone under 16 illegal. What does it mean? Children will not only be confused, but surely the knowledge of the risk of being prosecuted might make many of them nervous about confiding in adults about such things as pregnancy or sexual infections

Now people in the Government may not want children under 16 to indulge in any kind of sexual activity (though frankly I would be rather nervous if any child of mine had not had just a smidgeon of sexual twinges before the age of 16) but no law is going to make them stop.

There is an argument that consensual sex between children under 16 should actually be decriminalised as is the case in Finland. This would at least make the distinction between perfectly normal sexual activity and true abuse - which is, after all, what this Bill is really designed to stop.

What is needed is a law that stops adults having sex with under-16s - or older adolescents having non-consensual sex with other adolescents or children - not one that stops consenting under-age children having sex with one another.

virginia@virginiaironside.org