Health Bill

Clause 13 takes us from the alleged perils of passive smoking to active smoking and, more specifically, the protection of minors, although, as we have learnt in the past few minutes, the protection may be extended to young adults eventually, whether they wish to be so protected or not. The protection of minors is a most commendable aim. It makes a refreshing contrast to what the Government did just under five and a half years ago which, inevitably, endangered some minors. Five and a half years ago, the Government used the Parliament Act to force through the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, which legalised the performance of a dangerous sexual act on 16 and 17 year-olds of either sex, even though your Lordships, including not only those on the Conservative and Cross Benches but many esteemed Labour Peers, had overwhelmingly voted against such a risky course of action. On 13 November 2000, the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich—I cannot say how delighted I am to see him here—told the House that teenagers who were non-smokers who practised anal sex were twice as likely to die prematurely as teenagers who smoked 20 cigarettes a day but did not practise anal sex. Although the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, was not contradicted by the Government then or at any time since—the question has been raised from time to time since November 2000—the only slight criticism made was by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant—I am sorry that he is not in his place today—who pointed out that the dangers of anal sex applied to people whatever age they were, not simply teenagers, but also those in their 20s, 30s, 40s and so on. The Government’s newfound concern for the protection of older children is very welcome. I say ““older children”” because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child deems 16 and 17 year-olds to be children. Since it goes without saying that this is a health Bill—not simply a smoking Bill—should the Government not take the opportunity to amend the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act so that while relatively safe sexual practice, whether heterosexual or homosexual, continues to be allowed where 16 and 17 year-olds are concerned, those 16 and 17 year-olds should be protected from dangerous forms of sexual activity until they are adults? I think that it is quite appropriate to bring this up at this time.