Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I wish to raise the same point about the marriage exemption that was raised this morning. In effect, the debate has already taken place under clause 16 about similar kinds of activity. The additional factor in clauses 18 to 21 is that the person is in a position of trust—that, if anything, makes the position worse—but there is no reason why, if what is outlawed against a child in clauses 18 to 21 is child abuse, there should be any permission for it through a foreign marriage.

I accept that the further distinction is that one can only commit the offences discussed this morning with a person who is under 16, whereas these can be committed by a person in a position of trust even against a person who is over 16—in other words, against a person who could lawfully marry in the UK. Therefore, the mischief is not as complete.

None the less, all the offences to be committed by a person in a position of trust can be committed against a person under 16, who we would all say ought not to be able to consent to any of them, or to be relieved of the opportunity of refusing to consent, by being married. I respectfully suggest that, if the Solicitor-General is prepared generally to review the marriage exception, she should consider clause 25 as well.

The points that my hon. and learned Friend makes follow on from the well-made points in the earlier debate. It goes without saying that reviewing the marriage exception in the context in which we discussed it this morning and the response that I gave then would apply similarly to the abuse of trust. The question is whether we have drawn the balance right, with the right age, the right sort of activity and the right defence. Obviously, the abuse of trust issue would have

to come into our consideration of and consultation on that point.

I thank the Solicitor-General for that. I believe that many of the points that we discussed this morning apply to this clause. It occurred to me that the marriage exemption is almost discriminatory, given that some relationships in the 16-to-18 age range would be allowed but others would be disallowed; for example, if people had chosen to live together or were of the same sex. I wonder whether discrimination is involved.

If the hon. Lady's point is that there is discrimination in relation to the marriage exemption, she is right. It is discriminatory—it discriminates between those from a different country who had a lawful marriage there and came to this country, and those from this country. That is the whole point of the marriage exemption. It is available to foreign nationals but not to those domiciled here who have a lawful marriage according to the laws of this country. I hope that we will not go back into the marriage exemption.

Order. I can say distinctly that we will not go back into the marriage exemption.

My additional point was about covering the age range of 16 to 18. I thought that that was another point on top of what we discussed this morning. I am not advocating the point of view at all but I think that, in the wider sense, the marriage exemption is discriminatory.

We will consider the hon. Lady's points, and perhaps we will have the opportunity to discuss them with her further when we reflect on the issues to reconsider between now and Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.