I am grateful to the Minister and I am extremely sympathetic to the Government's difficulties in trying to steer a course that reconciles the rights of individuals in their private lives with public protection of children. The Government introduced the clause because they thought that there were compelling reasons why protection against the dissemination and taking of photographs should be extended beyond the age of 16 to 18. That is the rationale, otherwise the law would be left as it stands. People, whether they are married or not, may be in need of protection.

I worry about the phrase ''enduring family relationship''. I cannot remember the statistics on marriage, but I seem to recollect that the rate of break-up of relationships relates in part to the age when the relationship was first entered into: the younger the age of the partners at the start of a relationship, the higher the rate of break-up tends to be. That does not apply universally and I can think of a number of childhood sweethearts who married and lived happily ever after, but there is some evidence that relationships that start at a young age often do not endure. The Minister accepted that, although civil proceedings could subsequently be taken to protect the person who originally consented to the photographs being taken but who was no longer happy about it, another person may remain in possession of the photographs.

The Minister said that we can approach the matter when we return to the famous marriage exception. The Government are looking at that, but unless the marriage exception to sexual intercourse generally is changed, a foreigner who comes to this country to live with his 13-year-old bride could take pornographic photographs of that 13-year-old bride and come within the exception provided in the clause.

There are two ways of approaching that problem—one is to get rid of the marriage exception—but it highlights a substantial loophole in the Bill. I do not know what the Committee's view is or what the Minister proposes to do if the matter is pressed to a Division, but I would prefer to go away and think about the problem, as we have done previously in the Committee. There is a general feeling of unease in the Committee about the provision. I accept that people have rights to privacy and to respect for their married life. It is rational to argue that if two 17-year-olds are married and want to take pornographic photographs of each other, that is a matter for them. However, the Government accept that 18 is the age at which they would prefer such decisions to be made and I wonder whether we are not making life too complicated. Why do we not just say: no indecent photographs under 18, full stop?

The Minister has not wholly satisfied me of the civil liberties and philosophical reasons for not specifying the age of 18. I am sure that some great debate took place in the Home Office, but the Minister has not persuaded me. Such matters are peripheral to people's private lives and if intimate relationships founder because the state prohibits the taking of pornographic photographs, the sooner they founder the better. In the circumstances, the Bill should just say 18.