ANOTHER VOICE

Kerb-crawling: a useful day's work in the House of Commons

AUBERON WAU GH

Isuppose it is only to be expected that as evidence of normal heterosexual activity in these islands becomes rarer, the press should be more and more excited by any it can find. Since the popular newspapers love a good headline about sex, we cannot really protest against the efforts of headline-seeking MPs to provide them with one. But I do feel there may be something wrong when MPs, aided and abetted by the press, respond to the present dramatic decrease in sexual offences they have shrunk by 20 per cent in ten years, according to the Howard League report — by trying to create new ones. This would have been the effect of Miss Janet Fookes's Sexual Offences Bill, which failed to complete the report stage in the House of Commons on Friday and has now been consigned to the oblivion it deserves.

I do not think I have ever had the pleasure of meeting Miss Fookes, although she has been an MP now for 15 years. No doubt this former teacher has been too busy, what with her chairmanship of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruel- ty to Animals, secretaryship of the all- party committee on mental health, her co-chairmanship of the all-party equal opportunities group and her council mem- bership of SSAFA and the National Canine Defence League (to name but a few of her activities) to go out in the world and meet ordinary chaps like me. But I warned her, several times and in the plainest terms, that she was backing a loser in her silly, giddy little attempt to invent new sexual offences and increase the max- imum penalty for old ones.

Now the fair' MP for Plymouth Drake says she is 'deeply disappointed, hurt and very, very angry' with two back-bench colleagues who spoke against her measure. Perhaps she will take a word of advice from someone outside the fray. There are plenty of good headlines to be won on stories about pet animals. Has she heard the one about the Indian restaurant which had a pile of cats' heads on its kitchen table? A Bill making it illegal for Indian restaurants

to sell cat-meat would certainly go down well in the Sun. Or, in case someone

pointed out that this was already illegal, a Private Member's Bill to increase the penalties for cruelty to children would certainly catch the mood of the moment. It would take a very brave MP to filibuster that one. Perhaps a joint Bill, to Protect Children and Control the use of Cat-meat in Restaurants, with further clauses in- creasing the penalties for cruelty to cats and making it illegal to eat children or serve them in restaurants. Many children, in my experience, are quite genuinely terrified of being eaten, and if the House could send out a firm message that eating children was now against the law, it might do something to reassure them — as well as discouraging evilly disposed people from eating them.

People may accuse me of treating Miss Fookes's anxieties lightly, but her Bill would appear to have had no more serious purpose. It fell to Ms Jo Richardson, tabour Member for Barking, to point out that there were already perfectly good laws to deal with offensive kerb-crawlers who harassed women. They were the main target of Miss Fookes's Bill. The problem was that the police tended not to give a very high priority to such complaints. Was there any reason to suppose they would give a higher priority to complaints under Miss Fookes's Bill?

One amendment, proposed by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, would have made it necessary for the kerb-crawler to have acted in a manner causing nuisance or fear, but Miss Fookes was not having any of that. Such an amendment would emasculate the Bill, she said — a curious metaphor, I thought, to apply to a measure proposed by a woman for the protection of women. To suggest that nuisance or fear might be necessary for the committing of an offence was to misunderstand the whole nature of the problem, she said. It was the cumulative effect on residents of frequent kerb-crawling which caused the nuisance.

This was what worried Mr Matthew Parris, one of the two heroes of the hour. You could not prosecute someone who was not guilty of causing a nuisance himself, but who might unwittingly have contri- buted to a general nuisance. He would accept the Bill only if the Home Office minister concerned, Mr David 'Dave' Mel- lor, was willing to insert the word 'persis- tently' into the clause describing the off- ence.

This caused one of those enjoyable little scenes which occur whenever MPs feel they have morality on their side. Mr Mellors accused Mr Parris of blackmail, and said it was Mr Parris's ego which was on trial. At another point, Mr Mellor said to another MP who expressed doubts about Miss Fookes's wisdom — Mr Anthony Marlow (C. Northampton N): 'I am interested that the welfare of women is of so little moment to you.'

Mr Marlow described this remark from his own front bench as 'ill-advised, some- what stupid and impudent', complaining that the minister had threatened to 'spread my face large and wide across the national press' if he dared oppose the measure. Mr Marlow's main objection was that innocent men would be dragged through the courts on the say-so of any madwoman. 'It would do us no good as MPs should we be picked up,' he pointed out.

All of which is probably true enough. When Nottingham's publicity-seeking Chief Constable, Mr Charles 'Campaign Charlie' McLachlan, started dressing his policewomen up as tarts, one of the first people he arrested was a high-ranking policeman from a neighbouring force. I believe the experiment has now been discontinued. But Mr Mellor made the point that his aim in promoting the Bill was not to encourage a large number of pro- secutions, but merely 'that the House should send out the message that kerb- crawling is now against the law' — which it already was.

In other words, the whole thing was a PR exercise designed to make a few headlines and appease some female activ- ists. I can think of many more mischievous ways for the House to spend its time. If it did nothing else, there would be fewer cries to have all its Members garotted and thrown into the Thames. But so long as it can only draw attention to itself by passing redundant and oppressive laws in com- pliance with some passing whim of the Sun, Sunday People and News of the World, the cries will continue.

Thanks to Mr Parris, Mr Marlow and Ms Richardson, the House on this occasion sent out an entirely different message. I wish I had space to spread Mr Marlow's face large and wide across my page, deco- rated by an appropriate halo and celestial choir of cherubim and seraphim. But it really is time that politicians and gutter press alike realised that the country is not behind them in supporting the demands of

ageing spinsters, embittered housewives,

feminists and militant lesbians that any woman should be able to send any man to prison whenever she feels like it. Far better concentrate on the problems of pet animals.