IN VOTING tonight, by the clear majority that has long been forecast, to lower the age of consent for homosexual sex to 16, MPs are no doubt out of step with the public.

For the most recent opinion poll evidence suggests that only 35 per cent of voters are for this move.

However, what has motivated many MPs are not the moral issues for which others have shown concern but the strict question of equality.

And, if this issue is to be determined by parity alone, then it is hard to deny the absurdity of heterosexuals and lesbians being able to legally have sex at 16 while homosexual men have to wait until they are 18.

Yet, even in a free vote whereby MPs decide according to their conscience have they the right to ignore both the moral issues and voters' wishes on such a matter?

Certainly, it would seem that in giving this lead the Commons is employing some double standards.

For coupled with this move, we see MPs being at the same time prepared to back proposals that would make it an offence for adults in charge of youngsters under 18 to have sexual relationships with them.

Yet if MPs are struck by the necessity of safeguarding young people of either sex from sexual predation, even when they are above the age of consent, is it not odd and rash that they are overwhelmingly prepared to scrap another law - that of keeping the homosexual sex limit at 18 - which most people regard as being for the same purpose?

This issue falls on whether the law banning under-18s from homosexual sex is meant to protect them or restrict their freedom.

MPs, it seems, are getting rid of it in the name of liberty and reason whereas most voters apparently consider that the law should still provide boys of 16 with protection - and strangely MPs agree that, in certain circumstances, even older youngsters of either sex need just such a safeguard.

Such logic is hard to uphold.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.