The UK government will probably consider whether age differences should affect the law on sex with 16- and 17-year-olds, Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden said on Sunday. He was responding to calls for stronger protection from adults who use their age or influence to exploit teenagers.
Speaking to Sky News on November 15, McFadden said: “I think we probably will consider it”. He did not announce a decision, a new age limit or a timetable for changing the law.
The proposal is often called a staggered age of consent. That means the law would take account of the difference between two people's ages, rather than relying only on the younger person's age. Campaigners want to restrict much older adults while allowing relationships between teenagers close in age.
There is an important distinction behind the debate. Being old enough to consent does not mean someone has agreed freely. Nor does turning 16 remove all the rules that protect a child from an adult with power over them.
What turning 16 changes, and what it does not
In England and Wales, the general age of consent is 16. A person of that age can legally agree to sexual activity. But the Sexual Offences Act requires agreement by choice, with the freedom and ability to make that choice.
Pressure, threats or a lack of freedom can mean there is no consent. An adult cannot defend abuse simply by pointing to a teenager's sixteenth birthday. The Crown Prosecution Service, which brings criminal cases in England and Wales, says 16- and 17-year-olds can still be victims of child sexual abuse.
A large age difference does not, by itself, make sexual activity unlawful under the general age rule. That is what the campaign seeks to change. It would create a restriction based on the ages involved, without first having to establish that the younger person did not freely agree.
These are the rules for England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own sexual-offenses laws, so any wider reform would need to account for those separate legal systems.
The adult's role can already change the answer
Daylight Post found that existing protection after 16 depends partly on the adult's role in a young person's life. The law already restricts sexual activity by adults in specific “positions of trust”, including certain teaching and care relationships. The restriction can apply even when the teenager appears to agree.
It also covers an adult who regularly coaches, teaches, trains, supervises or instructs that young person in a sport or religion, and knows they do so. Being a coach or faith leader is not enough on its own: the defined relationship with the teenager matters.
The difference is practical. A regular sports coach's sexual relationship with a 17-year-old they train can fall within these offenses even if the young person says they agreed. A much older person's fame, wealth or age alone does not put them in one of those legally defined roles. Other offenses can still apply if there is abuse or no free agreement.
These specific offenses concern adults aged 18 or over and have conditions about their knowledge of the teenager's age. There are also limited exceptions, including for a legal sexual relationship that began before the position of trust arose.
A broader rule would make a different choice
The current approach was deliberately limited. When the government extended the law to sport and religion in 2022, it said the aim was to protect young people who depended on influential adults without criminalizing ordinary relationships after 16.
It also gave ministers power to add activities to the sport-and-religion provision. That offers a way to extend protection to further roles. A general age-gap rule would go further by looking at the ages of the people involved, whether or not the older person held one of those roles.
Close the Consent Gap, the campaign seeking reform, says it wants to preserve relationships between young people close in age. In her Sunday Sky News interview, founder Leyla Stone proposed allowing a partner no more than three years older: up to 19 for a 16-year-old and up to 20 for a 17-year-old. She opposed simply raising the age of consent to 18.
That is a campaign proposal, not an agreed government policy. It places responsibility on an older adult to observe an age boundary. It would not make a relationship within that boundary safe or consensual merely because the ages were permitted.
The unresolved decision is which adults a new restriction should cover and how it should preserve young people's freedom in relationships with peers. McFadden's statement leaves those choices open. The existing requirements for free consent and the specific protections against abuse of trust remain in place.