Chamber
Plenary, 17 Mar 2005
17 Mar 2005 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
The Scottish National Party will support the general principles of the bill at decision time. A reading of the introduction to the bill leads me to say that it would be a very brave person who would seek to oppose the general principles of the bill.
The SNP will work hard to improve the bill as it progresses through the Parliament. We believe that the bill misses the mark in a number of important ways and we are not alone in thinking that that is the case. The Justice 1 Committee report highlighted many issues, and I hope that the Executive will work with the committee and individual members in dealing with them. I commend Hugh Henry, the Deputy Minister for Justice, for writing to the committee last night in response to its various requests for information, although he had to acknowledge that a number of points continue to be considered. That was a proper response from the minister—let us hope that that spirit of co-operation and collaboration will continue.
I share with members the alarm that I felt—I think that "alarm" is the correct word, and I believe that my committee colleagues felt the same—when officers of the national hi-tech crime unit gave us some insight into their work to protect children in internet chatrooms. I had never visited an internet chatroom before, so it was all a new experience to me.
The officer who showed us what goes on there was definitely not participating in a set-up. He went on to Google, asked for "teen chat" and picked the first chatroom that came up. We went into that chatroom with the officer who, for the purposes of the interaction, had the handle, if I recall correctly, of "Linda13" to suggest that he was female and 13 years old. He joined the online conversation, playing the role of the tethered goat for the internet jackals. Within about four minutes—shorter even than the speech that I am making—sexually explicit responses were being received. Clearly, there is an issue to be addressed—of that there is no question.
It was disappointing that the drafters of the bill did not ensure the earlier involvement of the national hi-tech crime unit. However, the unit is involved now; it is fully engaged and its contribution will be very valuable.
One of the things that looking at that chatroom showed us was that there is scope for harm in the grooming process itself, even if it goes no further. We heard that there are people out there whose gratification comes from the grooming process. I will be open and honest and say that I do not have a suggestion on how we legislate for that, but we should try, as the bill progresses, to find a way of doing so, because the bill does not quite go far enough. Furthermore, the police and others tell us that the bill's complexities may well severely limit its effectiveness.
In his recent letter, the deputy minister appeared to think that the committee's concerns about paedophiles operating in concert may have been misplaced. The English legislation, in many ways, is drafted in a superior way to the bill that is before us. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 says:
"A person commits an offence if … he intentionally arranges or facilitates something that he intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do".
The interoperation of these very cunning people is caught by the 2003 act, and our eventual act would be better if it included something similar. Conspiracy there might be, and there might well be societal offence, but legal recourse under the bill as drafted seems doubtful. The offence does not exist unless all the components exist. Even though there might be a conspiracy to undertake all the bits of the offence, unless they are committed together, I am doubtful that an offence would be committed under the bill.
I will talk briefly about the matter of age. Line 6 of page 1 of the bill says that an adult is
"A person aged 18 or over"
and line 7 says that a child is
"a person aged under 16".
However, the offences that are listed in the schedule to the bill can be committed at a range of ages. Offence 15, for example, relates to
"abduction of girl under 18 for purposes of unlawful intercourse".
The bill does not add a new offence unless the girl is under 16 and the offender is over 18. The opportunity to get defence from the bill is not provided by what is currently written in it.
The imposition of 18 as the age at which the offence can be committed risks excluding dangerous sexual predators who might, from the age of puberty, be committing the sort of behaviours that we are seeking to deal with. I am not saying that such people should go anywhere other than the children's panel, but we should try to amend the bill to provide the support that victims of young sexual predators might need.
I ask the minister to examine section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which has much to commend it. Police forces south of the border believe that that section is of more use to them than section 15 of that act, which is similar to section 1 of our bill. I hope that the minister will pay close attention to that.
The SNP will work hard to improve the bill as it progresses through the Parliament. We believe that the bill misses the mark in a number of important ways and we are not alone in thinking that that is the case. The Justice 1 Committee report highlighted many issues, and I hope that the Executive will work with the committee and individual members in dealing with them. I commend Hugh Henry, the Deputy Minister for Justice, for writing to the committee last night in response to its various requests for information, although he had to acknowledge that a number of points continue to be considered. That was a proper response from the minister—let us hope that that spirit of co-operation and collaboration will continue.
I share with members the alarm that I felt—I think that "alarm" is the correct word, and I believe that my committee colleagues felt the same—when officers of the national hi-tech crime unit gave us some insight into their work to protect children in internet chatrooms. I had never visited an internet chatroom before, so it was all a new experience to me.
The officer who showed us what goes on there was definitely not participating in a set-up. He went on to Google, asked for "teen chat" and picked the first chatroom that came up. We went into that chatroom with the officer who, for the purposes of the interaction, had the handle, if I recall correctly, of "Linda13" to suggest that he was female and 13 years old. He joined the online conversation, playing the role of the tethered goat for the internet jackals. Within about four minutes—shorter even than the speech that I am making—sexually explicit responses were being received. Clearly, there is an issue to be addressed—of that there is no question.
It was disappointing that the drafters of the bill did not ensure the earlier involvement of the national hi-tech crime unit. However, the unit is involved now; it is fully engaged and its contribution will be very valuable.
One of the things that looking at that chatroom showed us was that there is scope for harm in the grooming process itself, even if it goes no further. We heard that there are people out there whose gratification comes from the grooming process. I will be open and honest and say that I do not have a suggestion on how we legislate for that, but we should try, as the bill progresses, to find a way of doing so, because the bill does not quite go far enough. Furthermore, the police and others tell us that the bill's complexities may well severely limit its effectiveness.
In his recent letter, the deputy minister appeared to think that the committee's concerns about paedophiles operating in concert may have been misplaced. The English legislation, in many ways, is drafted in a superior way to the bill that is before us. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 says:
"A person commits an offence if … he intentionally arranges or facilitates something that he intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do".
The interoperation of these very cunning people is caught by the 2003 act, and our eventual act would be better if it included something similar. Conspiracy there might be, and there might well be societal offence, but legal recourse under the bill as drafted seems doubtful. The offence does not exist unless all the components exist. Even though there might be a conspiracy to undertake all the bits of the offence, unless they are committed together, I am doubtful that an offence would be committed under the bill.
I will talk briefly about the matter of age. Line 6 of page 1 of the bill says that an adult is
"A person aged 18 or over"
and line 7 says that a child is
"a person aged under 16".
However, the offences that are listed in the schedule to the bill can be committed at a range of ages. Offence 15, for example, relates to
"abduction of girl under 18 for purposes of unlawful intercourse".
The bill does not add a new offence unless the girl is under 16 and the offender is over 18. The opportunity to get defence from the bill is not provided by what is currently written in it.
The imposition of 18 as the age at which the offence can be committed risks excluding dangerous sexual predators who might, from the age of puberty, be committing the sort of behaviours that we are seeking to deal with. I am not saying that such people should go anywhere other than the children's panel, but we should try to amend the bill to provide the support that victims of young sexual predators might need.
I ask the minister to examine section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which has much to commend it. Police forces south of the border believe that that section is of more use to them than section 15 of that act, which is similar to section 1 of our bill. I hope that the minister will pay close attention to that.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2353, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Sco...
The Minister for Justice (Cathy Jamieson):
Lab
There is no doubt that any offence that involves harm being done to a child is despicable, but it is hard to imagine anything more despicable than sexual off...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
Evidence from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, or possibly it was from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, raised the co...
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
A number of issues are involved, including the definitions of a child and an adult. We will come to those issues during the debate and when we examine the bi...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
Will the minister give way?
Cathy Jamieson:
Lab
I am sorry, but I must move on.The order will require the offender to stay away from the people or places that are associated with previous offending or, for...
Stewart Stevenson (Banff and Buchan) (SNP):
SNP
The Scottish National Party will support the general principles of the bill at decision time. A reading of the introduction to the bill leads me to say that ...
Margaret Mitchell (Central Scotland) (Con):
Con
A number of times when a bill has been introduced, I have questioned its value or opposed it outright on the grounds that it is unnecessary or counterproduct...
Mr Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD):
LD
As I joined the Justice 1 Committee only recently, my comments will be largely from my viewpoint.It is, first and foremost, in the interests of society to ca...
Mrs Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. Unfortunately, there are people who are using the opportunities that ...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
This is tricky legislation to get right. The definition in section 1 uses the phrase "having met or communicated", but it seems to me that the debate is circ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
I call Pauline McNeill, who will be followed by Jeremy Purvis. I apologise. I call Annabel Goldie, who will be followed by Pauline McNeill.
Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con):
Con
Pauline McNeill's fright was nothing compared to mine.It has been said that the Conservative party welcomes the general principles of the bill. In an increas...
Pauline McNeill (Glasgow Kelvin) (Lab):
Lab
I begin by thanking the Justice 1 Committee, the clerks, the bill team and the Deputy Minister for Justice for the work that they have all done in putting to...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
You have one minute.
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
The age question was a very difficult issue for the committee. As it stands, the bill will apply to persons aged 18 and over. The committee recommended that ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
You must wind up now, Ms McNeill.
Pauline McNeill:
Lab
As Mary Mulligan said, it is not helpful to compare an RSHO with an ASBO, given the massive stigma that will be attached to the former. We must get right the...
Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):
LD
As my colleague Jamie Stone said, the Liberal Democrats will support the general principles of the bill. In my view, the sober nature of this afternoon's deb...
Mr Stewart Maxwell (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I welcome the bill. The legislation is overdue and the SNP will certainly support the bill's general principles this evening. Although other members have cov...
Helen Eadie (Dunfermline East) (Lab):
Lab
I welcome the debate on the general principles of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. Like members who have spoken ...
Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green):
Green
All of us in the chamber recognise the importance of getting child protection right. The minister used the word "despicable" earlier in the debate to describ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
We move to winding-up speeches and I call Jamie Stone. Mr Stone, you have a tight four minutes.
Mr Stone:
LD
I rise to speak for the second time this afternoon. The minister rightly pointed to the emotional damage that is done to children and, correctly, flagged up ...
Members:
Cheese!
Mr Stone:
LD
I remember, as a wee boy, sitting in our knackered—is that parliamentary language? Perhaps not. I remember sitting in our battered old van when, suddenly and...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
The debate is predicated—as, indeed, is the legislation—on the basic concept that the abuse and exploitation of children for sexual purposes are abhorrent to...
Mr Bruce McFee (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
The debate has shown that, although the bill is relatively short, it impacts on a wide and complex range of issues. As the stage 1 report points out, the com...
The Deputy Minister for Justice (Hugh Henry):
Lab
The encouraging part of today's debate was the will that exists across Parliament for further measures to be taken to give added protection to young people, ...
The Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
NPA
Briefly, please. You have about another minute, minister.