Hansard

The member has made some interesting points and I am happy to go along to her cross-party group in April to go through those points in a lot more detail. I thank the member for the intervention.

We increasingly live in a borderless world in which the internet and social networking sites mean that crimes are not confined to any one particular geographical area. New ways in which young people can become prey to those who seek to sexually exploit them are emerging all the time.

In Scotland, the current definition of childhood sexual exploitation—which is from 2003—is:

“Any involvement of a child or young person below 18 in a sexual activity for which remuneration of cash or in kind is given to a young person or a third party or persons. The perpetrator will have power over the child by virtue of one or more of the following—age, emotional maturity, gender, physical strength, intellect and economic and other resources e.g. access to drugs”.

That is the definition that has been used by those tasked with tackling these crimes in Scotland. Does that definition really capture the many ways in which child sexual exploitation can manifest? Does everyone agree that the definition is still relevant and captures the different forms that such exploitation can take?

Clearly, in order to tackle such exploitation, we all need to know what it is and be able to recognise it. There needs to be a common understanding among young people themselves, parents, carers, professionals and the public of what forms sexual exploitation can take. It would appear from the evidence that the committee received that there is not a common understanding. There is confusion around what child sexual exploitation is. Must it always involve an exchange of cash or remuneration in kind? If it does not, does that mean that it is not recognised or recorded as child sexual exploitation? What about situations in which a young person is coerced into sexually exploitative practices due to a desire to fit in or be accepted? There may well not be any exchange of money or remuneration in kind but due to a strong desire to fit in or perhaps to come across as being mature, a young person might be vulnerable to being sexually exploited.

On definitions, child sexual exploitation is a form of child abuse. However, I know from the evidence that we received that some organisations—including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—do not see and do not support any distinction between child abuse and child sexual exploitation. We have a situation in which there is no united view on whether there should be a distinction, much less on what child sexual exploitation looks like, what it is and how to recognise it.

Partly for that reason, the committee’s overarching recommendation in its report is that a national, comprehensive strategy is required. The national strategy needs to include an updated definition—one that recognises the extent to which online activity is now part of all of our lives and the risks that that can present for our young people. The strategy also needs to provide direction to ensure that best practice is shared and the action that is required to do that is co-ordinated. That action will include training, public awareness raising, addressing young people’s vulnerabilities and ensuring that the necessary services are supported and sustainable.

On sustainable services, I turn to the issue of refuges for young people. About 9,000 young people go missing in Scotland each year. Two of the case studies that the committee received illustrate only too starkly the connection between young people running away from home and the risks of sexual assault and exploitation. I do not propose to go into detail but the case studies are recounted in the committee report.

Since 1995, our legislation has made provision for refuges for the under-16s. However, very few refuges were ever established and very little use was made of them by statutory agencies. As of last year, Scotland had only one such refuge, in the Glasgow area, which was run by Aberlour Child Care Trust. We were told by Aberlour that it had tried to work with local authorities and other relevant agencies, including the police, to encourage referrals but it was felt that there had not been an understanding of the value of a refuge and sadly we heard last year that the refuge had shut down because it was no longer viable. We did not get to the heart of why the refuge was closed but we have called for that to be investigated further; the minister may want to comment on that issue in her closing speech.

Those are just a few of the issues in the committee report that I wanted to highlight in my opening remarks. I await others’ contributions with interest and I look forward in particular to the minister’s speech.

I commend the committee report to Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations in the Public Petitions Committee’s 1st Report, 2014 (Session 4), Report on tackling child sexual exploitation in Scotland (SP Paper 449).