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
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 care for our children and keep them safe. Children are vulnerable individuals who are not yet fully developed and childhood is a fragile stage of life that is fundamental to personal development and to future society. Young people are a reflection of the previous generation, so to allow harm to come to them is self-harm and is criminal. Therefore, it is right that the issue dominates contemporary society. All members accept that the increased risk of sexual harm to children must be addressed and resolved, which is why members from all parties support the bill.
Internet chatrooms provide an ideal hunting ground for sexual predators and paedophiles. As technology has developed rapidly, no existing laws adequately prevent criminal activity from being committed on the internet. Unfortunately, sex criminals can manipulate the internet and use it to target children, which is potentially extremely damaging to the many children who use chatrooms and internet diaries. It is the Parliament's job to address social needs and to protect and care for young people consistently, in all matters, but especially in the matter that we are discussing.
As we have heard, children are constantly at risk from paedophiles on the internet. As Stewart Stevenson said, it is easy for predators to deceive children and convince them to meet. A need has been expressed for new legislation on the process of grooming, because the current legislation does not deal adequately with the problem and its effects. Too often, children are abused and sex predators go free to offend again, which is utterly unacceptable and demonstrates the need for new legislation. Adults often exhibit inappropriate behaviour towards children that causes law enforcement agencies to fear the possibility of predatory criminal tendencies in that person. However, under current law, nothing can be done until a crime has been committed and proven, by which time the harm will probably have been done. In this instance, the law as it stands does not allow us to protect our children.
Concern has been expressed from several quarters that the effects of section 1 will be minimal at best. The current stipulations may make conviction unlikely, as the offender must meet or plan to meet a child before a case can be made and the state must then prove intent to commit a crime. However, the point is that if just one child is protected or one paedophile is deterred from using the internet to hunt for victims, the bill will be a success, because one tragedy will have been averted.
My main concern, which is shared by other members, concerns the damage that a risk of sexual harm order could do to an innocent adult, especially as the level of evidence that will be required for such orders is significantly less than that which is required in standard criminal proceedings. We must, at all costs, ensure that a desire to protect our children does not cause us to infringe on the rights of other citizens. That aspect of the bill must be examined still more closely, with a strong focus on preserving the rights of individuals. As long as that is kept in mind, I can see no reason why a balance between the two cannot be reached.
The point that I am making is crucial. I am sure that, in our constituencies, all of us have heard a rumour being put around that someone is a paedophile. Often, of course, that rumour is not true but it could be damaging; it could destroy an innocent adult's life just as much as an innocent child's life can be ruined for ever by a paedophile.
The current law in Scotland does not recognise all the potential dangers to children. What is more, the law enforcement agencies have little room to work within the law while trying to protect children from paedophiles. Our job is to try to remedy the deficiencies of Scots law. The Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill provides us with the opportunity to do that.
I acknowledge that the Justice 1 Committee—before my time on it—highlighted some concerns about the bill that will have to be addressed at a later stage. However, every member of the committee fully supports the intention behind the bill and its justifications. This bill is in everyone's interest, most of all that of the children of Scotland.
It is, first and foremost, in the interests of society to care for our children and keep them safe. Children are vulnerable individuals who are not yet fully developed and childhood is a fragile stage of life that is fundamental to personal development and to future society. Young people are a reflection of the previous generation, so to allow harm to come to them is self-harm and is criminal. Therefore, it is right that the issue dominates contemporary society. All members accept that the increased risk of sexual harm to children must be addressed and resolved, which is why members from all parties support the bill.
Internet chatrooms provide an ideal hunting ground for sexual predators and paedophiles. As technology has developed rapidly, no existing laws adequately prevent criminal activity from being committed on the internet. Unfortunately, sex criminals can manipulate the internet and use it to target children, which is potentially extremely damaging to the many children who use chatrooms and internet diaries. It is the Parliament's job to address social needs and to protect and care for young people consistently, in all matters, but especially in the matter that we are discussing.
As we have heard, children are constantly at risk from paedophiles on the internet. As Stewart Stevenson said, it is easy for predators to deceive children and convince them to meet. A need has been expressed for new legislation on the process of grooming, because the current legislation does not deal adequately with the problem and its effects. Too often, children are abused and sex predators go free to offend again, which is utterly unacceptable and demonstrates the need for new legislation. Adults often exhibit inappropriate behaviour towards children that causes law enforcement agencies to fear the possibility of predatory criminal tendencies in that person. However, under current law, nothing can be done until a crime has been committed and proven, by which time the harm will probably have been done. In this instance, the law as it stands does not allow us to protect our children.
Concern has been expressed from several quarters that the effects of section 1 will be minimal at best. The current stipulations may make conviction unlikely, as the offender must meet or plan to meet a child before a case can be made and the state must then prove intent to commit a crime. However, the point is that if just one child is protected or one paedophile is deterred from using the internet to hunt for victims, the bill will be a success, because one tragedy will have been averted.
My main concern, which is shared by other members, concerns the damage that a risk of sexual harm order could do to an innocent adult, especially as the level of evidence that will be required for such orders is significantly less than that which is required in standard criminal proceedings. We must, at all costs, ensure that a desire to protect our children does not cause us to infringe on the rights of other citizens. That aspect of the bill must be examined still more closely, with a strong focus on preserving the rights of individuals. As long as that is kept in mind, I can see no reason why a balance between the two cannot be reached.
The point that I am making is crucial. I am sure that, in our constituencies, all of us have heard a rumour being put around that someone is a paedophile. Often, of course, that rumour is not true but it could be damaging; it could destroy an innocent adult's life just as much as an innocent child's life can be ruined for ever by a paedophile.
The current law in Scotland does not recognise all the potential dangers to children. What is more, the law enforcement agencies have little room to work within the law while trying to protect children from paedophiles. Our job is to try to remedy the deficiencies of Scots law. The Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill provides us with the opportunity to do that.
I acknowledge that the Justice 1 Committee—before my time on it—highlighted some concerns about the bill that will have to be addressed at a later stage. However, every member of the committee fully supports the intention behind the bill and its justifications. This bill is in everyone's interest, most of all that of the children of Scotland.
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.