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
I welcome the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. Unfortunately, there are people who are using the opportunities that are offered by new technologies, including the internet, to entice children and vulnerable young people into situations that put them at risk of sexual harm. No reasonable person would shy away from the opportunity to protect all our children and I believe that the bill will give the police another tool to do just that. Any issues that I raise about the bill and how it should work in practice should be seen alongside my overall support for it.
The first element of the bill is the creation of a new offence of grooming. What is meant by the word "grooming" is perhaps not as clear as members of the committee first thought. However, the Executive has tried to clear up any doubt by explaining that the offence of grooming will have four elements: communication; meeting or travelling to meet; the relevant offence; and the under-16 age limit. Each of those elements assists us to recognise what is meant by grooming, but some issues remain. As has been mentioned, a number of witnesses argued that the requirement for communication to have taken place on two occasions is an unnecessary hurdle because, particularly in chatrooms, one long, continuous communication could be sufficient to gain a child's trust to the extent that they would agree to a meeting.
As Stewart Stevenson said, committee members had the opportunity to see the national hi-tech crime unit, which is based in the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, give a demonstration of a chatroom situation. That made a big impression on us all. Two things in particular struck me, the first of which was that the chat does not have to have a sexual content to make a reasonable person feel uncomfortable or suspicious that someone is not who they say they are. However, such chat can still pose a danger. I realise that the Executive has said that the chat does not have to have a sexual content in order for it to form the first element of the offence, but that could make it difficult to prove such a case when it comes to court.
Secondly, the chat that has a sexual content can, in itself, be damaging to the child and is a form of abuse. I understand that that sort of behaviour could be dealt with through a charge of breach of the peace. The concern about using that charge, however, is that it carries no recognition of the individual's sexual deviancy, which needs to be recognised if their future behaviour is to be addressed.
A number of issues have arisen around other elements of the bill. I do not have time to refer to them all, but I will comment on risk of sexual harm orders. I understand that the aim of the introduction of RSHOs is to prevent acts that would cause sexual harm to children. Having promoted the use of antisocial behaviour orders, I am signed up to the principle that there is a role for orders that prevent action. However, I want to ensure that we all realise that there is a significant difference between ASBOs and RSHOs, namely the stigma that is associated with sexual offences. I am concerned that that might make the police more reluctant to use RSHOs and that that would therefore reduce their effectiveness.
I support the bill. The important point, as with any bill, is how it will be implemented. Issues around resources and monitoring were raised at stage 1 and I know that we will return to them. There is particular concern that resources should be available for the support and treatment of perpetrators, and I am sure that we will return to that too. For now, I am content to give the bill my support.
The first element of the bill is the creation of a new offence of grooming. What is meant by the word "grooming" is perhaps not as clear as members of the committee first thought. However, the Executive has tried to clear up any doubt by explaining that the offence of grooming will have four elements: communication; meeting or travelling to meet; the relevant offence; and the under-16 age limit. Each of those elements assists us to recognise what is meant by grooming, but some issues remain. As has been mentioned, a number of witnesses argued that the requirement for communication to have taken place on two occasions is an unnecessary hurdle because, particularly in chatrooms, one long, continuous communication could be sufficient to gain a child's trust to the extent that they would agree to a meeting.
As Stewart Stevenson said, committee members had the opportunity to see the national hi-tech crime unit, which is based in the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, give a demonstration of a chatroom situation. That made a big impression on us all. Two things in particular struck me, the first of which was that the chat does not have to have a sexual content to make a reasonable person feel uncomfortable or suspicious that someone is not who they say they are. However, such chat can still pose a danger. I realise that the Executive has said that the chat does not have to have a sexual content in order for it to form the first element of the offence, but that could make it difficult to prove such a case when it comes to court.
Secondly, the chat that has a sexual content can, in itself, be damaging to the child and is a form of abuse. I understand that that sort of behaviour could be dealt with through a charge of breach of the peace. The concern about using that charge, however, is that it carries no recognition of the individual's sexual deviancy, which needs to be recognised if their future behaviour is to be addressed.
A number of issues have arisen around other elements of the bill. I do not have time to refer to them all, but I will comment on risk of sexual harm orders. I understand that the aim of the introduction of RSHOs is to prevent acts that would cause sexual harm to children. Having promoted the use of antisocial behaviour orders, I am signed up to the principle that there is a role for orders that prevent action. However, I want to ensure that we all realise that there is a significant difference between ASBOs and RSHOs, namely the stigma that is associated with sexual offences. I am concerned that that might make the police more reluctant to use RSHOs and that that would therefore reduce their effectiveness.
I support the bill. The important point, as with any bill, is how it will be implemented. Issues around resources and monitoring were raised at stage 1 and I know that we will return to them. There is particular concern that resources should be available for the support and treatment of perpetrators, and I am sure that we will return to that too. For now, I am content to give the bill my support.
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.