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 bill. The legislation is overdue and the SNP will certainly support the bill's general principles this evening. Although other members have covered many of the points that I wish to cover, I do not think that it does any harm to cover them again, so I make no apology for doing so.
My understanding was that the bill was intended to deal with the problem of grooming, so I was quite disappointed when I read the committee report and found that grooming, in and of itself, would not be covered. I agree with committee members' concerns about the omission from the bill of specific reference to grooming. I am equally disappointed by the minister's refusal thus far to change her mind on that point.
In paragraph 17 of its report, the committee states that it is
"extremely concerned about the response from the Minister".
That is a pertinent comment, because the failure to criminalise grooming per se is, I believe, a mistake. To target the actions subsequent to grooming, although it is a welcome step in the right direction, does not go far enough. We must outlaw the act of grooming, not only the subsequent actions. As the minister said in her opening remarks, the issue is not just about the physical damage that can be done to children when such acts take place; even if a physical act does not take place, emotional and psychological damage can often occur before any meeting or any sexual act takes place.
Although I understand the difficulties in legislating in this area and in properly defining how we deal with offences, I fail to understand—as I believe most people will fail to understand—the Executive's reticence on the matter. The act of grooming children in and of itself cannot have an innocent purpose and should therefore be deemed to be an offence, without the need to travel, the intention to travel or the possession of condoms while travelling being used as evidence. The committee was quite correct to point out that section 1 of the bill will make at best only a marginal difference in tackling the threat from paedophiles.
I turn to age limits. I agree with the Executive and with the committee on the definition of a child as a person under 16, but I do not agree with the Executive on the definition in section 1 of who can commit the offence—it seems entirely likely that a person between the ages of 16 and 18 could commit such an offence. Unfortunately, there have been cases of persons in that age range and below who have been involved in such activity. I believe that, at the very least, the age limit for an alleged offender should be lowered from 18 to 16. However, the committee's suggestion that no age limit be set and that it be left to the discretion of the Crown Office and other agencies to decide on the correct action to take in each case is attractive. That would provide maximum flexibility in dealing with young people who are alleged to have committed such offences, but would not set artificial age barriers to prosecuting someone who is young, if their acts or behaviour are clearly shown to have been predatory.
On the number of times that a person has to communicate with a child before an offence is committed, I believe that the Executive has got that wrong. I whole-heartedly agree with the committee and other members who have stated that it is the content and context of communications that is the key to proving the offence, rather than the number of communications. That loophole must be closed to ensure that no child is endangered as a result of a technicality about the number, as opposed to the intent of, communications.
Frankly, I have little sympathy for the argument that the Executive seems to suggest, which is that it does not want the offence to catch people who engaged in grooming activity once but decided to take no further action. The minister is quoted as suggesting that in paragraph 68 of the committee's report. Does that mean that if someone engages in grooming with different children, but never more than once with each child, they should not be prosecuted? Is the emotional and psychological damage that can be caused by grooming in and of itself not reason enough for prosecution? The question is at the heart of why I believe that grooming, and not only the subsequent actions, should be an offence. Another reason for my belief in making grooming itself the offence is that the person who grooms may not be the person who travels. Therefore, the section 1 offence would seem not to apply to such people.
I certainly support the Executive's position on opposing a blanket marriage exemption; it made very good points to the committee on that.
In conclusion, all parts of the activity should be caught by the bill, which is about protecting children. That means that grooming, travelling or even persuading a child to travel should all be covered. Although I support the intent of the bill and its general principles, I believe that it will need to be amended at stage 2 if it is to be an effective tool against people in our society who intend to harm children in this way.
My understanding was that the bill was intended to deal with the problem of grooming, so I was quite disappointed when I read the committee report and found that grooming, in and of itself, would not be covered. I agree with committee members' concerns about the omission from the bill of specific reference to grooming. I am equally disappointed by the minister's refusal thus far to change her mind on that point.
In paragraph 17 of its report, the committee states that it is
"extremely concerned about the response from the Minister".
That is a pertinent comment, because the failure to criminalise grooming per se is, I believe, a mistake. To target the actions subsequent to grooming, although it is a welcome step in the right direction, does not go far enough. We must outlaw the act of grooming, not only the subsequent actions. As the minister said in her opening remarks, the issue is not just about the physical damage that can be done to children when such acts take place; even if a physical act does not take place, emotional and psychological damage can often occur before any meeting or any sexual act takes place.
Although I understand the difficulties in legislating in this area and in properly defining how we deal with offences, I fail to understand—as I believe most people will fail to understand—the Executive's reticence on the matter. The act of grooming children in and of itself cannot have an innocent purpose and should therefore be deemed to be an offence, without the need to travel, the intention to travel or the possession of condoms while travelling being used as evidence. The committee was quite correct to point out that section 1 of the bill will make at best only a marginal difference in tackling the threat from paedophiles.
I turn to age limits. I agree with the Executive and with the committee on the definition of a child as a person under 16, but I do not agree with the Executive on the definition in section 1 of who can commit the offence—it seems entirely likely that a person between the ages of 16 and 18 could commit such an offence. Unfortunately, there have been cases of persons in that age range and below who have been involved in such activity. I believe that, at the very least, the age limit for an alleged offender should be lowered from 18 to 16. However, the committee's suggestion that no age limit be set and that it be left to the discretion of the Crown Office and other agencies to decide on the correct action to take in each case is attractive. That would provide maximum flexibility in dealing with young people who are alleged to have committed such offences, but would not set artificial age barriers to prosecuting someone who is young, if their acts or behaviour are clearly shown to have been predatory.
On the number of times that a person has to communicate with a child before an offence is committed, I believe that the Executive has got that wrong. I whole-heartedly agree with the committee and other members who have stated that it is the content and context of communications that is the key to proving the offence, rather than the number of communications. That loophole must be closed to ensure that no child is endangered as a result of a technicality about the number, as opposed to the intent of, communications.
Frankly, I have little sympathy for the argument that the Executive seems to suggest, which is that it does not want the offence to catch people who engaged in grooming activity once but decided to take no further action. The minister is quoted as suggesting that in paragraph 68 of the committee's report. Does that mean that if someone engages in grooming with different children, but never more than once with each child, they should not be prosecuted? Is the emotional and psychological damage that can be caused by grooming in and of itself not reason enough for prosecution? The question is at the heart of why I believe that grooming, and not only the subsequent actions, should be an offence. Another reason for my belief in making grooming itself the offence is that the person who grooms may not be the person who travels. Therefore, the section 1 offence would seem not to apply to such people.
I certainly support the Executive's position on opposing a blanket marriage exemption; it made very good points to the committee on that.
In conclusion, all parts of the activity should be caught by the bill, which is about protecting children. That means that grooming, travelling or even persuading a child to travel should all be covered. Although I support the intent of the bill and its general principles, I believe that it will need to be amended at stage 2 if it is to be an effective tool against people in our society who intend to harm children in this way.
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.