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 debate on the general principles of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill. Like members who have spoken already, I believe that all children and young people have a right to be protected from sexual harm. I therefore support the overall principle of the bill, which is to better protect children and young people from sex offenders.
The bill is warmly welcomed as it will strengthen the measures that are available to protect children and young people from sexual harm and abuse. The Executive and the committee are to be applauded for their dedication and commitment in undertaking such vital work.
However, I am concerned that we should listen to some of the advice that we have received from other people in Scotland who have highlighted in briefings to MSPs concerns that I believe the committee and the Executive should be urged to take on board. They should give further consideration to the points that are raised.
I will focus on age, which Pauline McNeill mentioned. The bill defines an adult, or offender, as a person who is 18 or over and it defines a child, or victim, as being a person under 16. I believe that further consideration must be given to the complex issue of the age of the adult, or offender, as defined in the bill. Clarity is required about the position of 16 and 17-year-olds and consideration must be given to the role of the children's hearings system in relation to the new offence that is set out in section 1 of the bill. On the recommendations on the age of the offender in the Justice 1 Committee's stage 1 report, I believe that careful consideration must be given to its recommendation that no age be specified in respect of the section 1 offence.
The children's hearings system should remain central to decisions for under-16s and people up to the age of 18 who are on supervision orders. The children's reporter should be consulted to determine the route in the case of a young person who is accused of committing the offence. An amendment to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to permit, in the case of a person who is not already on supervision, referral to the children's hearings system within six months of his or her 18th birthday should be supported. I also believe that any order must be accompanied by a package of support or treatment.
The bill currently defines the age of an adult, or the offender, as being 18 or over. There has been much discussion of whether the age of the offender in relation to the offence at section 1 should be lowered to 16. Analysis of the responses to the initial consultation on the proposals shows that 69 per cent of respondents thought that 16 should be defined as the age at which one could be charged with an offence. The most common argument for that was that doing so would be consistent with the age of sexual consent for females in Scotland. It is also argued that there is evidence that young people below the age of 18 display the type of sexually inappropriate behaviour or grooming behaviour that is defined in the bill. To set the age limit at 16 would clarify the position of 16 and 17-year-olds in relation to the new offence.
I understand that people have argued in submissions to the committee that they are particularly wary of any measure that could lead to criminalisation of young adolescents; for example, a 16-year-old boy could be in a consensual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. It is therefore important that we draw a distinction between legitimate boyfriend-girlfriend meetings and what could be criminalised.
Moreover, it is felt by many people that in Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds should not be dealt with through the adult criminal system. Inconsistencies in the definition of a child in Scots law have also been highlighted. It is recognised that defining an adult as a person of 18 or over is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. Young people up to the age of 18 should be protected from sexual harm.
Finally, given the definition of an adult in the bill, it is unclear what the implications are for 16 and 17-year-olds. Currently, they are defined neither as victims nor offenders. Clarity is required where a young person under the age of 18 commits the offence that is set out in section 1. It must be made explicit.
The bill is warmly welcomed as it will strengthen the measures that are available to protect children and young people from sexual harm and abuse. The Executive and the committee are to be applauded for their dedication and commitment in undertaking such vital work.
However, I am concerned that we should listen to some of the advice that we have received from other people in Scotland who have highlighted in briefings to MSPs concerns that I believe the committee and the Executive should be urged to take on board. They should give further consideration to the points that are raised.
I will focus on age, which Pauline McNeill mentioned. The bill defines an adult, or offender, as a person who is 18 or over and it defines a child, or victim, as being a person under 16. I believe that further consideration must be given to the complex issue of the age of the adult, or offender, as defined in the bill. Clarity is required about the position of 16 and 17-year-olds and consideration must be given to the role of the children's hearings system in relation to the new offence that is set out in section 1 of the bill. On the recommendations on the age of the offender in the Justice 1 Committee's stage 1 report, I believe that careful consideration must be given to its recommendation that no age be specified in respect of the section 1 offence.
The children's hearings system should remain central to decisions for under-16s and people up to the age of 18 who are on supervision orders. The children's reporter should be consulted to determine the route in the case of a young person who is accused of committing the offence. An amendment to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to permit, in the case of a person who is not already on supervision, referral to the children's hearings system within six months of his or her 18th birthday should be supported. I also believe that any order must be accompanied by a package of support or treatment.
The bill currently defines the age of an adult, or the offender, as being 18 or over. There has been much discussion of whether the age of the offender in relation to the offence at section 1 should be lowered to 16. Analysis of the responses to the initial consultation on the proposals shows that 69 per cent of respondents thought that 16 should be defined as the age at which one could be charged with an offence. The most common argument for that was that doing so would be consistent with the age of sexual consent for females in Scotland. It is also argued that there is evidence that young people below the age of 18 display the type of sexually inappropriate behaviour or grooming behaviour that is defined in the bill. To set the age limit at 16 would clarify the position of 16 and 17-year-olds in relation to the new offence.
I understand that people have argued in submissions to the committee that they are particularly wary of any measure that could lead to criminalisation of young adolescents; for example, a 16-year-old boy could be in a consensual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. It is therefore important that we draw a distinction between legitimate boyfriend-girlfriend meetings and what could be criminalised.
Moreover, it is felt by many people that in Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds should not be dealt with through the adult criminal system. Inconsistencies in the definition of a child in Scots law have also been highlighted. It is recognised that defining an adult as a person of 18 or over is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Protection of Children (Scotland) Act 2003. Young people up to the age of 18 should be protected from sexual harm.
Finally, given the definition of an adult in the bill, it is unclear what the implications are for 16 and 17-year-olds. Currently, they are defined neither as victims nor offenders. Clarity is required where a young person under the age of 18 commits the offence that is set out in section 1. It must be made explicit.
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.