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
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 every right-thinking person. It is also predicated on the fact that technology has not come with benefits alone. There has to be some recognition of that through a change in the legislation.
It has become evident in this afternoon's debate that the bill is defective in certain aspects and requires to be looked at. I really think that we should go for the simple solution. Why is grooming not being made an offence per se? Although I accept that there are evidential difficulties in that respect, we need to exercise some common sense. It is quite clear that, if a 40-year-old invites a 14-year-old girl, in full knowledge of her age, to visit him in his flat when no one else is present, there could be a problem. The Executive has to reconsider the matter. It is simply not sufficient to wait until things have gone that little bit further down the road; attempting to set up the contact should be the offence.
I found Stewart Stevenson's speech quite disturbing. It is not the first time that I have heard about what happens on some internet sites and, in the circumstances, the Executive would be advised to take further evidence from the national hi-tech crime unit before it lodges any final amendments to the bill. I also note that the Scottish Police Federation believes that grooming in itself should be an offence.
If the Executive is not prepared to take that route, perhaps the answer is the common-law approach. For example, the type of behaviour that I have described could constitute a breach of the peace. The introduction of a breach of the peace offence similar to that for sectarian aggravation might also deal with Mary Mulligan's concern that, as with any breach of the peace, the record of conviction would not mention that the offence had a sexual element.
The committee report expressed concerns about setting the age limit at 18. I think, frankly, that such a limit is a nonsense. After all, people mature much earlier nowadays and, as Christine Grahame pointed out, a 15-year-old could be in a position to entice a 14-year-old. We are not looking at the matter carefully enough—I certainly hope that the Executive takes these points on board.
I am also concerned about RSHOs. Of course, there are evidential difficulties in everything that we are attempting to do in this bill; however, there must be a presumption of innocence. I realise that RSHOs are not a criminal sanction, but an individual could be profoundly affected by being wrongly accused of such an offence. If there is such a narrow degree of difference between the evidence that is necessary to obtain an RSHO and that which is necessary to secure a successful criminal prosecution, we should take the route of criminal prosecution if there is any possibility that a child is at risk.
I can see what the Executive is trying to do, but I think that an awful lot of tidying up has to be done before the bill can be enacted.
It has become evident in this afternoon's debate that the bill is defective in certain aspects and requires to be looked at. I really think that we should go for the simple solution. Why is grooming not being made an offence per se? Although I accept that there are evidential difficulties in that respect, we need to exercise some common sense. It is quite clear that, if a 40-year-old invites a 14-year-old girl, in full knowledge of her age, to visit him in his flat when no one else is present, there could be a problem. The Executive has to reconsider the matter. It is simply not sufficient to wait until things have gone that little bit further down the road; attempting to set up the contact should be the offence.
I found Stewart Stevenson's speech quite disturbing. It is not the first time that I have heard about what happens on some internet sites and, in the circumstances, the Executive would be advised to take further evidence from the national hi-tech crime unit before it lodges any final amendments to the bill. I also note that the Scottish Police Federation believes that grooming in itself should be an offence.
If the Executive is not prepared to take that route, perhaps the answer is the common-law approach. For example, the type of behaviour that I have described could constitute a breach of the peace. The introduction of a breach of the peace offence similar to that for sectarian aggravation might also deal with Mary Mulligan's concern that, as with any breach of the peace, the record of conviction would not mention that the offence had a sexual element.
The committee report expressed concerns about setting the age limit at 18. I think, frankly, that such a limit is a nonsense. After all, people mature much earlier nowadays and, as Christine Grahame pointed out, a 15-year-old could be in a position to entice a 14-year-old. We are not looking at the matter carefully enough—I certainly hope that the Executive takes these points on board.
I am also concerned about RSHOs. Of course, there are evidential difficulties in everything that we are attempting to do in this bill; however, there must be a presumption of innocence. I realise that RSHOs are not a criminal sanction, but an individual could be profoundly affected by being wrongly accused of such an offence. If there is such a narrow degree of difference between the evidence that is necessary to obtain an RSHO and that which is necessary to secure a successful criminal prosecution, we should take the route of criminal prosecution if there is any possibility that a child is at risk.
I can see what the Executive is trying to do, but I think that an awful lot of tidying up has to be done before the bill can be enacted.
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.