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 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 committee broadly supports the bill's intent; however, we have major concerns about its ability to deliver the level of protection that we all want. Indeed, there are even concerns about the bill's ability to deliver its own provisions. I am concerned that the procedures for granting and the standard of proof attached to RSHOs could result in people being wrongly accused of acting in an inappropriate way towards children. Such a stigma can mark someone for life.
I agree with Mary Mulligan's point that there is a lack of clarity about grooming; I also agree with the many speakers who said that we need a specific grooming offence per se.
Pauline McNeill referred to the evidence of Dr Rachel O'Connell when she spoke about the information that children are encouraged to provide online. Dr O'Connell's evidence was most persuasive. She has conducted extensive research into the structure and organisation of paedophile activity on the internet. The committee considered that the lack of measures to deal with what we have come to know as cybersexploitation is a serious gap in the protection of children. That was alluded to by Margaret Mitchell, Annabel Goldie and, of course, more graphically, Stewart Stevenson.
We heard from Margaret Mitchell and others about the possibility of making changes to breach of the peace legislation and incorporating breach of the peace in the list of sexual offences in part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That would allow anyone convicted of a breach of the peace offence that is of a clear, sexual nature to be incorporated in the list of sexual offenders. The committee strongly recommends that the Executive introduce measures to tackle grooming—which is in itself damaging to children—head on.
It is difficult to prove an offence under section 1 of the bill and it might prove exceedingly hard to bring together the four strands of behaviour that constitute the proposed offence, not least because of the activities of paedophile rings. In her opening speech, Cathy Jamieson referred to the ability of paedophiles to create and manipulate situations and said that it was important that we leave no loopholes, but there are loopholes all over the bill. The committee was correct to say that we should not insist on proving that there were two previous communications or meetings with the victim in order to make the offence stand up. We see no good reason for not reducing the number of communications to one.
The bill states that the offence would be complete only once the adult travelled with the intention of meeting the child to carry out an act that would otherwise be a relevant offence. However, in the bill as drafted, the offence would not be complete if the child were to travel to meet the adult, even if the adult prearranged the meeting or paid the child's expenses to get to the meeting.
There is also the question of resources. I was encouraged by the deputy minister's response and I look forward to his amendments because, as the bill stands, one could drive a coach and horses through it.
The age of the offender was touched on by many. I will not go through all the remarks, but Jeremy Purvis and Helen Eadie raised the situation of a 16-year-old boy in a consensual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. Such a relationship already constitutes a criminal offence. My question is about the discretion that can be applied by the prosecuting authorities.
Although the SNP supports the general principles of the bill—who could not?—we have a number of reservations. We are disappointed that the Executive has not produced its promised amendments, although we have sympathy for the reasons behind that. We have serious doubts about the effectiveness of the proposals as they stand and we question whether the bill will achieve its stated objectives in its present form. The bill can be made to work and can make a difference, but only if the Executive properly addresses the many serious issues that were raised in the Justice 1 Committee's report.
I agree with Mary Mulligan's point that there is a lack of clarity about grooming; I also agree with the many speakers who said that we need a specific grooming offence per se.
Pauline McNeill referred to the evidence of Dr Rachel O'Connell when she spoke about the information that children are encouraged to provide online. Dr O'Connell's evidence was most persuasive. She has conducted extensive research into the structure and organisation of paedophile activity on the internet. The committee considered that the lack of measures to deal with what we have come to know as cybersexploitation is a serious gap in the protection of children. That was alluded to by Margaret Mitchell, Annabel Goldie and, of course, more graphically, Stewart Stevenson.
We heard from Margaret Mitchell and others about the possibility of making changes to breach of the peace legislation and incorporating breach of the peace in the list of sexual offences in part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That would allow anyone convicted of a breach of the peace offence that is of a clear, sexual nature to be incorporated in the list of sexual offenders. The committee strongly recommends that the Executive introduce measures to tackle grooming—which is in itself damaging to children—head on.
It is difficult to prove an offence under section 1 of the bill and it might prove exceedingly hard to bring together the four strands of behaviour that constitute the proposed offence, not least because of the activities of paedophile rings. In her opening speech, Cathy Jamieson referred to the ability of paedophiles to create and manipulate situations and said that it was important that we leave no loopholes, but there are loopholes all over the bill. The committee was correct to say that we should not insist on proving that there were two previous communications or meetings with the victim in order to make the offence stand up. We see no good reason for not reducing the number of communications to one.
The bill states that the offence would be complete only once the adult travelled with the intention of meeting the child to carry out an act that would otherwise be a relevant offence. However, in the bill as drafted, the offence would not be complete if the child were to travel to meet the adult, even if the adult prearranged the meeting or paid the child's expenses to get to the meeting.
There is also the question of resources. I was encouraged by the deputy minister's response and I look forward to his amendments because, as the bill stands, one could drive a coach and horses through it.
The age of the offender was touched on by many. I will not go through all the remarks, but Jeremy Purvis and Helen Eadie raised the situation of a 16-year-old boy in a consensual relationship with a 15-year-old girl. Such a relationship already constitutes a criminal offence. My question is about the discretion that can be applied by the prosecuting authorities.
Although the SNP supports the general principles of the bill—who could not?—we have a number of reservations. We are disappointed that the Executive has not produced its promised amendments, although we have sympathy for the reasons behind that. We have serious doubts about the effectiveness of the proposals as they stand and we question whether the bill will achieve its stated objectives in its present form. The bill can be made to work and can make a difference, but only if the Executive properly addresses the many serious issues that were raised in the Justice 1 Committee's report.
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.