Meeting of the Parliament 28 January 2014
I believe that we all come to the Parliament, sometimes amid rhetoric and cosmetics, to try to make a difference—however big or small—to our fellow citizens. In this debate, we have collectively demonstrated the need to express that difference in the name of our children.
In 1997, Nelson Mandela said:
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”
Today’s debate has exemplified, in the face of what was a very challenging inquiry, as John Wilson said, what that means for us and the society that we wish to reflect in Scotland.
I acknowledge, as the convener did, all those who participated in the inquiry, and particularly Barnardo’s for bringing the petition to us.
The report is comprehensive, but before I address it, I congratulate all the participants in the debate. It is salutary to consider some of the words and phrases that have been used, such as “neglect”, “revulsion”, “disjointed”, “trust”, “lack of co-ordination” and “gaps” in communication. In particular, Jayne Baxter’s and Jackson Carlaw’s contributions are to be commended.
In the inquiry, we talked about not just cause and effect but the need for action above all. In many ways, the report considers the effects and recommendations to mitigate the effects, which I will come to, but the cause is just as important, and I would like to consider it first. I will therefore start, perversely, with part 5 of the report and how we can disrupt, prosecute and severely penalise the perpetrators. What I have to say must have some bearing—as I am sure it will—on the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.
As Angus MacDonald said, Daljeet Dagon of Barnardo’s explained that she had
“talked about the triangle approach that Barnardo’s developed, whereby the focus is on the victim but there is also recognition that there is a child sex offender and a facilitator. We have to flip the triangle over and focus on disrupting and prosecuting perpetrators, and we should identify locations”
where they will operate
“and police them better”.—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 11 June 2013; c 1434.]
That is not just for the police; it is also for the third sector agencies and families, as has been mentioned.
Police Scotland said that the wider community was pivotal in recognising and reporting CSE, but it was asked why the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 had not been used effectively, if at all. It is not acceptable that, if that act was to give new tools and powers to the police, freedom of information requests in 2012 found that, between them, Lothian and Borders Police and Strathclyde Police had issued only two RSHOs. The same applied to the sexual offence prevention orders. Only 1.05 per cent of offenders on the sex offenders register had SOPOs applied. I welcome Police Scotland’s commitment to secure additional mandatory training and highlight all the legislative options that are open to it, and its optimism—which, I am sure, is not misplaced—that the single service will ensure that Scotland has a wider approach to ensuring that victims are protected.
It is not just down to the police, of course; as I said, it is down to a multi-agency approach. That said, several, if not many, organisations, including the ministerial short-life working group, the national working group for sexually exploited children, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in the inquiry into CSE in gangs and groups, CEOP and the NSPCC, have assessed and reported on the effects of, and the leading up to, child sexual exploitation.
Of course, as I said, running in parallel with the committee’s inquiry and report was consideration of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, so it would be wrong to suggest that nothing is happening. Something is happening. For example, Barnardo’s Scotland has stated that it has
“established a partnership ... with Renfrewshire Council and the local police to better protect children who go missing, with a particular focus on CSE.”
In addition, the Glasgow child protection committee has taken a multi-agency approach to investigating CSE. However, it is too disparate and inconsistent, and it is frankly not as joined up as we might wish, as John Wilson pointed out.
Despite there being many examples of good practice across Scotland, the response is patchy and the various demands to address the support needs of children in a co-ordinated way were questioned by the committee. On addressing children’s needs and vulnerabilities, the training of those who are involved in detecting children targeted for CSE, supporting children who have experienced CSE, and disrupting and capturing actual and would-be perpetrators, the committee believed that all those areas were inadequately co-ordinated.
That is why the report suggests that there should in fact be, as has been mentioned, a national strategy for tackling child sexual exploitation. That should include an organisation to co-ordinate a national approach to tackling and preventing the enemy within that is CSE, and to support the victims. The committee noted that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was imminent and it suggested that the serious issue of CSE should be considered as part of the scrutiny of the bill, or at least considered in tandem with that scrutiny.
A feature of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill is the requirement for a named person to consider a child’s interests. Within the committee’s proposal for a national framework, we suggest that the Government establish as soon as possible that a named person or overarching organisation be made directly responsible for the accelerated co-ordination and implementation of the process and the communication links to not reduce but eradicate the scourge of CSE from our communities.
However, for any strategy or organisation to be successful it must understand what the problem is and how it is defined. Of course, it is contiguous with sexual abuse, but it has a particular black form with the attendant material seductions. The basis of any successful tactical operation that flows from the strategy must be a composite of the key elements that the committee considered for the proposed organisation and the critical factors in the recommendations.
I wish that I could say that I was delighted to participate in the inquiry, but delighted is the wrong word; it would be much more appropriate to say that the inquiry was harrowing. The inquiry could have done and dug so much more if it had had more time. The Government has accepted the committee’s proposal to develop a framework, but the proposal for a co-operative organisation with clear responsibilities, required outcomes and a data mechanism to scope the challenge will be, on acceptance, a huge step forward. I welcome the proposed national plan.
I started with a quotation from Nelson Mandela and, if I may, I will finish with another. He said:
“Our children are our greatest treasure. They are our future. Those who abuse them tear at the fabric of our society and weaken our nation.”
Hopefully, the Public Petitions Committee’s report will go some way towards making sure that that does not happen.
We ignore the report at our peril. It is significant and the recommendations are highly significant. If they are not attended to, CSE will eat away at our social fabric and the social relationships therein. I would ask, I would encourage and I would plead that all members read the detail of the report—every word and recommendation—and understand what it means for our children and our society.