Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2771, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, that the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill be passed.
I spent many years working in child protection, working with young victims of abuse. I have seen at first hand the damage that can be caused by those appalling crimes. Like other members, I have heard directly from victims. I have heard their testimony, not just about how the physical harm that they sustained has affected them, but—even once their physical wounds have healed—about how the emotional and psychological trauma continue for years to come.
That is why we must do all that we can to stop that abuse happening to our children. That is why we must ensure that the law allows for early intervention to prevent predatory sex offenders from targeting our children. If they manage to commit their despicable crimes, we must ensure that the law will deal with them in an appropriately robust manner. The Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill aims to do just that. That is why I am pleased to bring the bill to Parliament today.
I thank the Justice 1 Committee and its officials, as well as our own Executive officials, for their hard work. I pay particular tribute to the Deputy Minister for Justice, Hugh Henry, for his attention to detail during the passage of the bill, at both stage 1 and stage 2. We always try to listen to what committees say as we take legislation through Parliament. We have listened to the views of the Justice 1 Committee, and we have amended provisions in accordance with those views. That has been important. It has also been important that, as we have gone through the process, we have taken account of the views of those who work in child protection. I am pleased that the new provisions that I hope we will agree to today will add to our ability to help to protect our children effectively.
The bill that is now before the Parliament goes further than ever before in its aim of protecting young people from sexual harm. As we have heard, the bill now includes a range of offences to tackle the sexual exploitation of young people under the age of 18. First, it criminalises those who purchase sexual services from someone under the age of 18. As we heard, that could include any form of sexual service, including prostitution, lap-dancing or sex chat lines. The bill extends the current law on indecent pictures of children so that it applies to young people under 18, rather than only to those under 16—with some exceptions to ensure both that the civil liberties of the young people involved are protected and that we give young people protection when necessary.
Finally, the bill creates offences to deal with those who recruit young people into pornography and the provision of sexual services, as well as those who make the arrangements for those activities to take place. Even if those people are not obtaining the sexual services or taking, possessing or distributing the indecent pictures themselves, we will ensure that they are brought to justice for the harm that they do to our young people, however indirectly. There is no place in our society for the exploitation of young people. I believe that the bill will go a long way towards tackling exploitation and making Scotland a safer place for our youngsters.
I put on record my thanks to the Justice 1 Committee, given the comments that Pauline McNeill and others made about the time that was available to it to deliberate on difficult and sensitive issues. The committee had to weigh up the balance between rights and protection and the balance between adults' rights and the rights of children and young people. It had to come to a decision, irrespective of the shortage of time. In essence, the committee had to do what a number of child protection professionals have to do daily, which is to consider the evidence before them and take a decision that they believe to be in the best interests of children and young people. Our job as legislators is to put in place a framework to help those professionals to protect our children and young people, which the bill does, whether they are children in their local play park, teenagers in an internet chat room or young people in a relationship who are vulnerable to being recruited into some form of exploitation.
No one can turn back the clock to undo the damage that has been done to children and young people in the past, but we must do everything that we can to do better in the future and to ensure that in Scotland our children have every possible protection. I therefore commend the bill to Parliament.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill be passed.
We have trod a relatively long and very twisty road to get to this stage. Passing the bill will increase protection for children. A number of issues remain unresolved, but that is not to say that those issues were capable of being resolved in the bill or in legislation at all.
If I take issue with anything that the minister said, I do so about one thing only and as a matter of emphasis. The minister said that the bill will help professionals to protect children. That is excellent and, of course, I support it. However, we must consider in what other ways we can protect children and what other people have to be involved in that.
One thing that is outside the legislative framework but to which we have to turn our minds as politicians is helping children to protect children from sexual exploitation. When the high-tech crime unit came to show us some of the things that happen in the world of the internet, even those of us who spent an entire career in computers found that there were gaping holes in our knowledge, understanding and experience; I saw things of which I had not previously been aware in any way, shape or form. The development of new technologies, particularly in various areas of communication, is extremely rapid. Given that we are probably not the users of the technologies that create the greatest risks for children, the only way in which we can improve substantially the protection of children is to help children to protect children, because they understand the technologies. I hope that the Executive will not feel that the job is done when, at 5.30 or thereabouts, we pass the bill. There is more to do.
Another area of challenge to which we have to turn our minds is that which always occurs in relation to offending of a sexual nature: we have to raise our game on detection, prosecution, incarceration, treatment and rehabilitation. We know that we see but a tiny portion of the offending that goes on in sexual matters and that, of that tiny portion, we successfully prosecute only a tiny portion. It is suggested that less than 5 per cent of rapes end up in a conviction. I had to say "suggested", because I do not think that we can put our hands on our hearts and say that we have an absolutely reliable figure; we can rely only on the fact that we do not fully know.
The same will be true in relation to many of the offences that we have created under the bill that concern the inappropriate sexual behaviours that we seek to address. Therefore, the high-tech crime unit within the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which is a useful start, needs to have more resources and more ability to help the wider police force and the community to detect and respond to sexual offending that involves technology. We have to consider further ways in which we can resource and respond to matters in that regard.
As a child, because I was fortunate to have it brought to my attention by my parents, I was aware of the risks of paedophilia. I suspect, however, that that was extremely unusual. Further, I also had a pretty good idea who the paedophiles who had not gone into the criminal justice system were in the town in which I was brought up. That knowledge and information were protection for me. We must not be afraid to ensure that children are informed about challenging social and sexual matters. We must not shy from that.
I have received a wee note from YouthLink Scotland, which says that it remains a little bit concerned about an issue relating to the risk of sexual harm orders. It points out that, although Disclosure Scotland might be aware of RSHOs, that does not mean that people will be placed on the disqualified list, which means that issues remain regarding whether the person will be adequately known about. It might be possible for the minister to address that matter.
I am happy to support the bill.
I thank the Justice 1 Committee clerks, the committee's convener and my fellow committee members for their work in relation to the passage of the bill. I give a special mention to Professor Christopher Gane, who steered the committee through complex legislation.
I welcome the general principles of the bill and take particular pleasure in the provision that is contained in section 1, which I hope will send out a clear message to those who would prey on vulnerable children. In addition to that, section 1 establishes parity with England and ensures that there is no difference between our provision for such offences and that which exists south of the border. It also provides a deterrent, which is important, and highlights the particular danger of grooming via the internet or even at the school gate.
Since entering Parliament almost two years ago, I have campaigned on the issues that we are discussing. What struck me then and still strikes me now is the conclusion of an American survey concerning the victimisation of children via the internet. The study said that, sadly, the internet is not always as safe an educational and recreational environment as we would hope that it would be. I hope that section 1 raises awareness of that fact.
There was a lot of soul searching about the other provisions in the bill. There was concern about balancing the integrity of our justice system with the clear need to protect young and vulnerable people. A breach of the civil orders in the bill constitutes a criminal offence of a sexual nature, which heightens the tensions surrounding the issue and can have far-reaching consequences.
Although we accepted the lower burden of proof—in other words, the balance of probabilities—for issuing RSHOs and interim RSHOs, we attempted to ensure today that the process was robust and that there were no unintended consequences by lodging amendments that contained possible safeguards. For example, we lodged amendments on the teaching of sex education, on time limits on the issuing of an interim RSHO—which by its very nature should be immediate and issued in an emergency situation—and on very specific circumstances in which a previous not guilty verdict could be used.
One of the main difficulties with the European Council framework decision on child prostitution and pornography was the inclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds in the definition of children. I hope that the exemptions that have been agreed to today will satisfy the terms of that decision.
I very much welcome the legislation on the understanding that it will be monitored stringently, especially in relation to RSHOs, and I hope that it will make a real difference to vulnerable children.
I am pleased to speak in the debate. However, as I joined the Justice 1 Committee only in time for stage 3 of the bill, I am afraid that I am not as well informed about its detail as other committee members. As a result, I am grateful to several committee members who gave me good guidance, and to Hugh Henry, who brought me up to date with the issues surrounding the bill.
The Liberal Democrats fully support changes in legislation to prevent sexually predatory behaviours and we support the bill's expanded scope to protect children and young people from sexual exploitation. Although legislative change must have child protection as its paramount consideration, it must also be compatible with the rights that are enshrined in the European convention on human rights. That fact might have led to the rejection of some amendments this afternoon.
The bill introduces risk of sexual harm orders which, as we all know, are aimed at protecting children who are considered to be at risk of sexual harm from others, and makes breach of such orders a criminal offence. I understand that in the bill as originally drafted by the Executive, only an adult aged 18 or over could commit the offence of meeting a child following certain preliminary contact—in other words, grooming—and could have an RSHO imposed on them. Those age limits were in keeping with comparable offences in England and Wales that were made under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The bill has now removed that age limit, which means that an RSHO may be sought by the chief constable in respect of a person of any age who meets the criteria. I must say that I have considerable sympathy with Children 1st, which wanted the age limit to stay at 18.
I appreciate that Mike Pringle joined the committee after we had had the seminar on those matters. However, does he accept that the committee lodged the amendment on that not simply because we thought that the age limit should be removed, but in response to other children's charities, which said that they were aware of young people who were exhibiting behaviour that should be dealt with through RSHOs?
I am happy to accept that point. Perhaps I was under some misapprehension. However, I should say that the briefing from Children 1st, which I received only last week, was compelling and made a very good point. Clearly, that organisation wanted the age limit to remain. All I am saying is that I am sympathetic to its concerns. I am sure that none of us would want unnecessarily to criminalise people under 18 and I am sure—and I hope—that chief constables, procurators fiscal and the courts will have a sympathetic and understanding attitude to dealing with those individuals.
I now turn to what Marlyn Glen's amendments showed was a contentious issue: the question of indecent photographs of 16 and 17-year-olds. If someone over 18 has such photographs and they are consensual, there is no problem, but if someone who is 16 or 17 has such photographs there could be a problem. I would have been likely to support Marlyn Glen had she pressed her amendments.
As the bill stands, 16 and 17-year-olds can take explicit sexual photographs of each other if they are married or in an established relationship. I imagine that all of us could probably define what an established relationship is, but what does "established relationship" mean to a 16 or 17-year-old? To some, it could be their first experience of love at the age of 16 or 17. It could last a week and then be over. It has been suggested that, with the wording that is now in the bill, 16 or 17-year-olds are less likely to make rash or impetuous decisions to consent to such pictures, which they might later regret. Does anyone really believe that such people will give any thought to that when they are embarking on brief but passionate affairs? I do not think so. As I said with regard to RSHOs, it is to be hoped that the police, procurators fiscal and courts will be careful and understanding in deciding which 16 and 17-year-olds they take action against. I am delighted that the minister gave a commitment to Marlyn Glen to review that part of the legislation after a suitable time.
I have highlighted the two issues that have caused me some concern. In respect of all other aspects of the bill, I have absolutely no doubt that it is very much to be welcomed and that the further protection that it offers to children is a considerable step forward. I am happy to support the bill.
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives for waiving their closing speeches, which means that I can give three minutes to Patrick Harvie and three minutes to Pauline McNeill.
I am, as I said earlier, an outsider to the committee process. As a small group without a member on all committees, it is sometimes difficult for Green members to keep track of legislation. In this case, however, coming late to the bill has been even more challenging than usual, and I express my sympathy for the committee, which has clearly tried hard to make the best of a flawed process.
I have heard serious criticism of the bill from outside Parliament—from non-governmental organisations, from professionals and from individuals. That criticism has not been of the intention to tackle the serious offences that the minister described as despicable, which should be the target of the bill, but of the way in which the bill risks making offences of perfectly normal and innocent sexual activity and sexual exploration by young people, including people who are over the age of consent. If we want young people to learn to exercise that consent responsibly and to respect themselves and one another, we have to make it clear that we respect their ability to do so and their right to do so; 16 and 17-year-olds rarely go behind the bike sheds to discover their sexuality these days. Very often, they go online—to chat, to flirt, to get to know one another and to express their sexuality in a perfectly normal and non-abusive way.
Our duty to extend the protection of the law against abuse into that new domain in society should not result in interference in behaviour that is normal, non-abusive and entirely private. During the stage 1 debate, I expressed my disappointment that the bill had given rise to serious concerns in that regard, when it should have focused on the clearly unacceptable offences that we would all find unforgivable and intolerable. I am sorry to say that those concerns have not all been satisfactorily addressed, and I reiterate that that is not a criticism of the committee, which was left with insufficient time to deal with some aspects of the bill. The infringement of 16 and 17-year-olds' right to consent remains an issue. There is also ambiguity around what is appropriate or inappropriate behaviour, and around what is appropriate or inappropriate material and information to give to young people. The idea—that is contained in many parts of the bill—that we should leave that to the discretion of an individual remains a serious problem.
I will vote in favour of the bill, but I will do so with grave concerns and with a desire to see the review that the minister spoke about being conducted. It should be a review not only of specific aspects, but of many aspects of the bill that have been rushed and have been introduced in a form that still gives rise to serious concerns. Those matters should be reviewed soon and should be subject to further scrutiny in Parliament. I regret not being able to support measures in the bill that are greatly needed without also having to support some aspects that give rise to very serious concerns.
I thank the Justice 1 Committee, which has done excellent work. I am grateful for the remarks made by both ministers when they signalled their appreciation of what we have gone through.
This has been another small bill that deals with complex issues. When first we looked at it we thought, "Here's another wee bill; it won't take much time." We now know from experience that a bill being small does not mean that it is not complex. I will run through a few issues and address some of the points to which Patrick Harvie referred.
One of the most important points is about proving the offence; I think that we have done the right thing on that. We are reassured by where we have ended up, because proving the offence is the most important issue. However, legislation alone is not the most important tool in fighting sexual crime against children: we know from cases that have been highlighted to us that what can be provided by way of resources along with surveillance and intelligence work by police forces is just as important. There is more work for us to do.
It is important to note that the bill stands alongside much other legislation and the work on dealing with serious violent and sexual offenders that was commissioned by the Executive and carried out by MacLean and Cosgrove. Other important work has been done. I hope that the courts will continue to use the new order for lifelong restriction for very serious offences.
Monitoring of people who are on the sex offenders register is worthy of further attention because the quality of that monitoring is what really matters. We must get to grips with that.
There is a greater incidence of situations in which adults entrap young people simply for sexual gratification than of cases in which they intend to go further. The committee was adamant about that, but we are now satisfied that there will exist the relevant offences to criminalise adults who also engage in that activity.
I will deal with the ages at which a person is defined as being a child. The idea that we can be consistent about that is nonsense—it is necessary to consider each situation on its own merits. In respect of sexual exploitation, we are obliged by Europe to define a child as being someone up to the age of 18. Let us not forget that. That is different from defining the age of a child for another purpose. It is wrong to suggest that there should be a review to come up with an age that applies in all circumstances. It cannot be done, so at stage 2 we removed the age limit for an offender, with the Executive's support, for that reason.
Although Children 1st made in its submission a very good point about one scenario, the other scenario is that a 15-year-old could be found to be grooming a 12-year-old. Under our current law we will prosecute a 15-year-old who rapes a 12-year-old child and we will send him to the criminal courts. Because we received evidence that predatory behaviour could be shown by a 15-year-old to a younger child, we felt that, on balance, we had to remove the age limit. Let us not forget that the children's organisations who argued for that change also want us to change the primary legislation on children's hearings so that all those who are under the age of 18 go to children's hearings. That completes their argument. Members should understand that that is the context in which we removed the age limit.
I am sure that I am running out of time.
Yes. I must hurry you.
The bill is good and I hope that members understand why the committee came to its conclusions. I am pleased that the Executive has said specifically that it will review the matter and I am confident that it will do so.
The bill has come a long way since stage 1. Many concerns that the committee expressed at that stage were addressed at stage 2 and various loopholes have been closed.
For the record, I say that I concur whole-heartedly with comments about the Executive amendments that were made by Pauline McNeill on behalf of the committee, but I also recognise the position of ministers.
The bill will generally improve protection for children. Not only will it make it an offence to contact and travel to meet a person under 16 to engage in sexual activities, it will also introduce risk of sexual harm orders, which can be imposed on individuals who display worrying patterns of behaviour of a sexual nature, or who have engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct towards a child. The bill will also provide adults and children with additional protection from sex offenders by allowing the courts to impose sexual offences prevention orders on people who have been prosecuted for certain offences.
That said, we must be careful and recognise that we need to get the message out to parents and wider society that, of itself, the bill will not adequately protect children. On that, I agree heartily with the sentiments of Children 1st, which has said that legislation alone will not protect children. Emphasis should be placed on education and prevention, with sexual abuse of children being seen as a public health priority. Danger to children comes not only from strangers or paedophiles whom they might meet on the internet, but from people who are closer to home—abuse may be perpetrated by an individual whom the child thought he or she could trust.
We will support the bill because we believe that it will contribute to the safety of children. However, let the message go out loud and clear that child protection is a job that is not just for legislators. In the words of Children 1st,
"Child protection is everyone's business."
In response to Stewart Stevenson's question about YouthLink Scotland, I assure him that my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for education and young people will pursue the matter with that organisation.
The bill has been a difficult experience for everyone concerned, but I thank the Justice 1 Committee in particular. I appreciate the difficulties that the committee faced, but I believe that we now have a better bill as a result of its endeavours. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Scottish Executive officials who worked hard to get the bill to this stage. Our officials were often up against tight deadlines, but they sought valiantly to support ministers and the committee—as, I think, the committee appreciated—through what was a difficult process.
In the course of deliberations, we all learned as we went along, but one shocking thing that emerged in the evidence that the committee took is—as Stewart Stevenson mentioned—the speed with which technology is changing. The evidence that the committee heard from the police and from academics also revealed the cunning that is demonstrated by some of the people who use technology and other techniques to trap and abuse young children. It is astonishing just how manipulative those people can be. We heard all sorts of distressing examples of the lengths to which such people will go in trying to manipulate young people into positions in which they can be abused. It is right that we have reflected some of those concerns in the bill by seeking to move with the times and by trying to be as flexible as possible while retaining some certainty in law.
Another important outcome of the committee's discussions and deliberations is that we have now extended some of the definitions in the bill. For example, it is right that we have moved beyond simple definitions of abuse in relation to prostitution by ensuring that the offences that are introduced will apply to people who cynically, and purely for profit, try to manipulate and exploit young people not just in prostitution but through telephone sex lines or in some of the sleazy establishments to which people will go for a certain element of gratification. It is proper that those definitions have been widened.
I genuinely believe that Parliament has worked well with Government in trying to introduce legislation that will give added protection. It is encouraging that Parliament is able to send a unified message to people throughout Scotland that we will do everything in our power to protect young children and that we will not accept sexual exploitation and abuse of young children. I hope that the bill will play a significant role in the future in providing the protection that society rightly wants for children.