DISPLAYING, PUBLISHING, SELLING OR DISTRIBUTING ETC. OBSCENE MATERIAL IN SCOTLAND: SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT (Hansard, 28 March 1994)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee, hon. Members on both sides—including the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who for many years has pursued the interests of safeguarding children—rightly expressed the view that the maximum penalties for certain offences of obscenity and indecency are inadequate. The Scottish Office has sympathy with that view and neither it nor the Government opposed an amendment to double to six months the maximum duration of the new custodial penalty for possession of child pornography.
Unfortunately, whether by accident or design, that amendment neglected to address the position in Scotland, with the result that the Bill introduces a three-month custodial penalty in Scotland and a six-month custodial penalty south of the border. The first reason for the new clause is that the Government intend to remove that discrepancy with an appropriate amendment to be debated later on Report. New clause 73 is, to a limited extent, consequential on that amendment relating to possession.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)
Will the Minister confirm that all such cases—let us hope that there are very few—will be heard in a sheriff court?

Lord James Douglas Hamilton
That is a probability. I shall have to check up on that point. I will write to the hon. Member when I have done so.
The new clause is consequential because, in our view, it would be wrong to leave the maximum summary penalty for trading in obscene material at three months' imprisonment under section 51 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, when we are introducing a maximum summary penalty for simple possession of child pornography of six months' imprisonment under section 52A of that Act. So new clause 73 raises the maximum summary penalty for an offence under section 51 from three months' to six months' imprisonment. At the same time, it raises the maximum penalty on conviction on indictment from two to three years' imprisonment.
650 Whether a case is in the sheriff court or a higher court will depend on the severity of the circumstances. Were the law officers to consider that a case merited an indictment, of course it would go to a higher court.
The new penalties are in line with the penalties that already exist in England and Wales for similar offences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The equalisation of penalties for such offences north and south of the border is, in our view, sensible. It provides the second reason for new clause 73. We do not want to provide any incentive to set up this sort of business north of the border. Such an incentive might be provided if Scotland continued to have lower penalties than England and Wales.
The third reason for the new clause rests simply on its merits. We believe that the trade in obscene material is loathsome. I know that that view is shared by Opposition Members and the House as a whole. Children must not be exploited. They must be suitably protected in the interests of the well-being of our country. We believe that the new penalties will signal Parliament's revulsion, deter some who might otherwise be tempted to engage in that trade, and enable the courts in Scotland to deal appropriately with the worst offenders. So I strongly commend the new clause to the House.