§ Mr. MichaelI beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 15, line 37, at end insert—
'(ia) section 4 (Administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse);'.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Amendment No. 26, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—
'(vii) section 17 (Abduction of a girl by force).'.Amendment No. 27, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—'(vii) section 20 (Abduction of an unmarried girl under 16 from parent or guardian).'.Amendment No. 28, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—'(vii) section 22A (Causing prostitution of girls).'.Amendment No. 29, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—'(vii) section 24 (Detention of girl in brothel or other premises).'.Amendment No. 30, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—'(vii) section 25 (Permitting girl under 13 to use premises for intercourse).'.Amendment No. 31, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—'(vii) section 28 (Causing or encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with or indecent assault on a girl under 16).'.Government amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
§ Mr. MichaelI shall be very brief, because we raised the issues addressed in the amendments in Committee. I tabled the amendments because of the undertaking given by the Minister to consider the issues further. I hope that he will be able to respond positively. The amendments would add additional offences to the list of offences in schedule 2, because it would be anomalous if they were not included. They include administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse; assault with intent to commit buggery; the abduction of a girl by force; the abduction of an unmarried girl under 16 from parent or guardian; causing prostitution of girls; the detention of a girl in brothel or other premises; permitting a girl under 13 to use premises for intercourse; and causing or 244 encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with or indecent assault on a girl under 16. It seemed odd that those offences were not included in schedule 2 and, in Committee, the Minister undertook to consider their inclusion.
§ Mr. KirkhopeIt is worth recalling the origin of the list in schedule 2. It is substantially the same as that contained in the Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996—that is to say, the offences of child sexual abuse in respect of which the UK courts now have jurisdiction when conspiracies or incitements take place in this country to commit those offences abroad. In a sense, that Act created a standard list of the acts of child sex abuse likely to be committed by sex tourists, and I do not recall that there were concerns that that list was incomplete or had missed out significant offences.
In drafting the Bill, we followed that earlier list, but we decided to add the main child pornography offences. The member states of the European Union agreed last autumn, in the aftermath of the terrible Belgian case, on a joint action to combat the trafficking in women and children for sexual exploitation. Taking extra-territorial jurisdiction over child pornography offences was one of the provisions in that agreement, in recognition of the link—whether causal or not—that often exists between the sexual abuse of children and child pornography.
I was pressed in Committee to consider going wider, and to include a much longer list of offences in the Bill. I undertook to consider that proposal, and have tabled an amendment to add one further offence—assault with intent to commit buggery. I concluded that that was an offence that might be committed by a British sex tourist abroad. I do not believe that the same applies to the other offences that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has proposed adding. Some are concerned with the organising of prostitution, or allowing the use of premises for under-age sexual activity to take place, and I do not believe they are likely to be committed by Britons who will subsequently return to this country.
Others in the hon. Gentleman's list—for example, amendments Nos. 26 and 27—are focused on abduction for the purposes of sexual intercourse and, again, relate more to what may be done by those promoting prostitution abroad, rather than the actions of our own nationals and residents. The Bill is targeted at our own sex tourists, and I believe that it will, as drafted, and with the addition of the offence of assault with intent to commit buggery, catch the offenders at whom it is directed.
§ Mr. MichaelI am grateful for the Minister's response and for the fact that he has taken the trouble to consider the matter further, as promised. We would have liked him to move further, but at least his consideration has proved fruitful.
At every stage of the Bill, we have sought to improve it and speed its passage. It is a measure that we have long desired to see on the statute book. I therefore do not intend to prolong our debate now, and I am sure that the matter will be considered further in another place.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 2, in page 15, line 41, leave out 'and'.
245 No. 3, in page 15, line 42, at end insert
'and(vii) section 16 (assault with intent to commit buggery);'.No. 4, in page 16, line 1, leave out '(iv), (v) and (vi)' and insert 'and (iv) to (vii)'.No. 5, in page 16, line 11, leave out
'indecent assault upon a male person'and insert'(assault with intent to commit buggery or indecent assault upon a male person)'.[Mr. Maclean.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
9.48 pm§ Mr. MacleanI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Today's debate has covered a number of aspects of the Bill, some of which have been specific—for example, whether this or that offence should be included—and other points have been much wider, including, for example, the complicated issue of police practice in the use and disclosure of information.
It has not been possible for the Government to accept all the points that have been made. None the less, I appreciate the spirit in which they have been put forward from both sides of the House. I thank the hon. Members who have taken part in our proceedings, whether tonight, in Committee or on Second Reading.
Our debate on the Bill has strengthened and improved it as a measure for the protection of children. I am also grateful for the input to the debate provided by others with an interest. The police and other agencies involved with child welfare have provided invaluable insights into the practical aspects of how the registration requirement will work.
Those have enabled us to develop and improve on our original proposals to ensure that the registration requirement will really work in practice. I cannot emphasise too much how grateful I am to those people, especially those in the Association of Chief Police Officers, who have been enormously helpful.
I hope, therefore, that the Bill will conclude its parliamentary passage quickly, so that it can soon begin to provide the added protection for our children that is its prime aim.
§ Mr. McFallI welcome the progress that the Government have made. As has been said already, we had a fruitful discussion in Committee, Frankly, however, I do not believe that the Government have moved far enough. The Bill will play its part in what needs to be a more comprehensive response to child abuse. The omission that we tried to put right by tabling new clauses 2 and 3 will weaken it considerably.
We must take account of public opinion. I feel that Parliament is out of synch with public opinion. The Minister is aware of the situation in Scotland. Only today, Scotland's best-selling newspaper, the Daily Record, devotes its front page to "Scotland's Child Abuse Scandal".
246 The Daily Record is setting up an eight-point campaign to highlight the issue—a campaign that I support in detail. The paper says that information on child sex offences in Scotland is not available. It points out that statistics on cruelty to animals are available, but that on sex offences the information is not forthcoming.
People from the Daily Record contacted the Secretary of State's Office in Scotland but were told that he was too busy. Only last week the right hon. Gentleman contacted a local newspaper reporter whom I know. An open letter had been written, and the Secretary of State invited the reporter into his office to put his point of view. Yet when he was asked which information was available and which was not, he was too busy to reply.
The newspaper also contacted the Crown Office for information, but there, too, the message was that there was none. When will the Government put that information into the public domain? By failing to do so, they do a disservice to the many hundreds, even thousands, of people affected.
The sad fact is that paedophiles cause manifold damage. For every case that comes to court, hundreds of similar offences have been committed. Aberdeen university recently undertook a study in which 34 sex offenders, who had been convicted of 115 offences among them, confessed to having actually committed 1,500 offences. The court cases are the tip of the iceberg.
It is ironic that it should be this evening, when "No Child of Mine" is being screened—it could be happening at this very moment—that we are passing legislation that does not go far enough. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and I went to the presentation of "No Child of Mine". I did not see any other Members of Parliament there. It was a long film, and the hon. Lady walked out. So far as I know, she had first asked, "Why is this being shown?"
That is symptomatic of the approach that our society has taken. We cannot deal with child abuse here: sure, we can deal with it when it is abroad—in Bangkok and other such places—but if it happens in Glasgow, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Bournemouth or wherever, then we cannot deal with it.
We must face up to the issues. The Government's lack of resolve was illustrated by the fact that they wanted to enact the legislation through a private Member's Bill. Only the resolve of the Opposition ensured that we had a Government Bill. We want the Bill to succeed, but it does not go far enough. The Government have shown themselves out of sync with the people.
The Minister mentioned Belgium and Marc Dutroux. We do not want to wait until such a situation arises here. That is why we want the Government to go further. The campaign will not stop here. It will go on and on. Vision has been required of the Government, but they have shown a lack of deep thought. This is unfinished business: the Opposition welcome the Bill, but there is much more to do to protect our young people. That message should go out loud and clear from Parliament tonight as we welcome the provisions in the Bill.
§ Mr. ThurnhamI support the Bill, but I feel that it is only half or a quarter of a loaf. I hope that it will be strengthened in another place in the manner for which we argued on Second Reading, in Committee, and again today.
247 There should be a code of practice to give guidance to the police and, most of all, there should be a requirement for previous offenders who are known to the police to register. At present, about 50,000 previous offenders escape the provisions of the Bill. It should be simple for the police, when they are in contact with them, to require notification of a change of address.
The Bill should be strengthened, and I hope that my arguments about children will be well considered in the other place, without the pressures of time that we have had tonight. I look forward to the Bill reaching the statute book, but I hope that it will do so in a greatly improved state.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.