| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lady Olga Maitland: I give my wholehearted support to the amendments--they are so important that it is extraordinary that the provisions were not included in the Bill in the first place. How can we contemplate taking tough action to curb the sexual abuse of children by tourists if we deal with only half the issue? Clearly, the means by which such people communicate with each other is the key to the Bill.
I find it difficult to comprehend the sheer scale of the sexual exploitation. Most people find it hard to believe that paedophiles are sophisticated and devious people who will go to any lengths and use any means to achieve their ends. Although the amendments try to close any loopholes through which such people could dodge, weave and dive in an attempt to achieve their evil objectives, I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) who said that we should not get too excited about the Bill being the whole answer, as it is only part of a package that may have to be addressed later with other legislation.
I accept that it will be difficult to prove and to find positive evidence that people have sent offensive material electronically. Earlier today I raised the question of telephone calls. Will hearsay evidence of a telephone call be admissible, or may telephone calls be intercepted, thereby taking us into a difficult area? Perhaps there should be some cut-off point at which we say that, because an alleged offence is so terrible, we should consider that course of action. Faxes are tangible objects that may be presented as evidence. I believe that messages by fax can also be intercepted, but I am not sure how.
Mr. John Marshall:
People can send them to the wrong number.
Lady Olga Maitland:
Yes, but they would then be categorised as unsolicited material. As my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, if one is the innocent recipient of such material, one is not liable to be charged with any offence.
All hon. Members have referred to the fact that the Internet--which I believe may become a modern curse--is too vast and it is all too easy to surf the system and pursue one's own ends. Although we have the power to make it an offence to receive or pick up offensive material from the Internet, I am concerned that it will be extremely
difficult to produce evidence of that act. How do we link the material with a prosecution? I am not saying that the provision should not be in the Bill--it should be on the face of the legislation--but we must recognise the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out. The Bill may not be the complete answer, although it is a very important step.
I urge hon. Members to cast their eye over the schedule of listed sexual offences. Any normal, decent human being who reads that list would shudder with horror--it highlights the fact that we must make the Bill work effectively. For instance, the Bill will deal with crimes of rape under the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Those offences include intercourse with a girl under the age of 13, intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, buggery, and indecent assault on a boy or a girl. When confronted with such a list, no normal human being could be other than utterly determined to protect our young people.
Children should be able to trust adults. When that trust is abused, we have a moral obligation to protect them in whatever way we can. Although there may be some doubts about the efficacy of the amendments, it is prudent to include them. We should remember that we are talking about children's trust. The amendments are important because they toughen the Bill and cause paedophiles concern that they may be caught. If the measures act as a deterrent, well and good. If they help us to catch sex offenders, even better: I believe that they deserve to roast in hell, and they certainly have the worst time of it in jail where sex offenders are shown no mercy. The amendments are welcome if they help to bring evil men to justice.
Mr. Batiste:
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I express my strong support for the legislation, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on selecting a Bill with such a worthwhile aim. It is relatively rare to win in the private Members' Bills ballot--I have not managed it during several years in this place--and my hon. Friend may be satisfied in the knowledge that he will have put on the statute book provisions that will make a significant difference to the lot of those around the world who suffer as a consequence of the actions of depraved, criminal perverts.
Having said that, I can give the Bill only two cheers, as I believe that it should go much further. We shall have to return to the issue with other more extensive legislation in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not yet on Third Reading. We are debating two amendments.
Mr. Batiste:
I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, my opening comments remove the need for me to make a speech on Third Reading. I shall now turn to the specific points arising from the amendments.
The amendments improve the Bill quite specifically because they reach, albeit tentatively, into the issue of extra-territoriality and extend the remit of the Bill to electronic communications. Without either of those steps forward, the Bill would be much more restricted.
There is legislation on our statute book to enable British companies and individuals to resist the extra-territorial demands of countries such as the United States. It has therefore been assumed that extra-territoriality meant the imposition by one country of its views on others, but times have changed and extra-territoriality now means something quite different, as it does in the context of today's debate. In terms of the development of the thinking of the House of Commons, it went a great deal further when we introduced the War Crimes Bill. A number of hon. Members who are here today were, with me, strong supporters of the War Crimes Bill.
The rationale behind that measure and the reason why so many of us want this Bill to progress is that, whatever the problems are--and we accept that there are problems in relation to evidence and bringing a case within the confines of the procedures of the British courts--nevertheless, in today's world, with its rapid communications, electronic media and the internationalisation of crime, there must be a residual responsibility on a state such as ours to punish its citizens for serious crimes that they commit overseas.
It may not be a primary responsibility, because it is better for such crimes to be punished in the country where they are committed, but if for any reason that is impractical or impossible, or if extradition is impracticable, we in Britain should be able to undertake criminal proceedings. At the end of the day, those who commit serious crimes--particularly crimes which affect small children in distant parts of the world who are unable to protect themselves and whose Governments may not be able to protect them--should not be able to return to Britain and see it as a safe haven in which to plan and plot further trips in future.
I accept what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about the importance of trying to establish the certainty and success of prosecution and imposing serious penalties on those being convicted. Given those reservations, the difference between what my right hon. Friend said this morning, and what I, other hon. Members and many people in Britain believe, is that there is also a declaratory role for the law. Many paedophiles have a status in society and are afraid of exposure. In some circumstances, the fact that there is a mechanism in place which could bring them to book will be a powerful means of protecting some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
I have spoken out on many occasions against extra-territoriality as a form of legislative colonialism which seeks to impose the domestic laws of one country upon other countries, but this is a different and benign manifestation of extra-territoriality in which we seek to ensure that our citizens observe the laws of this land and do not regard Britain as a safe base from which to commit
serious crimes overseas in the belief that they can escape retribution in the countries where those crimes are committed.
I now turn briefly to the Internet. Although the amendments before us are entirely sound in relation to newspaper articles, advertisements, letters and telephone calls, where there is a clear connection between the person sending a message and the person receiving it, the Internet creates entirely new and complex problems for law makers. The Internet opens up free speech around the world in electronic form. I do not believe that it is possible or practicable--although some people say it might be--to prevent that, and to try to do so would be to deny free speech. However, if people break the law in the context of expressing themselves they should be punished for it.
I see no reason why my determination to protect people's right to self-expression on the Internet should not be coupled with an equal determination that those who abuse the right to free speech through the electronic media should be punished. It may be technologically difficult, but I am sure that the technology will develop alongside the Government's determination to make sure that the electronic media are not abused. We protect the right of free speech, but there are a series of criminal offences relating to its misuse to incite riots, to which reference has been made, and other crimes. I see no reason why the same framework should not apply to the Internet.
I have looked carefully at the drafting of the amendments, and although I was delighted to hear the clear assurances from my right hon. Friend the Minister that he believes that the amendments extend the legislation to the Internet, I am not quite so sure about that. In particular, the amendment refers to
"a message . . . sent or received in England and Wales".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |