19. We consider that the following raises questions of political importance,
but make no recommendation for its further consideration, but suggest it would be relevant to any
debate covering international organised crime:--
Home Office
(17938)
5105/97
COM(96)547 |
Commission Communication on combating child sex tourism. |
| Legal base: |
-- |
The Communication
19.1 According to the Commission, child sex tourism is a highly profitable activity
which carries a low risk of prosecution and punishment for organisers and abusers, and it is
spreading numerically and geographically. This the Commission attributes in part to the increase
in business travellers and international tourists, and to the commercial exploitation of the child
sex abusers amongst them by the tourist industry. Progress has been made in identifying the reasons
for child sex abuse, which should help in the task of drawing up and implementing measures to combat
it. Most child sex abusers come from industrialised countries, of which "a certain number come
from Europe". The EU Member States should therefore take a united stand against child
prostitution, which also exists in Europe, the Communication says.
19.2 In addressing what can be done to deter and punish child sex abusers, the
Commission welcomes measures which several Member States are taking to give national courts
extra-territorial jurisdiction for offenses committed abroad. It calls for greater judicial
co-operation between Member States, but does not spell out what difference this would make.
It notes that, although most countries have high quality statistics for other social matters, little
data has been collected on child sex tourism. The collection and exchange of information
other than that of a legal nature should help to combat abuse. It suggests that the Advisory
Committee in the field of tourism[31], which has the task of
"facilitating exchanges of information, consultation and, where appropriate, co-operation on
tourism" would provide an appropriate framework.
19.3 The Commission suggests that there should be a concerted EU initiative to
encourage national tourist authorities to take preventive measures against child sex tourism, and
advocates a co-ordinated EU response, from Member States and the tourist industry to a recent
proposal by the World Tourism Organisation to set up a Task Force against sex tourism. Apart from
awareness campaigns to stem the flow of sex tourists from the Member States, the Commission says
that it envisages encouraging the tourist industry to draw up its own codes conduct.
19.4 The Communication also outlines what the Commission is doing internationally
to promote child sex abuse being treated as a violation of human rights. It points to
several EC financial instruments which can be used, such as budget lines to promote democracy and
to subsidise activities of organisations pursuing human rights objectives, some of which already
enable support to be given for the rights of the child.
19.5 Finally, the Commission says that:
"Having regard especially to the resolutions of the European Parliament on this topic
and to this communication on combating child sex tourism, the Commission considers it highly
desirable to that the Council should define its position, and calls upon the Member States to dispel
any doubt as to their willingness and ability to combat this affliction".
19.6 It intends, it says, to produce a report within two years on the implementation
of the measures planned and the progress made.
The Government's view
19.7 In his Explanatory Memorandum (dated 14 March 1997) the Secretary of State for
the Home Department (Mr Howard) says that the Government "welcomes the recognition which this
Communication gives to the seriousness of child sex tourism, and to the importance of concerted
action to tackle it". He draws attention to the leading role taken by the UK at the Stockholm
Congress on the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in August 1996 and says:
"The Government believes that Stockholm represented a major step forward and that the
Agenda for Action, together with the Joint Action[32] concerning
action to combat trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children, now agreed by the
Council, should be the principal focus for action in this field. Although the Commission
Communication represents a welcome further contribution to this subject, it should not distract from
the action to which States are already committed. Action is important, rather than a proliferation
of action plans".
19.8 On Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction, the Minister describes the legislation
now in place in the UK, under which child sex tourism organisers are liable to prosecution, or
provided for in the Sex Offenders Bill now before Parliament, which will give the UK courts
jurisdiction over the actual acts of child sex abuse abroad. He notes the Commission's suggestion
that jurisdiction might be exercised even where the behaviour in question is not an offence in the
country where it occurred. The Government, he says, does not believe this would be right --
"the dual criminality principle is an important one"[33].
19.9 The Minister says that the UK has demonstrated "a particular commitment
to advising and assisting law enforcement agencies in some of the main sex tourist receiving
countries. There is no lack of commitment to effective co-operation in this area [judicial
co-operation], and the Government stands ready to consider any practical proposals for
improvements".
19.10 The Minister does not believe that there is a need co-ordinate a position
between the Member States before engaging with the tourist industry to combat child
sex tourism, or to work through the EU Advisory Committee on Tourism, though it is happy to share
information through that Committee, or through any other means.
19.11 The Commission's proposal to consider utilising the existing financial
instruments listed at Annex 3 of the document for funding activities for the protection of children
who are victims of sex tourism is welcomed by the Minister.
"Any new proposals for Community expenditure would have to be examined on their merits.
So far as possible information campaigns for tourists are concerned the Government believes this
is a matter for Member States, and that there is no added value at Community level. Although, as
noted, the Government is keen to share information with other Member States, it does not believe
there is any legal basis for spending by the Community in this area".
Scrutiny
19.12 The Minister has written to apologise for the delay in the deposit of this
document which, although adopted by the Commission on 27 November, became available in his
Department only in mid-January. For reasons which are still unclear, he says, the document seems
to have bypassed the normal channels of transmission. We would be grateful to know the reasons
when these have been determined.
19.13 Once received, because of its very wide scope, covering the interests of a
range of Government departments, all of which had to make their own assessment of the
recommendations, it took longer than usual to prepare the Explanatory Memorandum. As it is merely
a discussion paper, the Minister suggests that there can be no question of the delay placing the
Committee under any unreasonable pressure to complete consideration of it.
Conclusion
19.14 The question of whether a specific Article should be devoted to tourism is
to be examined at the Inter-Governmental Conference. The Government makes clear in its response
to this Communication that it does not wish Community competence to be extended in this area. The
Commission envisages a number of measures to co-ordinate and concert action by Member States, and,
to the extent that it considers that such activity could be helpful, the Government supports the
ideas put forward. As the Minister points out, however, much of the activity, such as consultation
with its tourist sector, can best be done by the Member State or at a wider international level.
As a document of exhortation, the Communication may have value. Any proposals for action at EU
level which follow should be subjected to the subsidiarity test.
19.15 The Government is clearly conscious of this consideration, so we are
clearing the document. However, we consider it would be relevant to any debate covering
international organised crime.
31.Council Decision of 22 December 1996: OJ No. L 384, 31.12.86, pp 55-53. Back
32.A Proposal for a Joint Action adopted by the Council on the basis of Article
K3 of the TEU concerning action to combat trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of
children, was sent to us on 20 November 1996 by the Home Secretary. We had it before us on 4
December. Back
33.This principle (which can apply to all extradition cases) ensures that a state
with custody of an individual is not forced to extradite him or her in respect of acts made criminal
by the requesting state but which it itself does not consider criminal. Back
|
