|
Clause 106
SOPOs: variations, renewals and discharges
Mr. Malins: I beg to move amendment No. 379, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 380, in
Mr. Malins: Forgive my hesitation, Mr. Gale. We have moved rapidly to clause 106 and to my amendment. We are dealing now with sexual offences prevention orders, and the particular issue of those who may apply to the court to vary such a prevention order. The amendment is merely a probing amendment; it would do nothing more than tidy up matters. Clearly, the defendant or chief officer of police can and properly should apply under the clause, but I wondered whether the parent or guardian of someone under the age of 18 who was subject to an order should be covered under subsection (2).
Paul Goggins: The amendments would add
''a parent or guardian of any dependant aged under 18''
to the current list of those who can apply for a sexual offences prevention order, or foreign travel order, to be varied, renewed or discharged. It may reassure the hon. Member for Woking if I explain why his amendment is unnecessary.
First, our experience with sex offender orders suggests that they are rarely varied, renewed or discharged. Secondly, the foreign travel order is aimed specifically at paedophile sex tourists and would almost certainly never be used in relation to a young offender. Thirdly, in a small number of cases, where a young offender may wish to apply for an order to be varied, renewed, or discharged, the
Column Number: 367
application will no doubt be discussed and drawn up in consultation with the parents. Although the wording says that an order will be made by the defendant, it would ordinarily be made in conjunction with the parents. Now that I have given those three lines of assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Malins: Indeed I do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: No. 315, in
clause 106, page 55, line 41, after '2' insert 'or 20'.
No. 316, in
clause 106, page 55, line 42, after 'Wales' insert 'or Scotland'.—[Paul Goggins.]
Clause 106, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Interim SOPOs
Amendments made: No. 317, in
clause 107, page 56, line 2, after '102(5)' insert 'or 103(1)'.
No. 318, in
clause 107, page 56, line 27, after '2A' insert 'or 20(4)(a)'.
No. 319, in
clause 107, page 56, line 28, after 'Wales' insert 'or Scotland'.—[Paul Goggins.]
Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 108 and 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110
Sections 102 and 104 to 107: Scotland
Amendment made: No. 320, in
Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 111
Offence: breach of SOPO or interim SOPO
Amendment made: No. 321, in
Clause 111, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112
Foreign travel orders: applications and grounds
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole): I beg to move amendment No. 254, in
Column Number: 368
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 256, in
Amendment No. 258, in
Mrs. Brooke: I shall not pursue the wording of the amendment. Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary himself said earlier that banning someone from leaving the country is a serious step. For that reason I feel that we should debate that matter during Committee. I am not happy with the substituted wording that I put forward, but we should scrutinise it and consider whether the words ''reasonable cause'' provide an apposite standby. I shall not pursue amendment No. 256, because we shall consider and debate clause 121 later, at which time some general points will be picked up.
Amendment No. 258 deals with something that was picked up by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It refers to clause 24 and would replace the words ''just to do so'' with
''necessary for the purpose of protection''.
The Home Affairs Committee said that the Joint Committee on Human Rights
''has also expressed concern about the criteria for making an interim order, which does not require the court to satisfy itself that 'it is necessary to make such an order for the purpose of protection' ''—
hence the suggestion that those words be included at this stage. The Home Affairs Committee concluded:
''We also believe that the grounds for making an interim RSHO should match more closely the grounds for a full order''.
It suggested that some amendment be made—something along the lines of mine. I moved the amendment in order to hear what the Minister has to say on those two issues.
Paul Goggins: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Lady moved amendment No. 254. As the amendment suggests, there should be a substantial risk to children, and I hope that I can reassure her that the Bill provides all the tests that she requires. The police must have reasonable cause, based on the defendant's behaviour since his conviction for a sexual offence, to believe that it is necessary for a foreign travel order to be made. The hon. Lady may care to look at subsection (3)(b), which clearly says:
''the defendant's behaviour since the appropriate date makes it necessary to make such an order, for the purpose of protecting children generally or any child from serious sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.''
The test that the amendment would insert is already provided for in the Bill. The same applies to amendment No. 256.
On amendment No. 258, it is difficult to balance the need for something immediate, in cases where there is an immediate threat to the welfare of a child, with the obvious need for firm proof in relation to a long-term order. The problem with using the test of necessity when seeking to make an interim order is that the test
Column Number: 369
may be too difficult to prove. That would mean a delay in obtaining the order, which might expose a child or children to risk from that offender in the intervening period. The purpose of the interim order, which has the lower test, is to provide us with power and protection immediately, so that we can go on to make the long-term order, which requires the higher test, later. I hope that the Committee will agree that the balanced approach of a slightly lower test for the interim order but a more rigorous test for the long-term order strikes the right balance between justice for the person involved and protection for children and the wider community.
Mrs. Brooke: I thank the Under-Secretary for his comments. I will withdraw the amendments. On his last point, it is difficult to find a balance, because there is still stigmatising involved with an interim order, and there could be fears that such an order could be implemented without that stricter test. However, I have had some reassurance from the Under-Secretary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 113
Section 112: interpretation
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre): I beg to move amendment No. 15, in
clause 113, page 59, line 23, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 16, in
clause 113, page 59, line 24, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
Amendment No. 17, in
clause 113, page 59, line 34, leave out subsection (6).
Amendment No. 18, in
clause 114, page 60, line 4, after 'paragraphs', insert '5 to 9,'.
Amendment No. 19, in
clause 114, page 60, line 7, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
Amendment No. 20, in
clause 114, page 60, line 13, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
Amendment No. 21, in
clause 114, page 60, line 18, leave out '16' and insert '18'.
Mr. Dawson: I begin by commending my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for the Government's work on foreign travel orders and the serious work undertaken to protect children abroad from the activities of sex offenders from this country.
The amendments, which reflect the cross-party and consensual nature of much debate in Committee, were originally drafted by UNICEF. We should congratulate UNICEF on its ''end child exploitation'' campaign and its work across the world to protect children who are being exploited by the sex industry.
Column Number: 370
The amendments are an attempt to improve the clauses relating to foreign travel orders. A few weeks ago we had a substantial debate on clause 49, under which, commendably, the Government have brought in serious penalties for those convicted of paying for the sexual services of a child. If someone pays for a child prostitute under 13, they are liable to a sentence of life imprisonment. For someone of 14 or 15, the term is 14 years: for someone of 16 or 17, it is seven years.
4.45 pm
We have debated that latter sentence, but I do not think that anyone would demur from the view that that is a substantial penalty for an extremely serious offence, which is a good thing. However, it is incongruous that the Government are prepared to bring forward substantial legislation—clause 112 and subsequent clauses—that protects 16 and 17-year-olds from being exploited in the sex industry in this country but that specifically excludes children who are in a similar position abroad. We should try to tighten up this legislation to ensure that we fully protect children living abroad. That point follows on from our earlier debate on the three-day rule for sex offenders going abroad.
If we were to accept the spirit of these amendments, we could ensure that someone who has a record of offences against 16 and 17-year-olds—and who might have served a substantial prison sentence in this country and since acted in a way that gives reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for an order to be made—is subject to a foreign travel order, and we could thereby prevent them from going abroad to indulge in sex tourism and to abuse children in developing countries.
We have a massive problem of child prostitution in this country, but we have a monstrous problem of child prostitution throughout the world: UNICEF estimates that, globally, 1 million children are abused in the sex industry. Massive poverty, and the desperate circumstances and huge dislocation of developing countries, make children extremely vulnerable.
I am very grateful for the support of other parties for these amendments. They are not wholly satisfactory: they were drafted some time ago. Fully to protect children under the age of 18 living abroad as well as in this country, we would need further amendments: for example, we would need to amend paragraph 26 of schedule 3.
I hope that the Government will accept the spirit of the amendment. They are to be commended for the work that they have done to ensure that children under 18 are protected from abuse. The United Nations convention definition of a child as someone under the age of 18 must be supported, as must the same definition of a child in the Children Act 1989.
I moved the amendments because there is an urgent necessity to protect children. That has been expressed across the Committee Floor, and by the Government in this legislation. If we accept the spirit of this amendment, we will ensure not only that children under the age of 18 are protected from sexual exploitation in this country but that that protection
Column Number: 371
extends abroad so that children under 18 living in countries throughout the world are protected from the wicked and appalling activities of predatory sexual offenders from this country.
|
