Clause 22
5:45 pm
David Ruffley (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Bury St Edmunds, Conservative)
I rise to pose just one question on the grounds for foreign travel orders. The clause amends any reference to children under the age of 16 in sections 115 and 116 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to “under 18”. The effect is to raise the age at which a child or young person has to be at risk in order for a foreign travel order to be made, and it alters the criteria determining which offenders qualify for a foreign travel order to include those who have committed sex offences against children under 18, rather than offences merely against children under 16, which is the existing law.
I have just one question, because foreign travel orders in principle are a good idea. The vile and disgusting offence of paedophilia is something on which the full force of the law must bear down in any and all possible ways, but I have a query on a point of information. The current powers, which the clause seeks to amend, relate to the age of the children, under 16, but on how many occasions have such foreign orders been made under the 2003 Act? I rise not to be critical of the clause, but merely to secure a better understanding of how rigorously the existing law, which is remarkably similar to the clause, has been enforced. If we had a number from the Minister, it would give us some perspective on how law enforcers are going about the vital business of cracking down on and discouraging paedophile offenders. My view is that the clause is necessary, but is the existing law, which it seeks to improve, being utilised to its full force?