House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jan 1997 (pt 9)

4.14 pm

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth): I welcome the Bill, and give an assurance that we will work with the Government to get it through as quickly as possible--although I hope that we can improve it in some respects during the process. We promise to do what we can to work positively, particularly in Committee.

I also welcome much of what the Minister has said. He promised to introduce a number of amendments, and, although we shall need to examine the drafting of those amendments carefully, from what the Minister has said it seems that they will be helpful and positive. He has expressed a willingness to listen to representations on points of detail, and I think that we can look forward to constructive discussion during the Bill's passage.

Nevertheless--despite the Minister's positive approach--I regret the way in which the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister delayed the introduction of the Bill. I remind the House that this is yet another example of Labour's setting the law and order agenda, and forcing the Government to take action against paedophiles. For a long time, the Government rejected Labour's call for

27 Jan 1997 : Column 34

domestic prosecutions against child sex tourists from Britain, and last year they blocked attempts by Labour Members--in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson)--to set up a national register of paedophiles.

Despite a clear statement from the Home Secretary at the Conservative party conference in October that he was taking action on paedophiles and child sex tourists, both proposals were dropped from the Queen's Speech, and only after the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, did the Prime Minister--in one of the fastest U-turns in political history--accept the case for Government action.

I welcome the Minister's conversion in relation to offences committed abroad, which he has had to reject in a number of debates in which he and I have participated over the past couple of years. Having made that point--because I do not think that it is a piece of history that should be completely disregarded--I assure the Minister that we will co-operate with the Government to put the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible, and to ensure that it targets, in an appropriate way, those who should be targeted.

Important practical questions must be answered, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will answer some of them at the end of today's debate. First, what will the Government do to ensure that the introduction of the legislation is effective in practice?

Secondly, how will information be held? Given the current stage of the development of information technology, it should be possible for information to be updated rapidly and made available throughout the country, without the difficulties that have featured in the keeping of manual records in the past. Are the Government acting to ensure that, from the outset, the information that is registered is up to date, and accessible to all who need to use it? Thirdly, how will the information be used? The question of access is not covered in the Bill.

Even more important, what is to be done with information that is registered with the police? I can tell the Minister that chief constables are not sure what their responsibilities will be. Their initial reaction is that information will have to be passed on; but to whom, and in what circumstances? That, too, is not covered in the Bill. It is important to have clear and effective guidelines on how information is used.

It may well be--I offer this as a suggestion to the Minister--that an amendment to the Bill, enabling the Home Secretary to set out clear guidelines in a statutory instrument after consulting widely, would ensure the existence of a protocol subject to scrutiny by the House, but absolutely clear to those holding the information. I think that it is only fair to the police to make it clear what they are expected to do with that information, and also in the interests of the public for everyone to be clear about the way in which that information is to be used and acted on.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Much of the good work in the Philippines, Thailand and other countries is done by British non-governmental organisations. Does my hon. Friend incline to the view that responsible organisations should in certain circumstances be able to consult the

27 Jan 1997 : Column 35

register here to find out whether individuals they suspect of being involved in paedophile activities in those countries are registered here?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the way in which information about paedophiles is exchanged between countries. Access from people overseas to the register is different from access by British NGOs. It is a sensible point to consider in Committee, and I hope that the Minister, who said that he would listen to points made during the debate, will consider that one. I look forward to discussing the point in Committee.

To return to the practicalities of handling the information, there is the question of how the registration of information in the Bill relates to the Police Bill, which we will be debating in the near future. We also need to set the Sex Offenders Bill in context with other activities in which Government should be taking a lead. The Minister has presented the Bill as part of a coherent strategy, but a real strategy needs action by Ministers, not just legislation, important though Acts of Parliament should be.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that the low level of sex offence convictions is worrying, that the high level of abuse shown by different indicators is a matter of concern, and that there is the wider context of child protection, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) will particularly deal with in the debate. We cannot just shrug off the responsibility of dealing with these issues to local authorities and social workers. There must be a proper understanding of the problem, and a lead from Government.

The extent of the problem is illustrated, for instance, by the fact that, in 1994-95, Childline counselled more than 89,000 children about all sorts of problems and concerns, but 21 per cent. of those counselled--more than 18,000--rang about physical or sexual abuse, and often both. The recorded crime statistics do not always identify the age of the victim, but it is sufficient to point out that, for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, there were 178 convictions in 1995--considerably lower than two years earlier--that there were 1,287 convictions for gross indecency with a child, 3,150 convictions for indecent assault on a male, 4,986 convictions for rape of a female, and 150 convictions for rape of a male--although, as a new offence, that last statistic may be less reliable.

There is considerable evidence of the extent of the problem. For instance, "The Cook Report" questioned more than 300 child sex offenders in prison. The findings are clear. The programme said:

"Our respondents told the police they'd committed between them some four thousand eight hundred offences, but in truth, as the survey shows, the total was nearer fifty thousand. We also asked them how long they'd got away with it before they were caught and these are fairly typical examples. This man, nine a half years, this man fifteen, this man nearly twenty, and this one a staggering thirty-two."

Like the Minister, I feel that, to an extent, we are dealing with the tip of the iceberg. It is therefore important to set the Bill in context against the nature of the problem as a whole.

27 Jan 1997 : Column 36

That has led to organisations welcoming the Bill as a step forward, but seeking to remind us of the context. For instance, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children said:

"A Child Sexual Offenders Register will assist in the protection of children, but it must be co-ordinated with other measures which will offer a more complete package of protection. For example, there must be improved vetting procedures linked to a public education campaign about child sexual abusers."

It also calls for investigation systems in court procedures that will offer a comprehensive package of child protection.

Getting the law right is one aspect of the matter, and I do not underestimate its importance, but the systems that are used to investigate, prosecute and try offenders and the way in which the wider context of child sex abuse is dealt with are also extremely important. We deal only with what we put in legislation at our peril. I hope that, during the debate or in Committee, we will go further and set the measure in context. The Minister sought to set it in the context of other legislation, but in terms of this measure, we need to look at the Government's wider responsibilities.

Recently, some of my hon. Friends from a number of Front-Bench teams met representatives of children's charities to discuss issues that worry those charities. The need for co-operation and co-ordination between the public and private sectors came out as a clarion call from those discussions, and it was clear that that is not the way that the public and voluntary sectors are used to operating. In the light of that, I note the comments on the Bill by the Children's Charities Consortium: