| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Wyn Roberts (Conwy): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Michael: May I finish this point first?
Thirdly, the new clause covers
We also allow for information to be provided to the statutory and voluntary bodies and to members of the public where appropriate. That adds up to a measured and rational approach to the ultimate objective of protecting children. Our aim is to provide a simple framework. I do not think that the regulations would need to go far beyond those words; perhaps those words are adequate in themselves.
Saying that the matter would be dealt with by regulation allows a period for consultation by the Home Secretary. The Association of Chief Police Officers wants to ensure that the regulations do not go too far and become binding and restrictive.
Mr. Michael:
If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I am explaining the new clause. I shall certainly give way to him as soon as I have finished, but these things hang together.
That is all that would be contained in the regulations made under this part of the Bill. It would satisfy the desire of many who have spoken from the police side--to keep the requirements in the Bill simple--while allowing a hook in the legislation for the good practice and the protection of children that are our objectives.
Against that background, subsection (2) of new clause 3 says that, in addition to the regulations,
Having explained the intention of the new clause,I give way to the right hon. Member for Conwy(Sir W. Roberts).
Sir Wyn Roberts:
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is acknowledging that there is no easy ready-made answer to the problems that he has mentioned. But is he not mixing oil and water by prescribing both regulations and guidelines as to good practice? Surely we shall not know what good practice is until some time has elapsed.
Mr. Michael:
I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's making that point, which is a weak one. First, it is because good practice will develop that it should be covered by guidance rather than in the regulations. That is precisely why we framed the new clause in that way.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman had responsibility in Wales in connection with the Children Act 1989, so he will know that that is precisely how that Act--I believe that he played some part in it--makes the distinction between requirements that need to be defined very simply and those that need to be dealt with sensibly, but in a structured way that recognises the need for co-operation between different agencies, which often work under different pieces of legislation.
I want to underline the simplicity of our proposal. There should be a hook in the legislation: a legislative basis for the good practice and co-operation that everyone working in this connection wants. Our proposals avoid the introduction of excessive legal requirements or complex statutory instruments and keep the system flexible while making clear the intention of Parliament that there will be
a paedophile register and that it will be used to protect children. That is important, because neither of those points is made clear in the Bill.
I call in aid the fact that chief constables have said that they are not clear about their responsibilities and those of officers under their control as a result of the legislation. The decisions would not be about how information on the police national computer is dealt with, because that is not how the information reaches the police; it reaches them in the first instance by an offender who has been identified under the Bill coming into a police station and presenting his new address.
Unless we make it clear in the legislation that there is a system for handling that information, the Home Secretary may advise that it should be registered on the police national computer, but the police will also have to decide what their other responsibilities are under other statutes and in terms of the common law. I cannot understand why that point has not been accepted. Indeed, I thought that the Minister responded positively on it in Committee. I had expected him to come up with a new clause, one that might have been better than anything we could draft--although I cannot see anything wrong with the style and simplicity of our new clause.
The Police Federation is worried that its members may not be protected unless those issues are dealt with in the legislation. Advice from the Home Secretary and decisions by the chief constable on how to handle information may provide useful guidance much of the time, but they will not answer the question about individual responsibility, which may devolve to the sergeant on duty at the time that information is given, or to the inspector or superintendent. Individuals will have to take decisions, and if there is no guidance for them, and no system established through which they should operate, there will be a glaring hole in the Bill.
What are the expectations? The result of a survey of police forces in England and Wales undertaken by the chief constable of Gloucestershire was published recently. It shows that the Hampshire constabulary scheme--a multi-agency project between police, probation and social services, in which information is gathered on individuals and the risk assessed--provides information to local schools, for instance. The purpose is to raise awareness about specific issues that affect those schools and to ensure that information and advice on how to use it are available for those who have to deal with children.
The report makes it clear that there have been occasions on which the media and the public have obtained inaccurate information, leading to misunderstanding, anxiety and even violence. People may take different views about an offender being targeted, but we should surely be concerned about protecting innocent people. That is why it is important for there to be a sensible, ordered and accurate way of dealing with information.
There are other examples of the development of good practice. Merseyside and Lincolnshire are cited in the report as having well documented protocols. The Merseyside protocol covers the sharing of information; the assessment of risk; devising strategic plans to minimise risk; agreed implementation plans; and the monitoring and review of the way in which those systems work. That is logical and sensible. Risk assessment is the first step in protecting children. That is surely the basis of a sensible way of dealing with the matter.
The report by Mr. Butler, the chief constable of Gloucestershire, also raises legal points about the Data Protection Act 1988 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and civil liberties are without doubt a major concern for all forces. It says:
The report says:
The report's conclusion is important:
Other comments have been made by a variety of organisations. The Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales expressed concern about the effects on general disclosure and highlighted the difficulties that can arise from it, underlining the need for the continuation and development of present inter-agency arrangements, although it went on to say that it might be useful to develop guidance in the light of experience, once the legislation is enacted. That is precisely what the new clauses are designed to do. The association refers to increasing international travel and communication and repeats its view about the need to consider a European database of paedophiles and their movements.
The Association of Chief Police Officers issued a helpful statement. It said:
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, on behalf of the Children's Charities Consortium, underlined the difficulties. It said:
The NSPCC report--it is interesting that such statements come from organisations that are concerned first and foremost with the protection of children--continued:
The report--again, it is important to note that this is the view of those whose prime concern is the protection of children--continued:
"the responsibilities of the police to provide information and to co-operate with others in using information so notified for the protection of the public".
It describes those responsibilities as
"including, but not confined to, responsibilities for providing information and advice to members of the public and to statutory and voluntary bodies."
We refer to "advice and information", because information without advice can be dangerous. That is the reasoned way of approaching the problem.
"the Secretary of State may, from time to time and following consultation, issue guidance on good practice concerning the use of information notified to the police under this Act in child protection activities, including activities undertaken by, or in collaboration with, local area child protection committees and others."
That means that the activity that chief constables, superintendents and the police in general wish to undertake--using the information for the protection of children--can be carried out in a flexible way, but still within the ambit of the Bill.
"At the moment there is conflicting legal advice on whether disclosing information to the public is illegal."
It also says that some forces have been advised that it is, and others that it is not. On the basis of what is legal, forces have to decide what is responsible and what is their duty.
"The Data Protection Act allows for the disclosure of information to 'prevent a crime', however, one force suggests that it is unlawful to have a policy which utilises this provision in every case. It is a fine line of assessment and due consideration must be given to each individual case."
We want something in the Bill to ensure that precisely such consideration can be given.
"Any warning system must form part of the overall strategy for managing the risk by paedophiles. The aims must be to facilitate information sharing, ongoing risk assessment and a variety of measures, preventative, proactive, investigative, tailored to specific circumstances. Positive steps must be taken at an early stage to track and control the activities of paedophiles, particularly predatory offenders. Any warning system needs to 'follow the offender' and be reassessed and updated as necessary. Decisions should be made on a multi agency basis following documented guidelines, taking into account all the issues raised in this report."
I do not see how the legislation can be adequate unless it allows those recommendations to be implemented. The new clauses would do precisely that.
"In our view, the way forward, based on existing good police practice across the country is for:
The new clauses would allow information and advice to be made available to agencies, voluntary organisations and, where appropriate, members of the public, in a flexible system that allows for guidance and the development of best practice.
proper co-ordinated risk assessment of each case, in conjunction with Social Services, Probation and other agencies where appropriate including, for example, Education Authorities."
"At present, the Bill does not include a mechanism for continuing registration of an individual where it is considered there is a continuing risk to children."
It also pointed out that the Bill does not deal with the need for
"an interface of this register with other registers which record information"
and that, because of the Bill's sensitivities and the need for thorough working, it should include an inbuilt review process. We debated that matter in Committee, and I consider it necessary, but it has not been included. That makes it all the more important that we have a system of guidance from the Home Secretary, based on advice and consultation, as we have suggested.
"The information . . . must be of actual use in protecting children and may benefit from the inclusion of a 'domestic profile' to help combat registration of mere postal addresses."
We are addressing the handling of all that information in a co-operative framework.
"Open public access to a similar register in the United States has sometimes led to incidents of vigilantism that may merely encourage a 'registered' sex offender to disappear."
The report stated:
"there must be a process in place that will control how information is used"
to make sure that it is used properly. It concluded:
"In short, the Consortium supports the intentions behind the Bill but feel strongly that it must be co-ordinated with other measures."
The report argued strongly:
"The Sex Offenders Bill is not a 'magic wand' but can play a part in what needs to be a sophisticated, co-ordinated and workable response to those that seek to harm our children."
The new clauses are based on our conversations with organisations that believe that we need to do much more to protect children and want a paedophile register that works, but appreciate the sensitivities that the police and child protection organisations must show. We have designed proposals that will tie simply into legislation a measure to allow a flexible response based on risk and the protection of children. I commend the new clauses, which I am convinced will make the Bill effective legislation for the protection of children. Without such changes, there will be a black hole at its heart. Further legislation will be needed to fill the gap, and we shall all regret not having amended the Bill when we had the opportunity.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |