| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East): I support the calls for a code of good practice. The issue must be addressed because it lies at the heart of the Bill. I am surprised that the Government have not tabled an amendment; in Committee, they suggested that they might.
I support the excellent and strong arguments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I do not understand how we can leave such a provision out. The Government have not made a sufficient contribution to the debate. Although the Bill calls for changes of address to be notified, it does not say what should be done with the information. We must know more about the reasons for keeping addresses. Registers and databases protect no one; it is what is done with them that will protect children. There must be guidance and direction to the police on what decisions and action should follow from the knowledge that they are given by the new notification requirements.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that the use to which the register will be put must be carefully controlled so that it is primarily used in the prevention of crime and not open to abuse that leads to vigilante victimisation of offenders and their families--as happened in the tragic case in Manchester, reported at the weekend, in which an innocent pensioner was mistaken for a child abuser whose name and photograph had appeared in the Manchester Evening News. Notification must not be regarded as an additional punishment, but as a preventive measure. Information should be made available to other Government Departments and bodies that already keep lists to protect children.
The answer to a question that I asked about the number of names on the paedophile intelligence database held by the National Criminal Intelligence Service reveals that about 25,000 known or suspected paedophiles are on its list. That is one of six lists held by Government and public bodies. We do not know the number of names on the Department of Health consultancy service index or the Department of Education's list 99. Obviously, we are dealing with a large number. We know from another question answered by the Government that some 100,000 paedophiles are at large in the community. All that information should be properly assembled.
It is amazing that the word "register" is omitted from the Bill. In public parlance, it is known as the paedophile Bill and it is generally believed that a register will be kept. The Bill does not mention one; it is as if there were no such thing.
The publicity surrounding the Bill has raised expectations, with calls for the introduction of an American-style Megan's law, whereby there would be public notification when a paedophile moves into an area. I urge that we do not go down that path. We should provide a coherent framework of who should be notified and in what circumstances. Area child protection committees should be informed and have access to information on paedophiles when they feel that it is necessary in their work. If we do not make things properly clear, I fear that we will find that we have a Megan's law in practice, if not in theory.
There has been private publication of the names of offenders in Australia and New Zealand, and there is talk of a similar list being produced in Britain. That would be against the law on the rehabilitation of offenders, and it would be bound to be full of errors that could lead to innocent people being attacked. The Bill's purpose is to protect children, but it could end up having the exactly opposite effect--innocent children and families could
become the targets of arson attacks, as has happened in the past because the Government have not grasped the nettle and said how the police should act.
I support what has been said about the view of the police: that they need strong guidance so that they can work with discretion, but within carefully laid down limits so that they know where they stand. Even if the Government have not been able to table amendments in this House, I hope that they will say that, before proceedings on the Bill finish in another place, a Government amendment will be tabled to give proper attention to the matter. In the meantime, I support the new clauses.
Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness):
Like the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), I support the new clause moved so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). The right hon. Member for Conwy(Sir W. Roberts) was right: there are no simple solutions to some of the problems.
The new clauses are important because they are reasonable and sensible and would strengthen the Bill by focusing it more closely on the central issue: how better to protect children in particular, and the public, from the predatory and criminal instincts of serial child sex offenders. That is what we must consider tonight. The Bill, though a significant step forward, fails to address the matter coherently.
I, too, have seen the Association of Chief Police Officers survey, which was deposited in the Library today. It makes fascinating reading. Perhaps the Minister will explain what the Government intend to do about the existing practice of police forces in revealing information to local people, area child protection committees and other organisations about the whereabouts of known child sex offenders. That is clearly happening already, but it is happening without the benefit of a statutory framework to regulate the release of such information to the public and other organisations. That is not satisfactory, and I am sure that the Government do not regard it as satisfactory. The survey mentioned 14 police forces that admit that they release such information. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, a police force that releases such information risks civil action on several grounds. That is not acceptable.
I strongly support new clause 3 because it focuses on the Bill's central issue, the protection of children. The key principle recognised in new clause 3 is that there may be some circumstances in which it will be appropriate for the police carefully and sensitively to notify the public of the whereabouts of a serious paedophile offender.
Although the issues are complex, and range from protecting important civil liberties and the principle of rehabilitating child sex offenders wherever possible to the role of the media, the issue on which we should focus is how to protect children. If we were honest with ourselves and asked whether, as parents, we would want to be told if a serious child sex offender had moved into our neighbourhood, the answer would be yes. The ACPO survey reflects the fact that we might then be better able to protect our children from the criminal instincts of child sex offenders.
If, as parents, we would want that information at our disposal so that we could look after our children as they played in local streets and parks, the Bill must provide for
it. If it does not, its principle and effect will be undermined; its purpose will be weakened and its focus will be disjointed. That would be in no one's interests, which is why many Opposition Members are surprised that the Government have not indicated their intention to legislate to ensure that the Bill covers that important issue.
I hope that the Minister will say something more positive when he winds up the debate tonight. This is an important issue and we cannot run away from it. Our constituents who are parents would want this information at their disposal, and we must reflect their wish in a sensible way. Like the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East, I strongly oppose the more public disclosure of information, such as we have seen in some countries. The information must be disclosed carefully.
If there is a role for the controlled release of information to certain members of the public, particularly parents and relevant organisations, it should be recognised in the Bill, because it is the best way forward. We cannot pretend that the problem will go away, or that we can sit on the huge register of information that the Bill will collect if we do not set out in the Bill how the use of that information to protect the public is to be regulated.
I hope that the Minister will say something positive about these sensible and reasonable new clauses. We are used to being told that there is some technical deficiency in our amendments. The Minister may have some technical concerns about the drafting of the new clauses, but that is a secondary issue. The important issue is the principle of wider community or public notification of the whereabouts of sex offenders. There is huge popular support in the country for giving parents in such serious situations the right to know the whereabouts of child sex offenders. If it is done sensibly, having discussed the issue with the chief constable and interested organisations, it is the road that we should take.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone):
New clauses 2 and 3 lie at the heart of the Bill. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about Megan's law and what could happen in terms of vigilante action if we take that route.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |