| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the important part that voluntary agencies can play. I wonder whether he was aware that the NSPCC intends to issue a booklet tomorrow, giving advice to parents and others as to what action to take if a paedophile moves into their
area. I hope that he will welcome it and commend the NSPCC on the part that it has played. The NSPCC says that much stronger and more practical guidance needs to be given to everyone concerned.8.45 pm
Mr. Kirkhope: I am not aware of the details of that booklet, but the NSPCC has been extremely positive and helpful, not only when we went to Stockholm, but in its general attitude to the need to tackle child abuse. It shows why it is necessary to be cautious in discussing the new clauses.
Inter-agency co-operation does not preclude the idea of guidance, or a code of practice, at some date, and we shall return to the idea if it appears appropriate, although we are mindful of the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers that a Home Office circular is likely to provide a better and more flexible way to proceed.
This is a difficult and sensitive area. I shall take an example of the type of difficult and sensitive situation that any guidance may have to address. It is not difficult to think of cases in which parents of young children might argue that they have a right to know of the offending history of an individual who has been housed near them. The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned that point. We may have considerable sympathy with those parents, but it is clear in many such situations that, rather than disclosing information, with all the fear and possible violence that might follow, it may be better for the offender to be housed in another locality, perhaps away from schools or young families. It may, however, be a case where the authorities have no influence over the locality in which the offender chooses to live, but where there is reasonable confidence that offending will not recur, provided that the individual is not ostracised or isolated.
Those are the sorts of difficult practical situations that may well arise, where careful--probably inter-agency--decisions would need to be taken. Any guidance that might be issued should allow the fullest possible flexibility in responding to the circumstances of individual cases, such as the example that I have just given, and not constrain the police or anyone else in trying to reach the best operational decisions.
Mr. Hutton:
I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in giving way. Does he accept the principle that there may be circumstances in which the public should be informed of the whereabouts of a serious child sex offender?
Mr. Kirkhope:
I have already told the House that, if it were treated in a cautious and sensitive manner, such a situation might arise, but I am nervous about the hon. Gentleman's reference to the public. I have given examples where the police, acting cautiously and sensitively, provided such information to an individual member of the public, or perhaps one or two members of the public. It is a complex matter, which is why I am in difficulties over the new clauses, worthy though their intent may be.
Sir Wyn Roberts:
We fully appreciate the difficulties that my hon. Friend describes. Will he take it from me
Mr. Kirkhope:
We are extremely anxious for the legislation to be on the statute book and operating as soon as possible. With the requirements that it places on sex offenders, it will be of enormous help to the public. There is a clear case for the Bill, which we will try to get through as soon as possible, with the help of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
I have outlined the way in which we intend to take matters forward. I cannot go further this evening. I have made our position clear to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that, in the interests of such an important measure, he will not press the new clause.
Mr. Michael:
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. There is no difference between us on the need for the information to be dealt with in a way that allows it to be used effectively for the purpose that Parliament intends.
The Minister has engaged with the issues personally, and taken seriously the points made in Committee. I know that he has gone into the issues more fully following the Committee stage. There is no suggestion that he has not taken the debate seriously or that he has failed to take seriously his responsibility to move forward.
The Minister said that the police "share information"--I quote his words--but the information does not have to be notified to the police. After the passage of the Bill, after people who have committed offences specified in the Bill have been sentenced, they will have to report to the police their address or addresses and any subsequent change of address. The Bill, however, does not state what is to be done with that information. That is the problem.
Much of the Minister's speech will read as a speech in favour of new clause 3. He says that his view is based on advice from the police that the way forward is consideration with the police of a strategy to protect children. We agree with that. The new clause makes provision for that and links the information that will be provided under the Bill with the development of such a strategy.
Mr. Kirkhope:
The point about the police is important. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should do everything that we can to assist the police in such difficult work. Will he accept that, in our discussions with chief police officers, they have made it clear that they do not want a code of practice in the form that the hon. Gentleman suggests?
Mr. Michael:
I do not think the view expressed by chief police officers is so clear. They have made it clear that they do not want a code of practice, but may I point out to the Minister that he is referring to the amendment in Committee, not to the new clause. The new clause does not require a code of practice; it requires a hook in the Bill, followed by the issuing of guidance based on the pattern of consultation, discussion and development of good practice for which the Minister was arguing.
Mr. Kirkhope:
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is taking that position. In a letter on behalf of ACPO, the ACPO crime committee states that its position
Mr. Michael:
Indeed. The letter to which the Minister refers was sent to him and copied to me as a result of our debates in Committee. That is why the new clause does not include reference to a code of practice. It allows for guidance to be given through a circular from the Home Secretary. It meets the requirements of the letter, which does not refer to our new clauses, as I have pointed out in discussion with the president of ACPO and the chairman of the crime committee, who wrote the letter.
Mr. Kirkhope:
The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about the way in which matters might develop in due course--on a broad basis, we might examine inter-agency co-operation and so on. Does he accept that that is a clear position, from our point of view?
Mr. Michael:
It is a clear position, from the Minister's point of view, and nothing prevents that approach being taken if our new clause is accepted. The new clause allows specifically for that form of guidance and for the development of good practice. It allows for inter-agency working and for the flexibility that ACPO wants. It also deals with the concerns of the superintendents and the Police Federation that their members may not be protected unless there is provision such as new clause 3 makes.
I take the Minister's point that new clause 2 gives a power that the Home Secretary already has. I also take it that information will be handled in the way that we sought in new clause 2. The problem is that the Bill has a big hole in it. It requires information to be notified to the police, but does not state what the police are supposed to do with it. The new clause does not contradict anything that the Minister has said, but the Bill must specify how the information is to be used.
As I see it, it is not enough to deal with the matter simply through Home Office circulars or through informal advice. That advice and guidance must be hooked into the Bill or we shall face all the problems associated with the arguments about intrusive surveillance: long and complicated debate about the powers and responsibilities of the police and arguments about the powers of the Home Secretary, followed by legislation to clarify the matter and, I suggest, a much less flexible arrangement than would be allowed if my new clauses were agreed.
I accept that it is possible to establish a register--as suggested in new clause 2--without the new clause. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
"would be to maintain maximum flexibility in the arrangements for exchanging and using information but, at the same time, to take an early opportunity to consider seeking national guidance on some limited areas. To achieve this goal, it is believed that the mechanism of a Home Office Circular would be the most effective option."
The crime committee makes it clear that those considerations are not easily achieved through a code of practice.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |