| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.45 pm
We believe that it is important to take forward this issue in a way that ensures that we address it as a coherent whole. Therefore, I will, I suspect, disappoint right hon. and hon. Members in some areas when I say that to maximise the protection of children and young people from abuse and exploitation, it is necessary to await the outcome of the sex offences review so that we can tackle this holistically rather than on an ad hoc basis. That is not for one moment to put the issue on the back burner or to underestimate the importance and gravity of the subject matter with which we are dealing and the need to address it with vigilance.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Boateng: May I just continue with my argument a little and indicate where we will be proceeding to reassure right hon. and hon. Members as to our determination to take forward this issue?
We will be bringing forward amendments in the House of Lords in relation to new clauses 2 and 4. We will be asking the House not to accede to new clauses 5 and 6, pending the conclusions of the sentencing review. We obviously commend our amendments Nos. 12 to 18 and amendments Nos. 55 to 62 to the House. I will deal in a little detail with why we do not feel able to accept new clauses 3 and 7.
New clauses 2 and 4 deal with maximum sentences. We share the sense of abhorrence towards the crimes to which the new clauses refer. The possession, taking, making, distributing, showing and possessing, with a view to distribution, indecent photographs of children under 16 is a loathsome offence that needs to be met with condign and appropriate punishment. It is a particularly abhorrent form of child abuse. The possession of such material is clearly wrong and is an important factor, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley said, in perpetuating its production by others. They have an incentive to feed the appetite, as long as that appetite continues to exist. We must do all we can to dissuade those who seek such material.
There is no doubt that the misuse of the internet, which is, as I said, capable of reflecting great evil as well as producing great good, has led to an increase in the number of offences committed under the Protection of Children Act 1978. We raised one such case in the House tonight--that of Paul Gadd, also known as Gary Glitter. It was a peculiarly unpleasant case; however, it is, sadly, by no means unfamiliar to those of us who have practised in the criminal courts.
In the light of these concerns and the forthcoming proposals for the protection of children in the sexual offences review, we felt it necessary to commence a piece of work in the Home Office to strengthen measures against this abhorrent activity. I welcome the opportunity that these two new clauses have provided to outline to the House what they are.
The sexual offences review did not look at pornography offences per se, but there is a clear read-across to the offences under the 1978 Act. In the light of our concern to ensure that the law delivers protection for children--the review has the protection of children and young people from abuse and exploitation as its central aim--and our wider concern as to the increased incidence of child pornography offences, the time is right for a review of sentences for such offences.
The Government believe, however, that there should be a clear distinction between the lesser offence of simple possession, with no aggravating features, and the more serious offence of production and supply. That is not to say that offences such as simple possession should be treated lightly; for the reasons I have given, they are extremely serious. That is why the Government intend to bring forward our own amendments in the Lords.
The first amendment will increase the maximum sentence for possession of child pornography from six months imprisonment or a fine, or both, to a term not exceeding five years' imprisonment or a fine, or both. The second will provide for a maximum sentence, under the Protection of Children Act 1978, for taking, distributing, showing and possessing with a view to distribution indecent photographs of children aged under 16, on conviction or indictment, of a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine, or both. The amendment will also propose a sentence, on summary conviction, of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. As we intend to table those amendments, I ask the House--
Mr. Boateng: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) and then to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for his positive reaction. He mentioned two reviews--on sentencing and on sexual offences. Can he tell us when they will be completed and when he anticipates some action? Many of the cynical policemen chasing paedophiles think that much has been said, but nothing has happened. That does not apply only to this Government, but to others going back over 30 years.
Mr. Boateng: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he put that intervention; that is how one should consider the issue. The sentencing review will take some months to complete. The sexual offences review has completed its considerations. It was led by the Home Office and involved both a reference group and a steering group with a wide cross-section of interests in the matter. The outcome has been passed to Ministers and we hope to publish it in due course. We shall pursue that agenda; we do not intend to delay, although hon. Members will understand why I am not able to announce the date of publication or of any responses at present.
Mr. Garnier: I rise simply to tell the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) asked the question that I would have put.
Mr. Boateng: We shall not kick the review into the long grass. That cannot be so. We need to approach the matter with determination and vigour.
We shall be tabling in the other place the amendments I described, ensuring that they are properly drafted to cover territorial considerations, especially with regard to the internet. There is little point in increasing the sentences in England and Wales, if child pornographers believe that they will receive a less severe sentence for a similar offence in, say, Northern Ireland. We must ensure that the drafting is right. Colleagues in Scotland will want the opportunity to consider the implications of our intentions on their own jurisdiction.
New clause 3, as currently drafted, is flawed. It stipulates a minimum sentence of either five or 10 years for a number of offences for which the existing maximum penalty is less than 10 years--in some cases, less than five years--with an alternative of life imprisonment. The reference to an alternative of life imprisonment is insufficient to overcome the conflict between the new clause and the current maximums for the offences to which it applies. There would thus be two conflicting maximum penalties, which would lead to confusion for practitioners and for the courts.
I well understand what lies behind the new clause, however, and have much sympathy with it. Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 already provides for an automatic life sentence for those convicted of a second, serious sexual or violent offence. It is important that sentences take account of that. Under that section, rape, including attempts, under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and intercourse with a girl aged under 13, under section 5 of the 1956 Act, are qualifying offences.
Pending the outcome of the sexual offences review, which has been considering the law relating to sex offences, it would not be appropriate to change the maximum penalties at this stage. The review may result in recommendations that affect some of those offences. It is thus not the time to accept new clause 3.
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the role of mandatory sentencing, which has always been limited to the most serious offences for which life imprisonment is the maximum penalty. Such sentences should clearly be exceptional and reserved for narrowly defined categories of case. Although sexual offences against children are always a matter of grave concern, and courts can and should be expected to sentence in a condign and appropriate way, the new clause would potentially cover a wide range of behaviour and sets of circumstances--including, for example, consensual acts between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old. That is obviously not the intention of those who tabled the provision; it would hardly be appropriate to impose that length of imprisonment in such cases.
In our view, the provision is flawed; it could not be enacted without significant consequential amendments to the maximum penalties for a number of the offences to which it applies.
There is a further flaw. The new clause applies to an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 for which the current maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment. New clause 2 also addresses that offence, and proposes a new maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. The two provisions are inconsistent; they could not both be enacted.
As the sexual offences review has conducted a rigorous examination of those complex issues and bearing in mind the wide-ranging proposals it recommends both on the definition of offences and on appropriate penalties--on which we shall hold consultations--the route suggested in new clause 3 would not be acceptable.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |