| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the sexual offences review and look forward to its publication. Do the Minister's comments mean that--except in the most exceptional sexual offence cases--the Government do not support mandatory sentences? Is that a fair conclusion to draw? New clause 3 proposes mandatory sentences but--as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) pointed out--it allows exceptions in specific circumstances. Does the Minister share the view that that is not really a proposal for mandatory sentences at all?
Mr. Boateng: I have a different view on mandatory sentences from that held by the Liberal Democrat Opposition. That is the way it is; I do not go down the same road as the hon. Gentleman. I do not accept new clause 3 for the reasons that I have given. Although we have come to the same conclusion, I suspect that we reached it by different routes.
Sir Paul Beresford: Before the Minister concludes, will he give way?
Mr. Boateng: I shall go on for some time, I am afraid, but I shall give way.
8 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: Before the Minister goes on, will he reply to a final question? One of the drives behind the new clauses was their proactive aspect. They are designed to protect a child from damage while allowing for the arrest and conviction of the offender. Is that the sort of approach that the Minister is willing to take in further amendments and legislation?
Mr. Boateng: I wholeheartedly endorse the proactive approach; it is the best way of proceeding. We must ensure that action is taken against violent and sexual predators. That is why we will shall come forward with proposals, and we shall announce our conclusions in due course. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has already endorsed our proposals for offenders and others with severe personality disorders that make such people a danger. Violent, predatory paedophiles will be among that group, and it is right that we are proactive in responding to the problems that they present. I have no doubt about that.
The underlying philosophy of the amendments is shared by the whole House. We have to ensure that we work in a way that is holistic and that our strategy recognises the complexity of the process. An action in one place, unless it is thought through and is part of a holistic strategy, can have the reverse effect from that which we intended.
I sense that the House wishes to arrive at a rapid conclusion on this matter, but it is a serious issue and I do not want anyone to be in any doubt about the extent to which we take it seriously. Although we cannot accept new clauses 5 and 6 for the reasons that I have given, it is important to ensure--I now come to new clause 7--that we do all that we can to curb the misuse of the internet by child pornographers and paedophiles. We have a great deal of sympathy for the intent behind new clause 7, but it contains gaps in the way in which it responds to the complexity of the issues involved. That is why we intend to proceed with the work that we are doing with, among others, the internet relay chat sub-group, which has been set up to examine the issue in detail, to identify the problems and to recommend solutions. That sub-group will present its report to the internet crime forum by the end of August and we need to wait for its conclusions and its recommendations before moving to legislation. However, we accept the thrust behind the new clause.
The Government amendments are designed to strengthen the Bill. They are a response to the debate that we had in Committee and to the consultations that we have had with a wide range of organisations concerned with child protection. They carry forward the intentions of the Bill as expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. For that reason, I commend the amendments to the House.
We intend to table amendments in the House of Lords as a result of new clauses 2 and 4 and to put new clauses 5 and 6 to one side pending the conclusions of the sentencing review. I hope that that course will commend itself to the House and that it will accept Government amendments Nos. 12 to 18 and 55 to 62.
Mr. Lidington: Before I respond to the Minister's remarks, may I deal briefly with the question put to me by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) about the new clause on mandatory sentences? We have reproduced the provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Act
1997, as consolidated by recent legislation, that give the judge, when considering all the circumstances of a particular case, the discretion to override the normal rule for a mandatory minimum sentence if he considers that there is an overwhelming case for him to do so. One could argue whether such provisions should have been in the 1997 Act and I recall that there was much controversy about them at the time. The wording in the new clause simply reproduces what is in current legislation.
Jackie Ballard: The hon. Gentleman clearly, accepts the provision in the 1997 Act that judges can take specific circumstances into account, so, he does not support mandatory sentences without reservation.
Mr. Lidington: Our new clause reproduces the wording of the 1997 Act as it applies to burglars and class A drug offenders and applies it to the category of child sex offenders to which the new clause relates. Whatever the arguments about the principle of the extent to which judges should be allowed to exercise a degree of discretion, it makes sense for different categories of offenders to be subject to the same type of law on mandatory and minimum sentences.
The Minister replied in a generous spirit to the debate and I thank him for that. I welcome the fact that the Government propose to table amendments in another place that would pretty well mirror our proposals in new clauses 2 and 4. I hope that, in due course, the Home Office will bring forward other amendments to the law to give effect to the ideas that were embodied in the other new clauses.
Given the number of flaws that we find in the legislation introduced by expert and professional Government draftsman, I concede that the inexpert and unprofessional draftsmen of any Opposition may make errors of their own. I accept the Minister's comments in both spirit and substance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Sex Offenders Act 1997: Notification Period
'(1) In section 2(1), section 2(2) and section 2(7) of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, for the words '14 days' there shall be substituted the words '48 hours'.'--[Mr. Lidington.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Lidington: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require sex offenders to notify the police of a change of address within 48 hours of their changing address rather than within the 14 days that the law currently permits. It would target the paedophiles whom the police have encountered and who travel around the country. For example, they travel along canal routes, never staying in one location for 14 days. That has meant that they have found ways in which to escape registration even though their history of paedophile offending means that they should be registered. In effect, they become invisible to the law.
By reducing the registration time to 48 hours, the police and other agencies will be able to keep an eye on paedophiles more easily and hinder their ability to escape
the law. Given that paedophiles are more likely than other offenders to become repeat criminals, it is absolutely vital that we keep track of those who have been caught and convicted before.
Mr. Boateng: We have much sympathy with the thinking behind new clause 8, which is clearly intended to strengthen the protection of the public. Research into the operational effectiveness of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 will be published this summer. I have several concerns, as I suspect other hon. Members have, about how the Act has worked in practice, and the new clause relates to one of them. We will launch a policy review of the Act which will consider those findings and other relevant issues. It will take into account the views of a wide range of organisations, including children's charities and the police, and we believe that it would be premature to amend the Act in advance of that consultation. It also does not make much sense in our view to consider that one aspect of the Act in isolation, when we have indicated our intention of conducting a more thoroughgoing review.
Sir Paul Beresford: An additional point is that a period of 14 days allows the predatory paedophile the opportunity to "groom" his clients--as he would put it--and 48 hours would make that exceedingly difficult.
Mr. Boateng: There is much strength in the argument that 14 days is too long. However, my point is that other concerns arise from the Sex Offenders Act 1997 in relation, for instance, to aspects of foreign travel and people who have committed offences overseas. They need to be considered in the round and I have no doubt that in due course, a basket of proposals will be made as a result of the research and consultation that will lead to later amendment of the Act. This issue may be one of them, and I request that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) does not press the new clause, pending the outcome of the research into the workings of the Act.
It is worth celebrating the fact that we have the Act in place and that we achieve a good rate of compliance, in the sense that 97 per cent.--at the last count--of sex offenders comply with the registration requirement. That has helped to change the climate and the culture in terms of the police and the other child protection agencies working together to identify and keep tabs on that group of people who, as the supporters of the new clause recognise, are predatory and guileful, and require careful monitoring. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |