| Sexual Offences Bill [Lords]
|
|
Mr. Grieve: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing the new clauses. As he knows, I have in the past worked on the subject matter of new clause 8, encryption, with his assistance. I am wholly persuaded that we need to introduce legislation to deal with the problem of encryption and to provide a penalty commensurate with the gravity of the offence being investigated for those who refuse to provide the encryption key. It is a deplorable state of affairs that there could be reasonable suspicion that someone has downloaded pornographic and indecent images of children and they could be confronted with an investigation, but that because the police are unable to break the encryption, that person knows that he will receive a relatively short sentence as long as he refuses to co-operate, whereas he would be likely to receive a more substantial sentence if the information were obtained from his computer. That has always inclined me to the view that we must do something about encryption, which is what new clause 8 achieves. I hope that the Minister will respond to it positively. New clause 9 follows logically from new clause 8. My hon. Friend was also right about new clause 10. The particular case that he cited illustrates how unfortunate it is that one has to have a court order or nothing can be done subsequently. Introducing an automatic provision that an offender cannot work with children following a conviction would close that loophole. That, too, appears to merit a favourable response from the Government. I appreciate that the Government may wish to go away and consider that further but I hope that on such important matters they can take on board my hon. Friend's points and respond positively. Paul Goggins: I well remember the visit to the Metropolitan police to which the hon. Member for Mole Valley referred. Two things stand out in my mind as I think back to it. One is the complexity of the task that those officers have in an ever-changing world of technology and deviousness on the part of the Column Number: 400 people who operate with those systems for the purposes of child pornography and child abuse. The second is the enormous dedication of the people who, day in, day out, year in, year out, do a job on our behalf that none of us would ever want to have to do. I pay tribute to them for that.It is clear from that visit, from the various discussions that we have had and from his speech to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman understands the complexity of those issues very well. We have much to learn from him. I am delighted that he is a member of the taskforce that I chair—his contribution to it is welcome. Although I shall mostly resist his amendments, I hope that he will not think that I do not take the issues he raised as seriously as he does. I understand why he tabled the new clauses. New clause 8 would use the threat of an extended term of imprisonment as an encouragement to an offender to disclose electronic information that they have protected. The hon. Gentleman has already indicated that when it is implemented, part III of RIPA will provide a power to compel the disclosure of protected information. Having said that, I recognise that there is a concern, which is reinforced by what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, that as the criminal use of encryption becomes more widespread and people become more proficient, some offenders might choose to accept a two-year term of imprisonment rather than disclose the full horrors of their data and open themselves up to much longer terms of imprisonment. However, for there to be a seven-year term of imprisonment for failing to produce a password, without any other form of offending, is perhaps not proportionate. Perhaps the hon. Member for Mole Valley will reflect on that. I want to consider further the suggestion that where a conviction for a schedule 3 offence is secured, where the police have recovered protected information during the investigation and where the offender has failed to comply with the disclosure requirement under RIPA, the court should be able when sentencing to draw an inference about the data that the offender is seeking to protect—even on conviction. I hope that that gives some encouragement to the hon. Gentleman in the context of the implementation of RIPA. The drafting of the clause does not catch the right balance. I understand entirely the objective that gave rise to new clause 9. However, I do not accept that it is appropriate or consistent with a notification under part 2 for offenders who have failed to comply with the requirement under section 53 of RIPA to face sex offender registration at the discretion of the court. We have on several occasions talked about sex offender registration being an automatic requirement following conviction for a sexual offence. The notification requirements are not in themselves a punishment—they are part of an administrative procedure. To include in the register people convicted only of failing to comply with a requirement to disclose protected information could seriously undermine its credibility. New clause 10 would introduce a provision to disqualify from working with children any person who is convicted of an offence in part 1 and receives one of the qualifying sentences. I share the hon. Gentleman's Column Number: 401 desire to provide maximum protection for children. That has been the central task of the Committee and we have had a fair consensus on it throughout our deliberations. Although the new clause is not required and I do not see how it can be justified, I want to reflect on the issues he raises.To extend the scheme to those who commit offences against an adult only would bring within its scope some cases where there is no evidence of a risk to children. As heinous as all of those crimes may be, someone who has committed a sexual crime against an adult may not be a risk to children. I want to reflect further on that. We must take account of the severity of the disqualification scheme. It provides a lifetime ban on all work with children, even helping out with one's own children in a local sports activity, or another young person's activity. It is a serious thing for a lifetime ban of that kind to be implemented. We want protection, but we also want a system that works. I think that we are all pleased with the level of compliance that we have achieved through the register to date. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pressing us hard on the issue. I am sure that he will continue to do so. I hope he feels that he is making some progress and that, in that spirit, he will withdraw his amendment. Sir Paul Beresford: That reply was a little disappointing, but not too surprising. New clause 9 was pushing the boundaries quite hard. However, what the Under-Secretary said about new clause 8 was a little bit flawed. The wording at the beginning makes it clear that it would apply only to someone who has already been convicted of an offence involving indecent activities against children—paedophile activity is perhaps the best way of putting it. I shall reflect on what he said and may possibly return to it on Report. I will reflect on the Under-Secretary's points about new clause 9. They have some validity.
6.15 pmI was a little surprised by the Minister's reaction to new clause 10. I used Luke Sadowski as an example. Once he comes out of prison Luke Sadowski is technically free to work with children because someone forgot. Putting the boot on the other foot and turning the matter around offers an opportunity, which could perhaps become standard practice for the defence on behalf of the convicted individual, to appeal against the automatic requirement not to work with children. I do not know how many other individuals like Luke Sadowski, who would quite clearly be dangerous to children, have slipped through the net because someone forgot. I want to go away and think about this again. As a Labour Back Bencher said, this is a unique opportunity because it is a unique Bill. If we miss the opportunity we will miss it for half a lifetime. I hope that the Minister will look at this seriously and find a way to get a change along these lines because at Column Number: 402 the end of the day we are helping battered, abused children. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 14 October 2003 |
