| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry) (Con): The House owes a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), both for introducing this Bill and—as the Minister has already generously acknowledged—for the undoubted body of expertise that he has developed in this area. It is for most of us, certainly for me, an area of which we have a passing knowledge. However, much of what we read is in somewhat tetchy constituency correspondence or in the pages of tabloid newspapers, and that does not always make for the most rounded of debates. It is important for us to take issues that arouse anger and fear, and provoke the universal wish to protect children, and put them into a manageable and acceptable body of legislation. We should not respond to the demands of the moment, but try to produce something that works.
I have four brief comments on my hon. Friend's speech. First, I wish to thank him for the reasonable point that he made about risk assessment. I am comparatively unfamiliar with the legal machinery in that regard, although in my days on my party's home affairs team I recall subbing for a colleague on an order connected with the sexual offences legislation. I had assumed that the main function of the sex offenders register was the passive one of satisfying the general public that the police knew where offenders were. As the
4 Mar 2005 : Column 1250
Minister will know, that answers to a widespread public demand. My hon. Friend has informed the House of a more active element to that risk management. If that is to take place in any reasonable way, it has to do so on the basis of facts. As he told the House, the majority of convicted offenders comply with the rules. That is reassuring, and I have no difficulty with the assurances given by the Minister and in the briefing that is available to Members on this Bill about tightening matters up. Nevertheless, in some situations—graphically described by my hon. Friend—sex offenders do the very minimum required under the law or flout the law in relation to allowing the police to carry out a risk assessment. That is unacceptable, because we are asking the police to do a job without giving them the tools to do it.
My second point relates to article 8 of the human rights convention. For the avoidance of doubt, I can tell the Minister that I am one of the founder members of the new Conservative human rights group. I am pleased that we have got round to setting that up, and it is a reflection partly of a growing interest in such matters on this side of the House, for reasons that I need not expand on, and partly of the need not to see such matters as subject to party political controversy, left or right. My membership is reinforced by the fact that one of my daughters works for the Government legal service as a specialist in human rights. If I feel the need to say that that is not a contradiction in terms, the Minister will understand why. Issues of human rights matter terribly to us, as they have mattered in this House for many centuries. We need to get the balance right, but we now have a conflict between, on the one hand, the evidence that my hon. Friend has brought to the House on the Met and, on the other, ACPO. I should point out that I know well the chief executive of ACPO, Chris Fox, because he was the chief constable in Northamptonshire before his welcome appointment to ACPO.
I shall not go into the genesis of ACPO's view, at which level the decision was taken and whether it was well advised. There is a clear clash of views. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the Government have taken other powers—for reasons that may or may not be defensible, but which we need not debate today—that are far more sweeping in their threat to the traditional liberties of the subject than the question of the right of access to the premises of convicted sex offenders who have registered their presence.
To the impressive list given by my hon. Friend, I add my personal experience, which I have shared with the House before. About six weeks ago, while driving my car, I was pulled over by a group of uniformed police officers who said that they were from the Ministry of Defence and wished to search my car under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000. They did so perfectly correctly and gave me a chit for doing so. There was no question of a prior moving traffic offence, suspicion or anything else. It was a peremptory challenge. If that is justified in relation to, I hope, an innocent citizen, equally the sort of intervention proposed in the Bill is as well.
It would be desirable, although it may or may not be possible in practice, on this occasion or perhaps at a later stage, for these issues to be examined again in Committee, and in detail, and for the difference between the Metropolitan police and ACPO to be bottomed out. We could then ascertain whether there were any other
4 Mar 2005 : Column 1251
constraints in the interest of human rights that should be imposed within the proposals. For example, the use of the evidence obtained needs to be more tightly conditioned, that it should be for a limited period, or whatever. These are essentially Committee points.
If we ask the Met or any other police force to carry out this work, we need to give them the tools to do it in relation to risk assessment. There are occasions when it is proper—I use the word carefully—to derogate the human rights of the individual. We should never do that lightly. We should not do it beyond what is proportionate. It seems to me, however, that such an approach may be appropriate in this instance.
I conclude my remarks by setting out two other considerations. First, much of this, but not all of it, for the reasons that my hon. Friend and I have given, is about public reassurance. There is a feeling that someone is keeping tabs on these extremely undesirable, unpleasant and sometimes devious individuals. I think that that is what the general public want. They would take it ill if they were to become conscious—I do not say that this is the case, I am saying that if it became the case or, arguably, one or two causes célèbres might lead people to think that it was the case—that the sex offenders register was not working. As I have said, I am not suggesting that that is happening and I do not wish to alarm people. Clearly, it is no good—although it is a thing that successive Governments have done—just to do something and then say, "We have done it." The process must be continued to make sure that it remains viable and fit for purpose. My hon. Friend is entirely right in bringing forward the consideration.
There is another element that is the point on which I wish to close. There is no doubt that there is a strong sense of public anger and concern about paedophiles. That, in a sense, needs to be managed. The last thing that any of us in the Chamber would want is irregular action, vigilantes and violence—I record the point in the interest of their civil liberties, too—in relation to those whose convictions have been spent. Indeed, these people may even have undergone successful remedial treatment for their condition. We do not want such violence to arise.
I say to the Minister in all seriousness—I think that this is entirely consistent with the case put forward by my hon. Friend—that if public worry boils over, that will have consequences that we do not wish to see. It is extremely important, of course, that Ministers are cautious in assuming powers beyond those that they feel comfortable with or that they consider are justified, let alone powers that merely look good in a press release. However, it is essential that they have the powers that they need and that the sex offenders register can do the job that it is intended to do.
I believe that my hon. Friend, with his undoubted expertise, has made a constructive suggestion. It is worth consideration now, in Committee or on a subsequent occasion. I hope and feel that the Minister will not wish to dismiss it lightly.
1.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins):
I assure the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that I would never
4 Mar 2005 : Column 1252
dismiss this issue lightly, and I believe that the whole House shares a deep concern to ensure that our laws, and the practices of our law enforcement agencies and other agencies, are effective in this area.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). He and I have had a number of discussions in this Chamber, in Committee and elsewhere on the issues that he raised today, and it is perhaps typical of him that, having won a prominent position in the ballot for private Members' business, he chose this subject above any other to bring to the attention of the House in an attempt, in his view, to strengthen the law, although I hope that in my remarks today he will be reassured that we believe that the law is sufficient to provide effective action against the concerns that he highlights. Of course, it is right that the House rigorously and regularly reviews legislation in this area.
As the hon. Gentleman explained, the Bill would provide the police with a specific new power to enter and search the homes of registered sex offenders who have been convicted of sexual offices against children under 16, and he specifically highlighted that that was the group on which he wanted to focus. I freely acknowledge that he has so focused the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman made a similar proposal during our consideration of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and, more recently, he tabled amendments to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill. He is certainly a persistent offender in this House, and he continues to pursue these issues with great vigour. I fully appreciate that he has given considerable thought to these issues and gone to considerable lengths, not least outside the House, to listen to those who operate on the front line of public protection in this area, so that whenever he speaks it is with great authority. It is clear from the way in which he has drafted the Bill that he continues to review and refine his views in this area.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |