| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Paul Beresford: Does the Minister agree that part of the reason for the high compliance with registration requirements in this country is that we do not have what is commonly called Megan's law, and that if there is any incentive for an offender not to put their name on the list, or to disappear once on the list, it is a law like that?
Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I commend him for making that point. My concern centres on the risk of being disproportionate. For example, if a compliant offender who seeks to put the past behind them feels that none the less the police will be knocking on their door to come into their home to interrogate them—in other words, not letting them put the past behind them—they may think at the outset, "The police are going to believe that I am an offender and cannot change, so what's the point in complying?" A compliance rate of 97 per cent. gives us something to be proud of and to build on.
Sir Paul Beresford: The Met police say that, in cases of clear compliance, they can make one check and then leave the person alone, but in the few cases where they have deep concern, they will need to check again, sometimes regularly.
Paul Goggins: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I will pay close attention to his remarks about the two dozen or so people whom officers in the Met police suspect are complying on the face of it but not in reality. In the case of the compliant 97 per cent., the police are not required to go to check the offender—the offender is required to go to the police. It is no longer enough for them to write a little note saying, "My name is Joe Bloggs and I live at 3 Smith street"—registration now involves a photograph, fingerprinting, and much closer scrutiny of the individual. There are clear requirements on people immediately to tell the police if they move house or reside, even occasionally, at another address. If they intend to travel outside this country for a period of three days or more, they must tell the police seven days beforehand. Wherever they are going, they have to ensure that the police know about it.
Taking all those issues into consideration, we believe that the current system works, encourages close compliance, and is proportionate, and that it is therefore not challengeable under article 8.
Sexual offending against children is an absolutely despicable crime. Hon. Members on both sides continue to make that absolutely clear as we join together in various ways to try to combat it. We all want a rigorous response to such crimes. We have made considerable changes in recent years to protect children and, indeed, all members of society from the risk that sex offenders pose. The hon. Member for Mole Valley himself has played a commendable and considerable role in many developments.
In April, we will introduce a new sentence, arising from the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Where somebody has committed a serious sexual offence and has a history
4 Mar 2005 : Column 1258
of that, or of violence, it will be open to the court to pass an indeterminate sentence for public protection, where a life sentence is not available. The individual will serve a certain tariff—perhaps seven or eight years—but will not be released until the parole board considers it safe for them to be released back into the community. Those sex offenders who currently receive determinate prison sentences and whom, in the end, we have to release even though we know that they still pose a danger to families and children in our communities will no longer have to be released until it is absolutely safe for us to do so. That is a huge strengthening of the law and of public protection, which I hope commands support on both sides of the House.
The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in which we toughened the law in relation to rape and a number of other sexual crimes in order to make it absolutely clear that those who commit those types of offence will face ever increasing penalties as part of their rightful punishment for the wrong that they have done and to strengthen public protection arrangements. In that way, potential future victims will not become victims.
The multi-agency public protection arrangements that we have in place in the United Kingdom are a huge step forward from anything we ever had before. The police, the probation service and the prison service are the three leading agents within the development of multi-agency public protection arrangements at local level, and local authorities, housing providers, health authorities and trusts have a duty to co-operate with those arrangements. We can tightly manage all who pose a significant risk in our community so that we can protect our children and other vulnerable people.
The 2003 Act made considerable changes to the sex offenders register. For example, we reduced the time within which offenders must notify changes to their home address and other registered details. We provided that all notifications have to be made in person at police stations where the police can take fingerprints and photographs. We provided that every registered sex offender has to attend at least once every 12 months at a police station. Those are much more stringent requirements for sex offender registration than applied before.
Failure to comply with those requirements—this is an important point, and the hon. Gentleman and I discussed it briefly in an earlier exchange—is a criminal offence under section 91 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and under section 17(1)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Under those provisions, a constable already has a general power to enter any premises for the purposes of arresting a sex offender for such an offence. In other words, where a sex offender is contravening the registration requirements, a police constable already has the power to enter at that person's address to conduct an investigation and to arrest the individual if they believe that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any offence has been committed, as well as the offence of failing to register. I believe that for the group about whom we are most concerned—the 3 per cent. who are not compliant—there are already grounds to take considerable action. The penalty of up to five years' imprisonment is fitting and severe enough to send out the clear warning that
4 Mar 2005 : Column 1259
those who do not comply will pay a considerable price for not doing so. Let us be clear: registered sex offenders commit a criminal offence if they do not comply with the notification requirements. Routine police powers of entry and search apply if there are reasonable suspicions that such an offence has been committed.
This amendment to the law would provide an additional power to enter and search premises when there is no suspicion that an offender poses any risk or that an offence has been committed. As I have said, I do not believe that that is justified. It is open to challenge as disproportionate. Those offenders who have committed an offence serious enough to warrant registration—and any sexual offence is a serious matter—and who are attempting to construct a new life and to put the offence behind them should not be subject to further intrusion when they are trying to move forward and there are no grounds to believe that any further offences have been committed.
I assure the House that we are always exploring new ways of managing the risks posed by serious sex offenders. I have already mentioned that we have taken through the multi-agency public protection arrangements to put them on to a statutory footing. Every year, each of the 42 MAPPA areas must produce a public report specifying the numbers of offenders for whom it is responsible and the ways in which local agencies are working together to manage the risk that those individuals pose and to make sure that those risks are reduced so that we avoid future and unnecessary victims of crime.
The hon. Member for Daventry was absolutely right.
Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): He normally is.
Paul Goggins: Indeed, I have found that to be the case on many occasions. Not only is this a question of public protection—we all support that—but it is also a matter of public confidence so that individuals and groups of people do not feel it necessary to set themselves up as vigilantes and try to take power into their own hands. They can have confidence that the authorities and agencies working together will manage the risk and deal with people appropriately. It is therefore a question of public confidence so that we avoid the behaviour of unruly elements that we have seen from time to time and which does no credit to the individuals involved.
I understand the points that the hon. Member for Mole Valley has made, and I understand the frustration of some police and probation officers who find that a particular offender refuses to communicate or allow his property to be entered. The police and probation service visit all registered sex offenders on a regular basis and the majority of them comply with the visits. I am not convinced that there is a problem of non-compliance that has to be addressed by any new police powers.
We should remember that there are other ways by which we can improve the management of the offenders, and we are constantly looking at new possibilities. For
4 Mar 2005 : Column 1260
example, we are developing a new database, ViSOR—the violent offender and sex offender register—and the hon. Gentleman will know about that. It is a shared database between the police, the probation service and, in time, the Prison Service whereby the characteristics of an individual—photographs, other distinguishing features and so on—will be shared on a database that is accessible to all those agencies. That will help us effectively to manage those violent or sex offenders who would otherwise pose dangers.
We are also exploring how polygraphy may be able to help us. Indeed, there are provisions in the Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill, which was published a short time ago, to allow us to have a compulsory element in a pilot project that is enabling us to see how well we can use polygraphy as another method of helping to manage sex offenders after they have been released from prison.
We are also looking at how we can develop satellite tracking. In Greater Manchester—I represent the constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale, East—we are undertaking a satellite tracking pilot scheme, whereby sex offenders can be followed. We know where they have been and what their movements are—again, another piece of active support for our agencies, so that we can keep tabs on offenders and ensure that they do not pose a substantial risk to the communities in which they live.
Compliance with the notification requirements is, as we have said throughout the debate, very high—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 18 March.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |