New
Clause
6
Release
on licence: polygraph
condition
‘(1) This section
applies where a person serving a relevant custodial sentence in respect
of a relevant sexual offence is released on licence by the Secretary of
State under any enactment.
(2)
This section does not apply if at the time of his release on licence he
is aged under 18.
(3) The
Secretary of State may include a polygraph condition in the
person’s licence.
(4)
“Relevant custodial sentence”
means—
(a) a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of twelve months or more (including such a
sentence imposed under section 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
(c.44)).
(b) a sentence of
detention in a young offender institution for a term of twelve months
or more,
(c) a sentence of
detention under section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts
(Sentencing) Act 2000
(c.6),
(d) a sentence of
detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts
(Sentencing) Act 2000 for a period of twelve months or
more,
(e) a sentence of custody
for life under section 93 or 94 of the Powers of Criminal Courts
(Sentencing) Act 2000, or
(f) a
sentence of detention under section 226 or 228 of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003.
(5) “Relevant
sexual offence”
means—
(a) an offence
specified in Part 2 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003
(specified sexual
offences),
(b) an offence
specified in paragraphs 1 to 21 of Schedule 16 to that Act (offences
under the law of Scotland),
or
(c) an offence specified in
Part 2 of Schedule 17 to that Act (offences under the law of Northern
Ireland).’.—[Mr.
Gerrard.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Gerrard:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: New clause 7— Polygraph
condition—
‘(1) For the
purposes of section [Release on license: polygraph condition] a
polygraph condition is a condition which requires the released person
to participate in polygraph sessions conducted with a view
to—
(a) monitoring his compliance with the other
conditions of his licence;
(b)
improving the way in which he is managed during his release on
licence.
(2) A polygraph
session is a session during which a person (a “polygraph
operator”)—
(a)
administers one or more polygraph examinations to the released person,
and
(b) interviews the released
person in preparation for, or otherwise in connection with, the
administration of the examination or
examinations.
(3) For the
purposes of subsection (2), a polygraph examination is a procedure in
which—
(a) the polygraph
operator administering the examination questions the released
person,
(b) the questions and
the released person’s answers are recorded,
and
(c) the released
person’s physiological reactions while being questioned are
measured and recorded by means of equipment of a type approved by the
Secretary of State.
(4) A
requirement to participate in polygraph sessions operates to require
the released person—
(a)
to participate in polygraph sessions at such times as may be specified
in instructions given by an officer of a local probation board,
and
(b) while participating in
a polygraph session, to comply with instructions given to him by the
polygraph operator.
(5) The
Secretary of State may from time to time issue guidance as regards the
giving of instructions under subsection
(4)(a).
(6) The Secretary of
State may make rules as to the conduct of polygraph
sessions.
(7) The rules, may in
particular, require polygraph operators to be persons who satisfy such
requirements as to qualifications, experience and other matters as are
specified in the
rules.’.
New
clause 8—Amendment on the Criminal Justice Act
2003—
‘In section 250(4)
of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) (licence conditions for
prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment of twelve months or more
etc), in paragraph (b)(I) after “Criminal Justice and Court
Services Act 2000” insert “or section [Release on
licence: polygraph condition] of the Offender Management Act 2007
(c.).”.’.
New
clause 9—Evidence from polygraph
sessions—
‘(1) This
section applies if a person participates in a polygraph session
pursuant to the requirements of a polygraph
condition.
(2) Evidence of the
matters falling within subsection (3) may not be
used—
(a) in any
criminal proceedings in which the person is a
defendant;
(b) in any
proceedings on an appeal from such criminal
proceedings.
(3) The matters
are—
(a) any statement
made by the person while participating in the polygraph
session;
(b) the
person’s physiological reactions while being questioned in the
course of a polygraph examination administered to him during the
polygraph session.
(4) In this
section—
“defendant”,
in relation to criminal proceedings, means a person charged with an
offence in those
proceedings;
“polygraph
condition”, “polygraph examination” and
“polygraph session” have the same meaning as in section
[Release on licence: polygraphic
conditions].’.
Mr.
Gerrard:
The new clauses deal with the supervision of
people convicted of sex offences, especially those involving children.
The Home Office has been conducting a review of how it deals with
children sex offenders and as part of that there has been a lot of
discussion, over the past year or two, about whether there should be
more disclosure. I know that the Minister went to the US to examine
what is known as Megan’s law as one way of trying to protect
children. In this country, however, most of the organisations involved
in child protection, including the National Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children and Barnardo’s, are not in favour of
going down that road and are much more in favour of examining other
ways to ensure that child sex offenders are properly supervised and do
not become a danger to children again. The new clauses are directly
relevant to that
process.
A pilot
project has been run. The new clauses appeared, more or less as they
are now, in a Bill that was published by the Government in the 2004-05
parliamentary Session. That Bill began in the House of Lords, but it
never completed its passage because of the 2005 general election, which
meant, of course, that all the Bills at that time fell. When I examine
the current Bill, I do not understand why the new clauses, which were
in the Bill that was introduced before the 2005 general election, have
disappeared, particularly when a pilot project has been run, using
polygraph tests and involving 347 sex offenders who were monitored
between September 2003 and September 2005.
Those tests were used to assess
the offenders’ compliance with their licence conditions, whether
they were behaving suspiciously and whether they were adhering to
treatment plans and programmes. It seems that the findings of that
pilot project were quite positive. In quite a significant number of
cases, the offenders made some disclosures during the polygraph tests
that were relevant to their behaviour, supervision or treatment that
allowed case managers to make adjustments to their supervision or, in
cases where it appeared that there might be an immediate risk, to take
some action. It also appears that the probation staff who were involved
in managing the pilot and acting as case managers during it found that
the information that was gained from the polygraph tests was helpful in
assessing and managing risks. It therefore seems right to examine those
measures and to determine whether they should be inserted into the
Bill. Perhaps the Minister will explain why it was felt appropriate to
include them in the Bill that was introduced before the 2005 general
election—presumably on the basis that the pilot project had
appeared to work reasonably well—and not include them in the
present Bill.
Organisations such as
Barnardo’s, which has run a number of projects to help children
who have been sexually abused or assaulted and their families, support
the new clauses and think that they are a much better way of getting
better supervision of child sex offenders who are released on license
than going down the road of wide disclosure. There is evidence from the
US that that process of disclosure does not work particularly well. Not
as many child sex offenders in the US stay in touch with supervision as
do here. There is also a quite serious risk in disclosure—one
that is not often pointed out. Although there are obviously some
extremely
unpleasant cases where children are sexually assaulted by strangers,
often the greatest risk of sexual assault and abuse of a child comes
from a relative or someone else who is already known to the child or
their family. That risk must be borne in mind, because the disclosure
of the identities of offenders could lead, in some cases at least, to
the victim also being easily identified. The route suggested in the new
clauses is worth considering as a better way of getting supervision,
particularly of child sex offenders who are out on licence, than some
of the suggestions that have been
made.
James
Brokenshire:
The hon. Gentleman rightly touches on the
important and sensitive issue of how best we can protect children from
sex offenders. I, too, was struck by the briefing materials produced by
a number of children’s charities stating their thinking on that
point and on how to ensure that the offenders who might put children at
risk are properly monitored, scrutinised and assessed on a continuing
basis so that potential threats are examined. The hon.
Gentleman’s new clauses reflect language that appeared
previously in a Bill that did not find its way on to the statute book.
It is well worth asking how the Government’s thinking has moved
on since that then and what it currently is. I know that the Minister
takes a particular interest in the
matter.
The Home
Office has received information on the pilot study on the use of
polygraph information, and I note that Professor Don Grubin’s
study concluded that 94 per cent. of probation staff involved
found the information gained helpful. However, that is only a pilot
study, and the information and results appear to be recent. Further
debate, analysis and review will therefore be required to assess their
import and the likely impact of a wider roll-out of any such scheme. I
certainly welcome the debate that the new clauses offer, and I shall
listen with great interest to how the Government intend to proceed how
they believe children and other vulnerable members of our community can
best be
protected.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for
Walthamstow for raising the issue, and I also thank the hon. Member for
Hornchurch. There is genuine concern about how to respond to the
challenge of sexual abuse in our communities. Meeting that challenge is
not easy, but the Government give a high priority to the protection of
the public and particularly the safeguarding of children. The Home
Secretary, who used to be a spokesman on children for the Labour party
many years ago, is close to the issue today—more of that later
when we discuss the
review.
We have taken
action in a range of Departments, and we intend to continue and expand
on that work so that it has a real impact on reducing sexual violence
in all its forms. In particular, we have taken firm action on sex
offenders. Our starting point is that serious child sex offenders
should remain in custody for as long as they present a risk to the
public. That was why we introduced the indeterminate public protection
sentence, which will result in indefinite detention unless the risk has
been reduced. We have taken further measures to strengthen both
sentencing and offender management.
As my hon. Friend the Member for
Walthamstow said, on 19 June last year the Home Secretary commissioned
a review of the management of childsex offenders. Its
principal aim is to enhance child protection by focusing on two linked
objectives: strengthening sex offender management and empowering people
through increased public
awareness.
12.30
pm
The four
elements of the review include the multi-agency public protection
arrangements, which are unique to the UK in bringing together the
responsible authorities in dealing with the management of sex offenders
in the MAPPA categories. I am very grateful for the amount of work done
by MAPPA officers across the country. The review is looking at the
consistency of the MAPPA across the existing 42 areas and at getting
the right level of buy-in to ensure that the MAPPA work successfully.
Unfortunately, we have seen the arrangements not working recently and
serious offences taking
place.
The second
element of the review is treatment, and making sure that we do
everything that can bedone regarding treatment of sex
offenders, where appropriate or possible. A great many issues, some of
which are highly emotive, will be looked at. For instance, what goes on
in Denmark in terms of chemical castration and associated issues will
cause highly emotive discussions on
treatment.
The third
element is approved premises, and whatwe will do about our 104
approved premises. Are suitable arrangements in place for dealing with
the management of sex offenders? We talked previously about the issue
of resettlement. The fourth element is disclosure, which my hon. Friend
the Member for Walthamstow said was more controversial, although I
think all the issues are controversial, and what we should do about it.
He is right that in the majority of child sex offender
cases—more than 80 per cent.—the perpetrator is known to
the victim, either as a member of the family or a closely associated
responsible adult. However, 20 per cent. of cases involve predators who
operate in a particular way, usually getting alongside a vulnerable
single mother, after which the grooming takes place. The review will
focus on what information the individual mother should be able to
access.
Information
is already available through current legislation. Responsible
authorities that hold information can give it to relevant bodies,
whether they are schools, local authorities or whoever. The review will
focus on where individual responsibilities lie. I went to America to
look at Megan’s law, and I am on the record as saying that it
would be highly inappropriate for the UK, for lots of reasons. People
on the sex offenders register automatically going on to a website is
clearly not what is required. Unfortunately, an individual on the sex
offenders register was murdered by someone who got access to the
register. We are talking here about the most difficult offenders,
however, and I was interested in what happened when the child
exploitation and online protection centre, under the leadership of Jim
Gamble, put on its website people who were not complying with the
requirements.
Five people were put on the website and three of them have been caught
and arrested, because they appeared
there. Disclosure and
what we do with information are difficult issues to deal with. I am
going back to the States in a couple of weeks’ time to finalise
our response. I think that my hon. Friend is right about the variety of
stakeholders involved in the consultation who have been looking at all
the issues. Polygraph testing, which I will come to in a second, is a
key element, but it is not better than some other approaches, but
should be considered alongside them. Disclosure should be appropriate
and accessible two ways, and there should be penalties for improper use
of the information.
Again, the process is not party
political. I know that hon. Members from all parties will be interested
with what we come up with. We will discuss further what we all want to
see: the right solution to meet our requirements. The overriding issue
has to be education and making sure that parents know how to safeguard
their children from difficult
situations.
My hon.
Friend talked about the role that technology will have in helping to
protect the public, including satellite tracking and the use of
polygraphs with sex offenders. The report will be out shortly, but as
he said, a major pilot study of polygraph testing was conducted by the
probation service between September 2003 and September 2005, the
results of which were published in December 2006. Almost 350 sex
offenders agreed to take polygraph tests as part of their supervision
and treatment process. They were asked about adherence to licence
conditions and their response to risk factors that were particular to
each individual. The importance of the polygraph examination was not in
whether it detected deception, although it did in many cases, but in
achieving the disclosure of new information by offenders before and
after the
examination.
Using
their knowledge of a case from probation records, and after discussion
with probation officers, the examiners concluded that new disclosures
that were relevant to treatment and supervision were made in79
per cent. of first examinations and 78 per cent. of retests, regardless
of whether the test was passed, failed or inconclusive. Nearly 30 per
cent. of such disclosures took place in the post-test interview, when
offenders were challenged with the results. Probation staff
overwhelmingly found those results helpful in the risk management of
offenders. We wish to listen to those views and give all possible
support to those who have the difficult job of managing sex offenders
in the community.
As
the hon. Member for Hornchurch said, there are a number of problems
with the research, which limits the usefulness of the findings.
Offenders were self-selecting. On average, 43 per cent. of those
eligible volunteered for testing; we need to be concerned about those
who did not. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow is aware that to
make polygraph testing mandatory, we require legislation. The
Government introduced clauses to that effect in the 2005 Bill, with
which this new clause appears to have a remarkable similarity. The
Government are sympathetic to the new clause, but we require time to
consider the category of sex offender for which the polygraph test
would best be
used. The new clause uses the previous criteria of those sex offenders
who are on release from a prison sentence of 12 months or longer. That
may well be the preferred option, but we need to consider whether it
should be widened to test all high-risk sex offenders regardless of
supervision status, for example. We must also consider how to
pilot mandatory testing. In the earlier Bill, the Government made a
commitment to pilot in a number of regions before bringing back before
the House the question of extension of polygraph examinations to other
areas. The new clause makes no reference to such a commitment. We
believe that if we are to take forward the use of polygraph tests, we
should do so cautiously, learning from small-scale implementation. That
will give us the opportunity to assess any problems of process and to
be clearer about the expected
benefits.
Mandatory
testing will be a new requirement for the management of sex offenders
and will require clear procedural guidance from the Secretary of State.
We will also seek to set guidance on the qualifications needed to
conduct polygraph examinations and the form that examinations take. In
assessing the risk of serious child sex offenders, we do not envisage
using the type of examination that takes place in popular light
entertainment programmes.
We consider all the issues as
matters of urgency. We are sympathetic to the new clause and we will
carefully consider it before Report. With that assurance, I hope that
my hon. Friend will be satisfied that we want to achieve a suitable
solution. I am sure that the review that we will undertake will meet
the requirements of all hon. Members. On that basis, I hope that he
will withdraw the motion. We will return to the matter when we are able
to do
so.
Mr.
Gerrard:
I thank my hon. Friend for his positive reply; it
was more positive than the replies that I usually get in Committee. I
understand the points that he made. The pilot scheme was
self-selecting, so there are questions as to how it would work if it
were mandatory. I also take his point about the definitions that would
be needed. If we were to go down the road of mandatory testing, the
sensible approach would be to do so gradually with the introduction of
pilots. I accept that the new clauses do not allow for that, but I
thank him for his positive reply. Hopefully we will be able to return
to the matter on Report and get some changes to the Bill along the
lines suggested. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
Ordered,
That
the memorandum already reported to the House be appended to the
proceedings of the Committee.—[Mr.
Sutcliffe.]
Question
proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the
House.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I want to thank you, Mr. Atkinson,
and your co-Chairman, Mr. Bayley, for the efficient way in
which you have handled our deliberations. I also thank the Clerks, the
Hansard reporters, the police and the other people connected
with the smooth running of our Committee. The Bill is important, and it
has caused some controversy and will continue to be discussed in its
remaining stages.
I wish to put on record my
thanks to the spokespeople of the Opposition parties, the hon. and
learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Members for Hornchurch, for
Cheadle and for Ceredigion, for their constructive involvement. There
are many issues that we must reflect on and return to. The Committee
has been good-natured and has dealt with the issues in great
detail.
I thank my
hon. Friends for their involvement, particularly my hon. Friend the
Member for Walthamstow, who has expressed concerns that are shared by
many Labour Members. I also thank Opposition Members for their active
involvement, the usual channels for their sterling performance in
ensuring that we meet our requirements and the Home Office officials
who have supported the Committee. I have learned a lot about
people’s concerns about the details of the Bill.
I thank the Under-Secretary of
State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling,
whom I nearly forgot. He is known in the Home Office as Mr.
Big, for many reasons, but particularly because of his performance last
week in dealing with serious crime issues. I look forward to the
progress of the Bill through its remaining stages and I thank you for
your involvement, Mr.
Atkinson.
Mr.
Garnier:
I join the Minister in expressing our thanks for
the work of all those who have made the Committee stage as smooth as it
has been—you, Mr. Atkinson, your co-Chairman,
Mr. Bayley, the Clerks and Hansard staff and the
police who have kept an eye on our
proceedings.
The
Minister kindly said that we have been constructive. There may come a
time when we shall become deconstructive, and I assure him that the
Bill remains controversial. It got its Second Reading thanks to the
official Opposition, so we hold him on probation and we shall be
looking for constant reports. We expect his targets to be met and we
expect him to return, having made his reflections, with an improved
Bill on Report. As I said on Second Reading, the support that we gave
then, which he seemed pretty reluctant to accept—he was almost
content to let the Bill fall—was conditional. Those conditions
have yet to be met, so the Bill is by no means safe, but then very
little in the Home Office
is.
Mark
Hunter:
I concur with the remarks of the hon. and learned
Member for Harborough and the Minister. I thank you, Mr.
Atkinson, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Bayley, for the way in
which you have presided over proceedings, and all the supporting
officials, including the
policemen.
I thank the
Minister for his approach to the Committee. He has indicated that he is
prepared to take on board concerns and respond to them appropriately,
and all our concerns have had a decent airing. There remain a number of
significant areas of disagreement on which we look forward to resuming
battle on Report. For the time being, I thank the Minister and his team
for the way in which he has allowed the debate to
progress.
12.45
pm
David
Maclean (Penrith and The Border) (Con): I have not sought
to intervene in the Committee until now; as a former Home Office
Minister I thought that it would be best to leave the new teams on both
sides of the room to conduct proceedings.
I seek clarification that the
Minister will be adhering to an important convention that used to
operate in the Home Office when I was a Minister there from 1993 to
1997. We introduced a record number of Criminal Justice Bills—a
fat lot of good it did us—and Ministers always wished to thank
our civil servants and the Members and advisers who had helped us. We
used to have a drinks party at the end. It was an all-party drinks
party, because we did not wish to be accused of favouring the
Conservative party. I am sure that the Minister will wish to take
advice from his advisers on
the matter, and when the Bill receives Royal Assent I am sure he will
wish to pay tribute to the Chairmen, the Hansard writers, his
excellent civil servants and lawyers and both members of the Committee
who have contributed and those who have sat in silence. That is an
important convention that ought to be
continued.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am always interested in drinks parties for a
lot of reasons, and I am happy to consider that convention as long as
the cost of it is shared equally by the two Ministers
responsible.
The
Chairman:
I look forward to getting my
invitation.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Bill, as
amended, to be
reported.
Committee
rose at thirteen minutes to One
o’clock.
| 
