Paul
Goggins: First, I want to take the opportunity to
congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new position within the Northern
Ireland Executive. I understand that he is already a great hit with the
Green movement. [Laughter.] I am sure that he will
do very well and we are genuinely all pleased to see him elevated to
his new post.
The point
that the hon. Gentleman makes is interesting and important, and it
requires a real sense of balance. I say that because, where information
is known, clearly it needs to be used by the key agencies to protect
the public and manage the offender. The problem arises if that
information is shared too widely, because the public can get in a very
angry mood about sexual offenders, perhaps understandably, and that can
turn into a difficult set of circumstances, not least because it may
lead to sex offenders going underground and not complying with the
registration arrangements. So, that information needs to be handled
carefully. The
hon. Gentleman may know that the Home Office is looking to see whether
there are circumstances in which such information could be more broadly
shared, perhaps, for example, where individuals are seeking to form new
relationships with people whom they want to check out to determine
whether they might be a risk to the children if they are to share the
household with
them. We
will wait and see how those pilot projects go to see whether there is
some read-across to Northern Ireland, but it is important that agencies
have the maximum amount of information—that is why we have the
multi-agency arrangements in place—and important that we manage
that information to ensure the maximum compliance by sex offenders,
rather than seeing them disappear
underground. In
practice, the multi-agency work is overseen by the Northern Ireland Sex
Offender Strategic Management Committee, which is known as NISOSMC for
short. Again, we are all pleased that we can shorten such long-winded
titles. NISOSMC is a committee of representatives from all the key
agencies involved, which is chaired by an Assistant Chief Constable and
exists primarily to make strategic decisions on how the MASRAM
arrangements operate. The arrangements are delivered at operational
level by a series of local, multi-agency groups, the first task for
which is a multi-agency assessment to determine whether the risk to the
public is low, medium or
high. Where
an offender has been assessed at the lowest risk—category
1—there is no further multi-agency involvement. On 31 March 208,
such cases accounted for 494 of the MASRAM assessment work load. Those
cases will attract further multi-agency attention only if information
is received by any of the agencies that points to the need for
reassessment. The remaining cases are all deemed to require additional
multi-agency
engagement. The
local committee agrees individual risk management plans and the
agencies deliver those aspects that fall within their normal statutory
responsibilities. There are in Northern Ireland 263 such cases: 257 at
category 2 and six in the most serious category 3. Each category 2 or 3
case will have a risk management plan, as part of which an offender
might, for example, have a court-ordered licence condition that
requires him to live in a hostel under probation supervision or to
attend a specific treatment programme. Other constraints might be put
in place, such as a curfew preventing him from being outside a hostel
at a particular time, for example, when children may be leaving school
to go home.
Where there
are no licence conditions, the police can ask the courts for a sexual
offences prevention order, which can place various controls over an
offender. For example, an individual may not be allowed to drive a car,
go near parks or schools or drink alcohol and so on. All those things
would render them at greater risk of causing harm to others. If an
offender does not abide by the conditions of the sexual offences
prevention order, they may face a prison
sentence. As
well as the multi-agency risk management arrangements that I have just
outlined, sex offenders have, since 1997, been subject to additional
requirements on release from prison, which are designed to ensure that
the police know their whereabouts once they are released. Those
notification requirements, which are commonly known as the sex offender
register, have been enhanced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003. For
example, the registration arrangements now have to be updated
annually. We
have a robust system of risk management in place, but we continue to
look at ways to strengthen those arrangements further. As members of
the Committee will know, two major pieces of criminal justice
legislation have recently passed through the House—one of them
awaits approval by the House of Lords—which will have important
implications for the work carried out in this area by criminal justice
agencies. First,
the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 contains major
reforms of sentencing arrangements in Northern Ireland, including a new
statutory risk assessment and management arrangement as well as new,
indeterminate sentences for the most dangerous offenders. That means
that offenders can be sent to prison for longer and not allowed out
until it is deemed safe to do so. Secondly, the Sexual Offences
(Northern Ireland) Order 2008, which we have already mentioned,
represents a major shake-up in sexual offences legislation for Northern
Ireland. Taken together, that important legislative package provides a
clear indication of the Government’s continuing focus on public
protection. In
practice, the reforms will mean that the maximum sentence available to
the courts for an adult convicted of sexual activity with a child will
increase from two years to 14. That move has been broadly welcomed
throughout Northern Ireland. The introduction of extended and
indeterminate sentences sends out a strong message: those who pose the
greatest risk will go to prison for longer and we will control their
release and make them subject to requirements in the community that, if
breached, may result in a further period in
prison. Additional
constraints can be placed on the offender when they are back in the
community and subject to probation supervision. The Criminal Justice
(Northern Ireland) Order 2008 will introduce constraints such as curfew
conditions, with electronic tags to ensure that offenders keep to them.
So, it will be possible to give curfews to sex offenders coming out of
prison and to tag them electronically if such measures are judged
necessary to control their
risk. We
have a comprehensive package of legislative and practical measures that
are designed to protect the community from sexual crime, although I do
not suggest for a moment that we have eliminated risk. Nothing that we
do can completely eliminate risk from the community, as human society
will always have risk and
risky behaviour. What is important is how we as a Government and the
agencies seek to manage that risk to enhance public
safety. Mr.
Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): The Minister
has carefully and helpfully outlined how MASRAM works, but does he
accept that part of the problem in some high profile cases in Northern
Ireland has been the failure of the wider community to understand the
rationale behind its operation? There has been misunderstanding and a
lack of information, some of which we are getting from the Minister
today but much of which has not been in the public domain
before.
Paul
Goggins: It is an afternoon of welcome and
congratulations, Dr. McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his
appointment as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, looking
after sport. His interest in sport is well known.
The hon.
Gentleman makes an important point. Perhaps the selection of this topic
for debate by the Grand Committee is a signal that we intend to do far
more to raise the profile of how sex offenders are managed. There is an
early temptation not to talk about these matters much because it might
frighten people and they might fear that they are facing a more
substantial risk than is the case, but I take a different view. We need
to explain to the public the measures that we are putting in
place—in law and through the work of agencies—to show
that we are managing the risk effectively and in a way that should give
them confidence that risk is being managed.
Since 2001,
more than 900 individuals have been assessed and managed through that
process, and in only three cases has a serious review been necessary
because of further serious sexual offending being carried out by
someone who was subject to the management arrangements. I hope that
that sends out a strong message that although there is risk, it can be
managed effectively. We should not be shy about explaining that to the
public.
Sammy
Wilson: The Minister says that there has had to be a
review of risk in three cases. What percentage of those deemed high
risk have had that risk reassessed or have reoffended in any
way?
Paul
Goggins: During the debate, I will perhaps take the
opportunity to obtain more specific information on that, rather than
answering off the cuff.
We are
getting to the point at which I should sit down and let others
contribute. I thought it important to give some factual background to
the debate, but we can now have the debate. Before I finish, let me say
that there is a huge responsibility on my shoulders, as the Minister,
and on those of the people who lead the agencies that deliver the
MASRAM arrangements. They are protecting vulnerable people and
children, and there is no more urgent or higher responsibility than
that for any of us. I am proud to say that the agencies in Northern
Ireland are up to that task and are determined and committed. I pay
tribute to them, and I look forward to the
debate. 4.55
pm Mr.
Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): I welcome you to
the Chair, Dr. McCrea. My remarks, too, will be general for the same
reason that the Minister gave. As he said, the Government have already
begun to remodel
the MASRAM system, but given that it has only just been introduced, we
will not be able to judge its effectiveness for perhaps a couple of
years. However, as he said, there are one or two issues that we can
discuss. It
is useful to refer back to the 2005 report by Criminal Justice
Inspection Northern Ireland, which made a number of recommendations for
ways in which MASRAM could be improved. The Government implemented
changes on the basis of those recommendations, which we broadly
welcome: the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 placed
MASRAM on a statutory footing, and the Sexual Offences (Northern
Ireland) Order 2008 further strengthened and tightened up legislation
on sexual offences.
As the
Minister said, many of the changes made to MASRAM were modelled on the
multi-agency public protection arrangements—its English
equivalent—which have experienced some functional problems. As
with so much legislation, therefore, Northern Ireland has the benefit
of being able to learn from such mistakes, which is why I would like to
draw attention to court orders—in particular, sex offender
orders, sexual offences prevention orders and risk of sexual harm
orders. It is reported that such court orders have not been used nearly
enough, and in one case, mentioned in the CJI report, a court order
took 15 months to obtain. Under MAPPA such orders have not been used
effectively either, and I submit that court orders must be used to full
effect under MASRAM, because they can provide a powerful tool against
offenders. It has also been mentioned that the earlier they are used,
the more likely they are to be used in future and to become an
entrenched part of the system.
MAPPA has
been overburdened with cases, and will probably be more so now that
violent offenders are to be included in its remit. Having said that,
the case for including violent offenders was strong, and in some cases
violent offenders perhaps pose a threat equal to, or greater than, that
posed by sexual offenders. However, such an expansion in work load will
present problems, given the numbers to be dealt with, and place a
strain on very limited resources. The agencies must focus on high-risk,
category 3 cases in order to maximise public protection, because such
people pose the biggest threat to society. MASRAM must, therefore, be
discerning in expanding the number of offenders on the system. Recent
definitions of sexual and violent offenders provided under legislation
will help in that process and give legitimacy to decisions made by
those in MASRAM, and the newly established parole board will play a key
role in supervising and overseeing violent
offenders. I
accept, of course, that Northern Ireland has its own unique
circumstances, but the inclusion of violent offenders will exclude
paramilitary-related offences, which, the CJI report stated, were
“not amenable to supervision”. However, as we have seen,
paramilitary criminal activity has stubbornly remained with us for a
long time, and might even be on the increase—offences such as
drug trafficking, fuel smuggling and other violent offences. We might
have missed an opportunity here in not including such offences in the
new system. I understand that specialists and practitioners at MASRAM
might feel at risk, or unqualified, in dealing with such offenders, but
it would be useful to harness the new system to help tackle the rise of
paramilitary crime in that respect.
The
comparison between MASRAM and MAPPA has been useful, but we still need
to ensure that MASRAM can improve on areas and learn from the
experiences of MAPPA. It is good to see that that appears to be working
well in my own county of Gloucester. An annual report from MAPPA shows
that between 2005 and 2006, 98.4 per cent. of those on the register in
the county did not go on to commit further offences, which has to be
the main objective of a system such as this. Once the consultation
period is finished and MASRAM is newly formed, I hope that it will go
on to perform just as well.
An area
where MASRAM has been said to fall short, and where I hope the new
system will succeed, relates to what might be called administration.
While in other agencies form-filling and document-keeping might be seen
to be a necessary but burdensome bureaucratic task, it is key when
managing the risk posed by sex offenders and violent offenders, and it
should become an integral part of the system. To that extent,
information sharing between the agencies is crucial. Indeed, the
Minister referred to that aspect of it.
The 2005 CJI
report identified the need for a case management system, and that
related specifically to category 3 cases, which are the highest risk
cases. I see that the Government’s consultation provides for
that, but the wording seems cautious, so I hope that they will not fall
short in that area. The summary of that section of the consultation
states that that must be decided on a case-by-case basis. That is
exactly the point—an agency must not be afraid to share or
release information when it sees fit.
There are
many aspects to information sharing. One aspect that the Minister
touched on, and that often receives much media attention, related to
the release of convicted paedophiles into the community at the end of
their sentences. Of course, that is a controversial point, but it could
be said that in the majority of cases the uncontrolled release of
information about the offender might not be the best way to offer the
greatest public protection. Perhaps that information should only be
released to a third party in special and extenuating circumstances. We
have seen the importance of MASRAM in such cases, although I accept
that there are different views on that extremely controversial
point. Continuing
on the point about information, the 2007 CJI inspection report,
“The Management of Sex Offenders - Follow-up Inspection”,
recommended that wider access be given to the violent offender and sex
offender register. For those who work within the MASRAM process there
will be clear benefits from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the
Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Probation Board of Northern
Ireland having access to each others’ information
systems.
The 2007 CJI
inspection report has highlighted some important issues. The report
following the brutal murder of Attracta Harron showed that this was an
instance where MASRAM had perhaps not worked as efficiently as it might
have done and where a sexual offender who was released into the
community went on to commit murder, causing a great deal of trouble and
heartache for the family left behind. That case and the media
attention led to greater scrutiny of MASRAM, and the 2007 CJI report
states that the process has been improved as a
result. One
of that report’s recommendations was that the PSNI should set
targets in local policing plans for managing the risks posed by sex
offenders. While in some circles the PSNI was identified as being at
fault in that case, and it was said that it failed to attend MASRAM
meetings that discussed the sex offender, Trevor Hamilton, that seems
to be a fairly straightforward issue to deal with and improve on.
However, it is hoped that such cases are the exception. Of course, they
should not have happened and they demonstrate why we need to keep
working on improving the management of sex
offenders. The
multi-agency model that we see for MAPPA and MASRAM, and that I hope we
will continue to see for Public Protection Arrangements Northern
Ireland—I am not sure how one pronounces “PPANI”;
on this occasion, it is easier to give the long title—appears to
work well. With the correct framework and given sufficient resources,
which, of course, are frequently the key, the system has the potential
to succeed in reducing the number of offences by identifying, assessing
and managing areas of risk. Again, and as the Minister said,
unfortunately risk cannot be entirely eliminated, so even with the best
efforts and correct procedures followed by all the agencies involved,
some reoffending certainly will take place, but the target has to be to
reduce it as much as
possible. The
CJI 2005 report referred to hard-working individuals in the core
agencies. They work extremely hard, and have done for a long while, in
various positions to keep the Northern Ireland community safe. I
conclude by paying to tribute to them. Their work is extremely
commendable, and they should be given as much support as
possible. 5.6
pm David
Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): Welcome to the Chair, Dr.
McCrea. Today, we are discussing two areas of ongoing major concern to
the people of Northern Ireland: the risk assessment and management of
sex offenders in the Province. Those two vital issues raise serious
questions to which the statutory agencies must give proper and full
answers. I would like to put several questions to the Minister. I hope
he can deal with them and give the Committee full and detailed
answers. I
begin by giving as an example of why this is such an important subject
the case of Patrick Joseph Coleman from the town of Lurgan in my
constituency. This must be one of the worst of such cases on record in
the Province. He raped and murdered a nine-year-old child and shoved
her body down a drain. She was found by her father and grandfather.
When Coleman was released after his life sentence, he was allowed back
in the community without warning to the people of north Belfast.
Against the conditions of his release, he was accompanied by a prison
psychologist to Lurgan, where he committed a further sexual assault for
which he was never charged. He cohabited with the prison psychologist
and her 11-year-old
son. Coleman
later moved to Thompson house, a hostel on the Antrim road in Belfast.
With the knowledge of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, he went
in and out of houses where vulnerable children lived. No one told the
community about the nature of his crimes.
He then raped an adult woman, was prosecuted and charged, and has now
been returned to
prison. Bearing
all that in mind, I turn first to risk assessment. People are under
continuous observation for some offences. Think of motoring offences:
under a penalty points system, people are continuously monitored so
that negative consequences immediately ensue if they cross a threshold.
In the House of Commons just last week, my colleagues and I, together
with the sole Ulster Unionist MP, the hon. Member for North Down, came
under criticism for going through the Lobby in support of the
Government’s proposed 42-day detention. The detention involved
in those proposals would occur before any criminal activity on the part
of the individual had been proved. Indeed, under the
Government’s proposals the House would consider and debate the
person’s case before the court could pass a verdict on their
innocence or
guilt. Last
week, the Government were of the view that there was sufficient concern
regarding that type of offence that it merited such action, based, one
might say, on a form of “risk assessment” from security
agencies and senior police chiefs. That was the Government’s
view last week; it was also the Minister’s view last week. Last
week, my colleagues and I, under severe criticism, decided that, on
balance, we would support that
position. We
are now just one week on from that debate. One week on, we would be
well within our rights to conclude that it must also be the
Government’s position that rigorous, detailed and overarching
processes should be in place to ensure that any sex offender is
properly assessed against their potential risk of reoffending against a
particular type of victim—just as is the case under
anti-terrorist legislation—before they do so again. If the
Government are to be consistent, it must follow that that is the case
and that the attitude that they displayed last week towards one type of
offender is the same attitude that they have this week with regard to
this type of offender.
I want to
ask the Minister about how people are classified as a category 1, 2 or
3 offender. Is there a standardised system of categorisation? What
mitigating circumstances might have a person classified in one of the
lesser categories, as opposed to being categorised as the most serious
type of
offender? On
assessing the potential risk that a previously convicted person might
subsequently pose to others, I would like the Minister to respond to
the following scenario. We have, for example, a man convicted of sexual
offences against two young boys who subsequently commences a
relationship with a woman. It could be a romantic relationship or a
commercial relationship in which he is, say, a lodger. The woman
involved has two children—not boys, but girls.
Can the
Minister give me an assurance that in such a situation there is no
possibility whatever, under any circumstances, that the authorities
would or could ever conclude that, as the individual concerned had
convictions relating to children, he posed little or no risk to an
adult? Can he also give me an assurance that the authorities would and
could never conclude that, as the individual’s convictions
related to young boys, he posed little or no risk to young
girls? I
hope that the Minister will not respond by saying that he cannot answer
hypothetical questions, for I believe that what I am asking him today
is reasonable
and ought to be within his ability as a Minister to answer, for the
simple reason that the circumstances I am outlining must surely be
covered by the systems that are in place. Are we to believe that,
within the risk assessment process, no consideration whatever is given
to the risk of crossover offences, where a person is convicted of an
offence against one type of person but that offence may be symptomatic
of the fact that he or she poses a more general threat to other people?
I really do not think so, and therefore I ask the Minister to answer
this
query. I
want to ask the Minister another question. We know that sex offenders
have one of the highest reoffending rates of any type of offender; that
is a worldwide phenomenon. What consideration is given to that fact
when putting together the risk assessment of any single
individual? The
second strand of today’s debate is the management of sex
offenders in the Province. There are a number of points that I feel I
should raise. On day release, what supervision is in place when an
offender goes into a home where there is a vulnerable partner or
children? Is there any direct supervision, and is that in all cases or
only some? If so, what criteria are used to determine that? Who makes
the decision, what review mechanisms are in place and to whom is the
person making the decision
accountable? On
paedophiles, I am sure that the Minister knows that in many cases
counselling does not work. I also have no doubt that he will agree that
in many cases even an approach such as chemical castration will not
work on its own, because the control of sexual drive is often only part
of the problem. Many paedophiles are convinced that they really love
children and that what they are doing is right. No chemical will alter
those
feelings. There
is the well documented case of a former Yorkshire miner who abused more
than 30 children over 40 years. In 1993, he went on television to plead
for the right to be surgically castrated, and he paid £1,200 for
the pleasure. Soon after, however, he was discovered with a boy of 10.
Although he might not have been able to have a sexual relationship, he
still claimed to have found pure love with the child.
We have to
face facts, and the facts of sexual offending make for disturbing
reading when we examine reoffending rates and the danger of a poorly
overseen and ineffective management system. In preparing for the debate
in recent days, I have been in touch with organisations such as the
Nexus Institute and the Belfast rape crisis centre. Eileen Calder of
that centre has told me that there is a clear need for two initiatives
to be taken immediately, both of which have been introduced in the
United States and both of which the Government have turned their face
against.
The first
initiative is a definite policy of “three strikes and
you’re out”. If a class of offender has particularly high
reoffending rates, is particularly immune to any form of treatment and
is particularly liable to use deceit to place themselves in a situation
where reoffending is made more possible, such an approach not only
makes sense but seems
essential. The
second measure that we ought to have—again, I repeat what I have
been told by the Belfast rape crisis centre, so this is not just a DUP
or a politician’s opinion—is a Megan’s law, or
what has become known in the
United Kingdom as Sarah’s law. The Minister will know that I have
asked him a number of questions on that matter and have expressed to
him the fact that I fully support such a
call. The
Minister will also know that the main point of objection to such an
initiative is the express fear of vigilantes. I have never, in all my
life, heard any parent in Northern Ireland or any victim of such an
offence express such a fear. The only people whom I have ever heard say
such things are those such as the Probation Board and
Ministers. There
is little evidence of such activity in the US, where there is such a
law, so why would it be more risky and pose a greater danger in the
United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland, which is part of the
United Kingdom? Are we to believe that the authorities or parents in
the US care less for their children than authorities and Government
spokespersons here? Alternatively, are we to believe that communities
here are more violent than those in the United States, despite crime
figures to the contrary and America’s gun laws? I hardly think
so. Surely, it is an entirely legitimate approach to give all parents
in the community the right to know where such offenders reside in their
area. That
leads to my final point on another key issue—how to police areas
where offenders reside. On 12 March, I obtained a written answer from
the Minister on how many category 1, 2 and 3 sex offenders live in each
police command unit in Northern Ireland. It made disturbing reading:
116 sex offenders live in south Belfast, with the next highest figures
being for north Belfast, which has 56, and for Foyle, which has
51. South
Belfast has nearly twice as many sex offenders as any other area, but
do police manpower numbers reflect the number of sex offenders living
in an area? Given that reoffending rates are so high in relation to
such offences, how is that issue tackled in manpower terms? How many
police personnel in each area have specialist training in respect of
such
offences? I
have a lot more to say, but I know that other hon. Members want to
speak. The Minister has shown commendable commitment to improving
Northern Ireland’s position in relation to crime and punishment,
and I hope and trust that he will answer as many of my questions as
possible. 5.22
pm Dr.
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast, South) (SDLP): It was remiss
of me, Dr. McCrea, not to congratulate you on your chairmanship earlier
and to thank you for your courtesies.
I shall be
brief, although I could take issue regarding risk assessment. We have
done well on some aspects of risk assessment. It might be good or
reasonable overall, or in most cases, but we could do a lot better. I
could give some of the examples that have come across my bows in the
past few years, but I prefer not to try to duplicate or compete with
the excellent speech of my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for
Upper Bann. I should like to concentrate on management and follow-up,
because although risk assessment can be good—if too benign,
occasionally—there will be major problems, regardless of how
good or bad the risk assessment is, if management and follow-up are not
carried out diligently.
My learned
friend, the hon. Member for Upper Bann, has mentioned the situation in
south Belfast, where a preponderance of offenders are
situated—certainly more than twice what a proportionate share
would be. In many cases, I have found that management can be
arm’s-length and rather casual, without direct supervision.
There is a degree of supervision and overall management and viewing
but, at times, from day to day or from hour to hour, some offenders can
be on the loose and open to re-offending. Management is not tight
enough. In many cases, it is not clear who is in charge of management,
because some of the people coming out of prison are housed in hostels
managed by a housing association and often those charged with the
management and oversight, in the probation sense, of their exit from
prison or post-prison care can be at a distance. Often, the direct
management is left to housing staff, who are not qualified and should
not be expected to be given that responsibility. There is a need for
much greater involvement and engagement on more than a day-to-day
basis—perhaps with contact twice or three times a
day—from the professional staff
involved. I
want to emphasise that, in the case of south Belfast, there is a
preponderance of instances and an extra dependence on the probation
service and those who are supervising sex offenders do not have a lot
of respect or consideration for the neighbourhood and the neighbours.
Time and again we have run into crisis, because it is easy to pretend
that nothing is happening, to cover up and hope that problems will get
away in the dust. However, the reality is that people are scared. Sex
offending, more than any other crime, is the scariest thing for parents
of young children out there and for young women on winter evenings who
are vulnerable as they try to make their way home
alone. There
is a need to get the right balance, and a better balance, between the
rights of people living in the community, who want to protect
themselves and their children, and the rights of people who have served
a prison sentence, paid their debt to society but who may, equally, be
at risk of offending again. That is a difficult balance to strike, but
sometimes we could strike it better. More concentration needs to go
into that and more attention needs to be paid to it. I am worried about
that. My
ultimate point is that there is a lot of fear in my constituency and in
the neighbourhood I live in, which is adjacent to Queen’s
university and student-land. There is not the same collective,
close-knit neighbourhood that might exist in other parts of the city,
where people are known to each other. There are a quite a few anonymous
people and a lot of flat-dwellers and most offences take place in that
area. People, rightly or wrongly, join up the fact that it is regarded
as a safe place into which the prisons and the probation service
discharge people who have previously committed offences with the fact
that other offences occur, many of which are never brought to justice
or traced. All of this creates anxiety and fear.
I urge the
Minister, as we move forward with new legislation, to try to find a
balance. I know that he will. I congratulate him and thank him for the
hard work that he has done and for the good, helpful advice and
guidance on this issue that he has given many hon. Members, including
me. However, people are frightened. I talk to people every week who
tell me that they are
frightened. Sometimes they are only afraid of the fear, but the fear
factor is out there. Many young women are afraid to walk about the city
alone at night. The reason for that is that attacks happen
occasionally. I read on the plane only this afternoon about somebody
with a previous record who has been
convicted. I
thank you for your tolerance, Dr. McCrea, and I urge the Minister to do
what he can to strengthen the follow-up management and get the balance
right between allowing people who genuinely want to reform, recover and
move on, having paid their debt to society, the space to do so and,
equally, to protect neighbourhoods from those who do not intend to do
that. 5.29
pm Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I welcome you to the
Chair, Dr. McCrea. I welcome also the opportunity to debate this
important subject, which is obviously of great concern to people in
Northern Ireland. The high profile given in the early 1990s to cases of
serial sex offenders who had committed sexual offences against children
over a period of many years led to a multi-agency conference being
organised in 1997 by the Northern Ireland Office and the National
Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers. That conference resulted in
the establishment of a working group with representation from the
agencies and organisations with responsibilities for, and an interest
in, protecting the public, especially children, from the risks posed by
sex offenders. The working group produced a manual of guidance in
2001.
Notification
requirements for sex offenders have been in place in Northern Ireland
since 1997, and the formal MASRAM arrangements were launched in 2002.
Where an offender subject to the requirements of the sex offenders
register is released from prison, or otherwise comes into the
community, they will be subject to a management system, involving
members of the police, probation and social services along with other
agencies, such as the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The MASRAM
arrangements include the Northern Ireland sex offender strategic
management committee—pronounced “nysosmick”, if I
understood the Minister’s pronunciation correctly. It is a
high-level strategic management committee, and is supported by six area
management
committees. The
Northern Ireland Sex Offender Strategic Management Committee is chaired
by an assistant chief constable and has membership from a variety of
statutory and voluntary bodies. It takes high-level strategic decisions
on policy and structure, and provides a quality assurance oversight to
the work of the area committees. Over the years a number of sub-groups
of the committee have developed to support its work, such as in media
and publicity, accommodation, research, forensics, training and high
risk review. Each sex offender is allocated to a designated risk
manager who leads within the multi-agency framework on the management
of the offender and reports to the chair of the area sex offender risk
management committee. The DRM could be from any of the agencies
involved and will be appointed by the ASORMC, which will develop an
action plan to monitor and manage the offender during his time in the
MASRAM scheme.
The
multi-agency arrangements have seen substantial development over the
years with the appointment of a full-time co-ordinator and, more
recently, a director of
communications to manage the substantial media and communication
elements of the arrangements. In March 2005, the chief inspector of
criminal justice in Northern Ireland reported on the procedures for the
assessment and management of sex offenders in Northern Ireland, at the
request of the agencies involved in the MASRAM procedures. The chief
inspector’s findings were generally very positive. He found that
all of the agencies involved attach a high priority to their sex
offender work and that MASRAM is conducted conscientiously by all the
agencies involved, with increasing
sophistication. It
is important to note that the inspector found that,
“trusting and
collaborative working relationships have been
developed”, which
no doubt has enabled the various agencies to work well together for the
protection of the public and contributed to the greater consistency in
practice that the chief inspector found has been
achieved. The
chief inspector made a number of recommendations that he felt could be
used to build on the positive foundations that have already been
established. A key recommendation was that MASRAM should be placed on a
statutory footing, with supporting guidance to underpin its activity.
It was also suggested that the remit of MASRAM be extended to include
violent offenders. In total, 36 recommendations were made to further
improve the work being carried out by the MASRAM arrangements. The
latest annual report from NISOSMC showed that the Committee was willing
to listen and learn from those recommendations, and indicated that,
following the recommendations, a major review was carried out in 2006,
and a new set of practice guidelines launched in October of that
year. Current
arrangements are undergoing further development following the passing
of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, which allows the
Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to a range of named
agencies in relation to the establishment of arrangements to protect
the public, including measures on information sharing and the
appointment of lay advisors to the committee. Those arrangements will
facilitate NISOSMC to continue to risk assess and manage as appropriate
non-adjudicated but potentially dangerous persons. I understand that
these new public protection arrangements will be launched in
October.
I have a few
questions for the Minister. The first relates to cross-border
arrangements. There are obviously interfaces with arrangements in the
Irish Republic, and there is some evidence of cross-border elements to
a number of high profile cases. I understand that there have been a
number of cases of people trying to use the border to frustrate
registration requirements. Although progress has been made, not least
with the Garda attending area committees considering individuals when
there is a cross-border element and the signing of a memorandum of
understanding between the Irish and UK Governments on information
exchange for the purposes of sex offender management, much remains to
be done, particularly with the development in the Republic of Ireland
of common systems, languages and processes for sex offender management.
What steps are the Government taking with the Republic’s
Government to develop common processes north and south of the border to
manage those who pose a
risk? I
want to speak about accommodation—hostel and a mixed portfolio
of accommodation for sex offenders. Northern Ireland has no
accommodation provided directly
by the probation board. Instead the board approves a number of premises.
In reality, the stock of accommodation is lower than required and seems
to be concentrated in particular areas of Belfast. What steps are the
Government taking to support and fund adequate hostel accommodation for
sex offenders throughout Northern
Ireland? That
brings me to funding arrangements in general. Agencies in Northern
Ireland have invested significant amounts of time in MASRAM and will
continue to do so under the new public protection arrangements. Those
are in addition to all the other functions, and at times funding has
been an issue, particularly because of the small amounts of funding to
support the infrastructure of the arrangements, such as co-ordinator
and support
staff. The
new arrangements will put particular demands on social services, the
probation service and the police. Will the Minister give the Committee
more details about the investment that the Government intend to make
both in the infrastructure of the arrangements and in funding
additional requirements in agencies? Will he assure us that enough
funding will be put in place to ensure that all the agencies can
operate successfully? I look forward to the Minister’s
response. 5.38
pm Mrs.
Iris Robinson (Strangford) (DUP): It is a privilege to
serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr. McCrea. We all agree
that few issues arouse as much interest or concern in the community as
that of sex offenders. The sentences served and their subsequent
placement back in the community cause considerable disquiet among the
public. There
can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually
abusing innocent children. There must be sufficient confidence that the
community has the best possible protection against such perverts, and
it is important that there be a mature public debate on the issues, but
the security of our citizens must be our overriding
priority. There
have been several recent high-profile cases, such as the murder of
Attracta Harron. Young people such as Victoria ClimbiĆ(c) were let
down because of poor communication between agencies and staff.
Similarly, Ian Huntley, who was convicted of the Soham murders, was
able to gain employment in a school because record-keeping was not
sufficiently rigorous.
We talk
about encouraging people to come forward and to report sexual abuse,
but I have a constituent who, along with her sisters, was abused by an
older brother. All gave statements willingly to the authorities, but to
add insult to the horror of the trauma, they were told that their
brother’s activities were time-barred. I wrote to many people,
including the Chief Constable and the Department of Health, Social
Services and Public Safety, and had a general issues meeting with the
Lord Chief Justice. I was told that there was no such thing as a time
bar, yet to date the case has not been addressed. In the meantime,
according to the lady who came to me, it is apparent that the brother
is interfering with his own granddaughter, so it is likely that he must
have been doing the same to his daughter. Where is
justice and, more importantly, closure for the unimaginable suffering
that those ladies endured for years during the most vulnerable and
innocent stage of
childhood? The
updating of legislation through the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland)
Order 2008 seeks to place arrangements for managing the risk from
offenders on a statutory footing. That is a positive and welcome
objective. It is essential that all relevant agencies work together and
share information fully. Effective multi-agency working is crucial in
order to maximise public
protection. Recently
the Government sought to reform our sexual offences legislation in
Northern Ireland, but they appear determined to ignore the Northern
Ireland Assembly, whose Ad Hoc Committee report stated that
“the Committee
strongly recommends that there be no change to the current age of
consent at
17.” The
report was endorsed by the full Assembly, and I take this opportunity
to reiterate the firm view on this matter of the people of Northern
Ireland and their elected
representatives. A
young person should have the emotional and psychological maturity to
cope with the consequences of sexual activity. The 1994 national survey
of sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain found that 58.5 per cent.
of girls whose first act of intercourse was before the age of consent
later regretted it. Research a couple of years ago showed that almost
80 per cent. of young people in Northern Ireland were delaying their
first sex experience until beyond the age of consent. The legal age
sends a signal, and it is mistaken to imagine that it is irrelevant and
does not impact on young people or alter their
mindset. Reducing
the age of consent will decrease the number of convictions for sexual
offences against young teenagers. Convictions tend to be less likely if
the victim is only slightly below the age of consent. If the legal age
is reduced by one year, many cases that are currently pursued would not
be. For an age of consent offence, it has to be proven only that a
sexual act took place, while beyond the legal age the issue of whether
consent was given must be established. That would mean more young girls
being faced with the trauma of having to give evidence in
court. There
is an onus on the judiciary to impose sufficiently strong sentences.
The removal of automatic 50 per cent. remission represents a step in
the right direction. Victims are understandably reticent about coming
forward and giving evidence. If sentences are not sufficiently severe,
fewer people will come forward. All non-consensual sexual activity
should be criminalised, and there must be greater protection for
children and vulnerable individuals. For instance, it is important that
those with mental health problems and learning disabilities be fully
protected. Preparatory
offences such as administering drugs or alcohol with the intention to
commit a sexual offence are also important. If someone has sexual
intercourse with a child under 13, the offence will automatically be
rape. The logic behind that is that a child under the age of 13 does
not under any circumstances have any capacity to consent to any form of
sexual activity. Acknowledgement of that principle is welcome, but I
question whether the age required for capacity to give consent should
not be higher. The convention on the rights of the child recognises a
child as a person under the age of 18 years, due to their evolving
capacity. Society has a role to protect immature children from
decisions that they lack the competence and experience to make
themselves.
Regional
child protection policy and procedures pertaining to under-age sexual
activity already exist in Northern Ireland. However, they are not
always followed. Section 9.47 of the area child protection
committees’ regional policy and procedures
states: “In
all cases where the sexually active young person is under the age of
14, there must be a discussion with Social Services who will make the
necessary enquiries and will consult with partner agencies, including
the Police, as
appropriate.” Some
argue that confidentiality should be paramount and that if a young
person felt that others may be informed, it would discourage them from
seeking advice. Health professionals are certainly entitled to argue
that case if they wish and to seek to have the rules changed, but
existing procedures should not be ignored; otherwise, we would be
better off without them, rather than pretending that they were being
enforced. We should not make an idol of confidentiality, and the
child’s best interests should supersede their desire for
confidentiality. Those
of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland will welcome
measures that serve to promote collaborative working and hence reduce
the risk to the public from individuals who are often devious. I
reiterate my dissatisfaction with the fact that legislation to manage
such risk is being brought forward in an Order in Council, without the
opportunity to amend or alter it in any
way. 5.46
pm Christopher
Fraser (South-West Norfolk) (Con): This is an important
debate for all of us, particularly on the issues that face our
colleagues in Northern Ireland. We have heard from colleagues who have
eloquently articulated the hideous consequences and graphic reality
that face all of us when we consider the reoffending of sex offenders.
I shall not detain the Committee too long, but I wish to make some
points to the Minister. Some of them have been raised by other hon.
Members, and we need answers to our questions either today or in
written responses if the Minister is unable to answer them now. I know
that he is a man of great integrity in his job. The questions are
coming thick and fast, and there might not be time for him to tackle
all of them, but we require answers to them so that we can move forward
positively. The
CJI’s March 2005 report recommended the establishment of
co-located inter-agency teams to enhance collaborative working. The
December 2006 interim report reiterated that recommendation, and the
November 2007 follow-up inspection report further stressed the need for
co-located teams. Will the Minister give us more detail about the
progress that has been made on that seemingly crucial issue, which was
mentioned
earlier? The
2008 draft guidance follows recommendations in the 2005 CJI report to
include violent offenders in MASRAM’s remit. What steps are
being taken to ensure that MASRAM and the public protection
arrangements Northern Ireland will receive the extra funding and
resources that they will inevitably need to operate effectively with
such an increased workload? In 2005, MASRAM personnel were identified
as overloaded because too much time and resources were being spent on
low and medium risk cases. Guidance is now in place to include violent
offenders in MASRAM. What steps are being taken to ensure that that
extension of the remit will not affect MASRAM’s efficiency to an
even greater extent? That point has been well articulated
today.
According to
the latest Police Service of Northern Ireland annual statistical
report, for April 2007 to March 2008, the police recorded a rise,
albeit small, in the number of sexual offences. What is the
Minister’s assessment of that rise? In 2005, in feedback on the
2005 CJI report, MASRAM was described as “chronically
under-resourced” by senior representatives of the inspected
organisations—the police, the probation service, the Prison
Service and social services. Those organisations called for more
resources as a matter of priority. Has that issue been given priority?
Will the Minister give us full details of what will happen as a result
of that request?
In the
interim report of December 2006, the Prison Service told inspectors
that it was concerned about the future direction of MASRAM in light of
anticipated further pressures on the prison population. Has that
concern been taken fully into account in light of the fact that MASRAM
includes violent offenders?
In 2005, it
was recommended that inter-agency case management should be employed
only in high-risk cases due to the MASRAM model becoming overloaded.
The 2006 interim report found that the Northern Ireland Prison Service
was concerned that it might lead to an underestimation of the risk
posed by category 2 offenders. How have the agencies within MASRAM
reconciled those approaches?
The 2005
report identified a feeling among non-core agencies that they were not
fully included in the process. They were used when needed but were not
kept fully informed of relevant developments. To what extent has the
role of lay and voluntary agencies in MASRAM been made more concrete? I
would be grateful if the Minister would answer those specific points
either today or in the
future. 5.51
pm Sammy
Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP): It is a great pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Dr. McCrea. This issue concerns people
not only in Northern Ireland but in all communities, and that concern
is heightened now and again by high-profile cases in which children are
attacked by people who have offended, been released into the community
and re-offended. Two of the most high-profile cases in Northern Ireland
have been highlighted today: those of Patrick Coleman and Attracta
Harron. They resulted in legislation to close loopholes, which we
discussed not long ago.
There has
been a significant rise in the number of people on the sexual offences
register in Northern Ireland in the past four years. Between 2005 and
June 2008, the number rose by nearly 50 per cent. from 544 to 796.
There is also a much higher rate of people complying with notification
requirements in Northern Ireland, with nearly 99 per cent. of those on
the register complying with all their requirements. Nevertheless, there
is still concern.
There have
been cases in East Antrim in which rumours have got around of people
being released into the community and living there, but the community
had no knowledge of what their offences were, whether they were high,
medium or low-risk or whether they lived close to schools or had
associations with children. Such cases cause great disquiet. In parts
of Northern Ireland, there is the added dimension of people feeling
that the
authorities have not given them the information that they require and
then bringing suspected individuals to the attention of paramilitaries.
We must consider the amount of information that is given; I have some
suggestions to make on that later. According to
the statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann obtained
from the police, 37 people on the sexual offences register live in my
constituency. I know that that figure is not as high, for example, as
the one for the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, South.
Nevertheless, those individuals cause concern in the towns where they
have been placed.
Of course,
the argument is that those individuals have to live somewhere and I
accept that, if people have served their sentence and done their time,
they have the right to freedom. Equally, as has been pointed out in
this debate, given the higher risk of reoffending for this kind of
offence, considerable safeguards need to be put in place. Indeed, the
evidence of and the testimony of many of those who have been involved
in sexual offences is that they themselves recognise the danger that
they present to the community. Many of them admit that and many of them
accept that they need careful management, because of the high risk of
reoffending that exists.
There are
just a couple of points that I want to make about the practical issues.
The Minister has given reassurances here today and he has very
succinctly outlined the work of MASRAM and the checks that exist, and
so on. However, the first thing that we must remember is that many of
the people that we are dealing with lead chaotic and unpredictable
lives. Because of the kind of attitudes that they have, very often they
try to duck below the radar screen of the supervision that is
undertaken; they do so because once that urge grabs them, they want to
act on it. That is their own testimony; they want to find ways of being
able to satisfy that
urge. Despite
all the best attentions that are paid to those who are high-risk
offenders, they may only be visited and interviewed once every three
months; maybe the Minister could confirm that. I understand the
resource implications, and so on. However, if people were aware of that
level of supervision and the time gap that there may be between visits,
even with high-risk offenders, I think that there would be a great deal
of concern about just how effective the risk assessment is.
I was
reading an article a couple of weeks ago; I think that it was in one of
the Sunday papers. One person who was being interviewed said,
“Look, if I stop with the medication and everything else, in a
day I could have reoffended”. He talked about walking past a
park and watching wee lads playing football; how he had kind of stalked
out the place; how there was a river and a bridge, and how he had
worked out where he could take them, and everything else. He himself
was effectively admitting, “Look, this doesn’t
necessarily have to be a long process from where I am now, not
reoffending and not wanting to reoffend at present, to eventually
reoffending again”. Just in an instant, he was saying, there
could be a change. The level of supervision, especially for the
highest-risk offenders, perhaps leaves a lot to be desired. Of course,
we must balance that level of supervision with the resource
implications that may exist.
Maybe the
Minister could just give us some reassurance about what kind of level
of supervision will exist. When we are talking about continual
reassessing of the risk, how often is that done and what type of
visitation will there be?
The second
point to be made is this. Where there is a change in the pattern of
behaviour, or where it is noticed that people’s behaviour
changes so that they may be deemed to be moving into higher risk again,
what action can be taken? Obviously, there is action that can be taken
as far as the individual is concerned. However, there is also a need
for other action. This is where the disclosure of information is
important. I know that there is a reluctance to disclose information
and I can understand one of the reasons for such reluctance. A balance
needs to be struck between protecting people and not causing undue
panic or encouraging vigilantism.
What
happens, however, when there is an apparent change in behaviour? For
example, if someone who is not an offender is seen to be frequenting a
particular school or playground, what information should be given to
the school principal or community leaders? Should they be informed that
someone in their community, who has been living in their community
without worrying those monitoring them, is now a cause for worry? One
of two things can be done: either more information could be given to
those whose children might be vulnerable, or an intervention could be
made to immediately relocate that person, so that the behaviour pattern
is broken. I would be interested to hear, from the practical point of
view, how MASRAM is working. Is consideration given to such matters? At
what stage might it be decided to give more information or to remove
the individual?
My third
concern is about the level of monitoring, which the Minister tells us
is very close. What would happen if someone appears to have attached
themselves to another person in a way that gives them access to
children, at which point the grooming process might begin? We heard the
example of Patrick Coleman, and there are many other examples from
Great Britain. Someone might link themselves with a woman with a couple
of children and then use that relationship to get to those children.
Despite the right of the individual concerned to lead a normal
life—some might call it that—and to build up a normal
relationship, I believe, on balance, that society would expect the
woman or family to be informed. Similarly, if he has moved into
employment or some other relationship likely to be exploited, there
ought to be a requirement to inform the relevant individuals. Again, I
would be interested to know what Northern Ireland policy is for
supplying specific information to an individual, employer or community
group that it is felt is being used by someone with a record and who is
seen to be a risk to
children. The
hon. Member for Argyll and Bute touched on another matter of great
concern: people moving to Northern Ireland, not just from the Irish
Republic, who might have a history of sex offending. Owing to the
security difficulties and troubles in Northern Ireland, not many people
used to come to live their—in fact, more left to live
outside—but increasingly large numbers of people from other
parts of the United Kingdom and Europe are taking up permanent
residence and working in Northern Ireland. That is a good thing, but
some of those people might of course be sex offenders. What
arrangements have been made for the transfer of
information from other jurisdictions to Northern Ireland—not just
from the Irish Republic, although that is an important focus—to
inform the authorities that someone who might be a risk is coming to
live in Northern
Ireland? There
is a need to explain to people in Northern Ireland what safeguards are
in place, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry indicated
in his intervention, and it is important that those safeguards are
secure enough to give reassurance that not only do we have a system in
place, but it is working. I ask the Minister for some information about
reoffending rates, particularly among high-risk offenders. Perhaps he
could supply that information at the end of the debate.
Lastly, we
need to look at how we share the knowledge that all of the experts have
in this regard with the wider community. I am not convinced that simply
publishing the address of every sexual offender who comes into an area
is the best way to tackle the problem, but I believe that it is
possible to target that information for landlords, families who might
have identified an individual as paying an undue interest, schools when
it is seen that an offender is close to a school and community leaders
when it is seen that an individual might be trying to use community
opportunities to groom people. All of those things are
important.
The one
thing that I am fairly sure of, although it might be based on a wrong
perception, is that every high-profile case that occurs and every
instance of reoffending only reinforces the view among ordinary people
that the balance is too far in favour of the offender and that despite
all of the resources put into it and all of the systems that have been
devised, the justice system is not capable of affording the public the
level of protection that they and I believe they should have from the
dangerous offenders who, as has been pointed out in the debate, are
guilty of some of the most heinous crimes.
Even in the
reporting of those crimes there is probably a certain amount of
filtering out of the worst information. The article in one of the
Sunday papers that I referred to mentioned one of the people involved
in the management of those offenders. He said that every time he looked
at some of the people he was managing he was sick to his stomach when
he thought about the offences they had committed. He felt that
sometimes the system was not robust enough. I hope that the Minister
can give us some reassurances and that the plea that has been made by
Members today that we find ways of sharing information to avoid and
reduce the risk to the community will be looked at
closely. 6.9
pm
| 
