HC Deb 12 June 1996 vol 279 cc324-6 4.13 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control and monitor convicted paedophiles in order to provide greater protection for children. I do not think that anything in the whole pantheon of crime causes more abhorrence than crimes against children, especially when they are of a sexual nature. Such crimes are probably the basest known to man. Recently, Daniel Handley was killed by two paedophiles who had a long string of previous convictions. Such appalling cases go all the way back to Myra Hindley and Ian Brady.

People are generally appalled not only at the nature of the crime but at the chilling organisation of many paedophile rings—there are estimated to be 20 in the country—and the way in which they operate their terrible activities.

It is difficult to ascertain exactly the extent of the problem. It is estimated that about 5,000 serious sexual offences come before the courts every year. As I found when I sought information from the West Mercia force in my constituency, however, it is difficult to find out how many of those offences relate to children. Equally, it is difficult to obtain evidence of child abuse or sexual abuse of children. It is estimated, however, that 95 per cent. of child abuse cases never come to court. It is interesting to note that amendments to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill might make the presentation of evidence in child abuse cases much easier.

We know from Scotland Yard's national criminal intelligence service that it has 4,500 paedophiles on its books. We also know that there is a significant element of repeat offending by paedophiles. A recent survey of 232 abusers found that they had been responsible for no fewer than 55,000 offences, against about 16,400 children. What we can appreciate is that, despite the difficulty in obtaining evidence of those appalling crimes, the problem is sadly widespread, and is not diminishing. Above all, we know that it wrecks—and I mean wrecks—young lives.

My Bill comes at an opportune time, because, on 27 March, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) introduced a Bill to register paedophile offenders. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) has also introduced a measure to cover supervision orders for such offenders. In addition, the Home Secretary is due to publish a consultation paper next week that will deal with many of the relevant issues. I also understand that an announcement is imminent about the problem of child abuse in certain parts of the country.

My Bill has three specific measures, which I hope will inform and influence that debate, and ensure that the community receives adequate notification of the activities of child abusers and child sex offenders. Most important, it seeks to provide proper compulsory treatment for them.

My Bill would establish a register of listed sexual offenders in line with the offences listed in the Sexual Offences Against Children (Register of Offenders) Bill to which I have already referred. Access to that register would be confined either to those groups that look after children and are registered to do so, or to people whom the chief police officer of an area believes have a legitimate interest.

My Bill goes even wider than that, because I agree with the Police Superintendents Association, which believes that it should be mandatory for all offenders and ex-offenders to inform the local police of any change of address. After all, there is no point in having a list of offenders if one does not know where they are. I believe that that register should carry information apart from pure convictions, including cautions and recent information about potential or actual paedophiles.

I understand that such a register may raise certain problems in terms of civil liberties. We must weigh the importance of protecting the interests of the innocent against the importance of protecting innocent children and the public. I also emphasise that 95 per cent. of child abuse cases never come before a court. I should have thought that, as long as non-conviction information was removed from the register within five years, and that information was given out only at the discretion of the registrar or a senior police officer, those civil liberties objections would be overcome.

The second measure—I believe that it is even more important—deals with the subsequent treatment of sex offenders, particularly child sex offenders, during their sentences and after they have been released. I recognise that many sex offender treatment programmes have, through Home Office evaluation, proved effective. The programme at Peterhead in Scotland was found to have a discernible impact on violent and passive offenders. The programme at Whatton, although more controversial, found that half the abusers benefited from the regime, and that long-term paedophiles may require long-term treatment. I recognise that the number of treatment programmes has increased significantly—up to 109— throughout the country over the past five years.

I am concerned that the programmes are imposed by the court only to the end of an offender's sentence. In addition, the programmes are not offered to offenders who are serving sentences of less than two years, because, with 50 per cent. remission, it is believed that 12 months is not long enough for the programme to be effective. Given that many of the activities of paedophiles are degenerative, it is important that people who serve shorter sentences are properly treated, or at least given the opportunity to be treated.

I am concerned that only 10 per cent. of offenders get a court order for treatment within their sentence. There is apparently only one national health service out-patient clinic in the United Kingdom that treats these people outside penal establishments. It should be mandatory for anyone convicted of a sexual offence against children to have a course of treatment after they have finished their sentence. Obviously, that course of treatment would be laid down by the court, depending on the post-sentence reports and on the reports from the penal establishment concerned.

I appreciate that, as a result of the European convention on human rights, such treatment has to be voluntary—I support that. However, at the same time, there is a strong case for the courts to have the discretion to reimpose a sentence on people if they will not voluntarily agree to a course of treatment—many of them will agree; half the paedophiles say that they need treatment. These people may be a danger to children and to the public.

Finally, I am concerned that treatment programmes throughout the country are now the responsibility of individual probation services. In other words, there is no point putting in place a mandatory requirement that everyone shall have treatment if there are different kinds of treatment throughout the country. It is vital that there is a standard, a code, throughout the country as to the sort of treatment that ought to be given, albeit on a voluntary basis.

As these matters are of sufficient importance, the Home Secretary should be required to report on them to Parliament every two years. He should report on the effectiveness of legislation against child abuse. In this way, the kind of injustice, inhumanity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's time has expired.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. A. Coombs, Mr. Peter Hardy, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. Rupert Allason, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. David Evans and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.