YOUNG SEX OFFENDERS (Hansard, 25 February 1997)

§ Mr. Thurnham
I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 18, at end insert— '(1A) Subject to subsection (1B) below, this Part does not apply to a person who is under 16 on the relevant date. (1B) In the case of a person falling within section 1(1)(a) or (b) above who is under 16 on the relevant date, the court may direct that this Part shall have effect.'. This important amendment deals with whether children should be required to register. It amends the Bill so that notification requirements would not apply to a person aged under 16 unless the court directed otherwise. It is important because it affects sentencing, treatment and rehabilitation of children who have committed a criminal offence and, moreover, are themselves in need. It also highlights the complications involved in sex abuse by young offenders, and forces us to approach the problem of paedophiles realistically rather than in black-and-white terms of victims and monsters.
We are talking about people who are required to register, but who themselves are probably the victims. Approximately 50 per cent. of those who abuse children were abused themselves, and many of the young offenders we are discussing are still being abused by the adults around them. Recent scandals of paedophile rings in local authority care homes in Wales and Cheshire have shown the appalling prevalence of such situations. I was disturbed to learn the other day that a young constituent of mine was in one of the homes in Cheshire.
Any child who is in care should be looked after properly. The last thing that should happen is that they should be subject to abuse when they are supposed to be in care. Children who are suffering abuse can all too easily get mixed up in paedophile networks, abusing younger children because they think that it is the normal thing to do. The Bill is all about the protection of children, and child offenders should be treated separately from adult offenders. People involved in the treatment of young sex offenders, notably the National Association for the Development of Work with Sex Offenders and the Association of Chief Officers of Probation have both stressed that they do not believe that inclusion on a register is appropriate for children.
Also, the Childrens Charities Consortium—the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Childline, the National Children's Home Action for Children, Barnardo's, Save the Children Fund, the National Children's Bureau, and the National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations—for which the protection of the victims of sexual abuse is the highest priority, has expressed extreme disappointment that the Government have included young offenders in the Bill because there are more appropriate ways in which to deal with child offenders, and extra stigmatisation could be detrimental to a child's chances of rehabilitation.
Young child sex offenders highlight the importance of appropriate treatment procedures and full rehabilitation. I was extremely disturbed during the Second Reading debate at the lack of knowledge of the success of treatment programmes in dramatically reducing reoffending rates. If we want seriously to tackle the possibility of offenders reoffending—the issue at the heart of the Bill—we must look to proper treatment programmes.
236 Home Office research gives indisputable evidence of the effectiveness of treatment programmes, with an average 40 per cent. reduction in reoffending rates following the STEP programme—the sex offender treatment evaluation project. I was disappointed that the Home Office publication, dated 1994, is out of print. I asked for a copy of it. When I saw the Minister of State, Home Office, who is responsible for prisons, she indicated that she would let me have one. I never received it and I have had to borrow a copy from Don Finlater, who runs the excellent treatment programme at the Wolvercote clinic, directed by the Faithfull Foundation. The clinic has similar effectiveness. It is scandalous that the Department of Health has no plans for relocation of Wolvercote after selling off the present site.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department may be interested to know that on Monday I visited Ashworth special hospital and understood that it might be possible to find room on the Ashworth site for the location of a paedophile treatment centre. Therefore, if the Government are interested in providing residential treatment, that would be one possible site. Obviously, there would not be any requirement for planning permission.
If the Government view protection of children from sex offenders as a priority, they must make treatment a priority. If sex offenders are going to be released from prison once they have served their sentence, it is vital that we do all we can to ensure that they do not reoffend. Some members of the Children's Charities Consortium, for example the NSPCC and Barnardo's, have direct experience of working with young sex offenders through their treatment programmes. There is much evidence to show that young sex offenders are amenable to treatment and that appropriate intervention is likely to be more immediately effective than with adult offenders. It has been stressed to me that extra stigmatisation would not help treatment of such young children, so I call on the Government to provide more facilities for treatment for both adult and young sex abusers of children. For the Government not to do so is to fail in the duty to protect children.
The registration periods in the Bill relate to the sentence given. For juveniles, that can mean detention in a young offender institution or training in a training school. For sentences of under 30 months, the Bill cuts to 50 per cent. the length of time that under-18s have to register, but once children cross that 30-month threshold, they are required to register for life. That may mean just 30 months in a training school. It cannot be viewed as being such a serious matter if a child goes to a training school, which may be the most important treatment that the child can have, but then in doing so he could be required to register for life. The offence might be no more than having a photograph. A nine or 10-year-old, for example, might have been given a photograph by an adult abuser, admitted having the photograph, be sent to a 30-month training school and consequently discover that he must register for life. The possibility is quite bizarre.
Sentencing of child offenders should always place great emphasis on rehabilitation as well as on punishment. It is hoped that young offenders' treatment programmes will be extended because of their success in reducing reoffending rates. The time that a court decides is necessary for treatment should not be influenced by a judge's desire for the child not to come under the lifetime registration requirement provided in the Bill.
237 In Committee, the Minister said: I emphasise strongly that there are no situations in which someone guilty of the relevant offences should be able to escape the registration requirement. Nor do I think that the registration period should be capable of alteration. The Bill sets tough periods of registration which will put a great obligation on people."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 February 1997; c. 24.] However, the Minister seemed to realise the inappropriateness of such an approach for young sex offenders. When I raised the possibility of a nine or 10-year-old being in possession of an indecent photograph, he said that it is unlikely that a court would handle such a case so as to leave such a young child liable for a lifetime registration."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 6 February 1997; c. 771 I read that statement to mean that the Minister could envisage a situation in which someone guilty of the relevant offence should be able to escape the notification requirement.
The criminal justice system rightly treats juveniles differently from adults. The Bill should recognise that fact, rather than somehow, by sleight of hand, relying on judges not to be compromised in deciding the necessary treatment.
The Children's Charities Consortium was concerned with the consequences of parental responsibility for young offenders' registration, because, in many cases, young sex offenders may well be experiencing sexual abuse within their own families. We must realise that much sexual abuse occurs within families, and that a child might be required to register when he or she is abused.
I urge that area child protection committees should be the proper agencies for offenders aged under 16. Extra stigmatisation in such cases is unnecessary and unhelpful in children's treatment programmes, and courts should be able to order lengthy treatment programmes without feeling that they are inflicting on a child a lifetime's punishment. The principle of parental responsibility for the registration of young sex offenders is unsound because of the predominance of sex abuse within families.
I therefore believe that children under 16 should be removed from the notification requirements unless a court decides that compliance is appropriate in the circumstances.

§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)
I should like to say a few words in support of the amendment tabled and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) and to give an example. Someone came to my constituency surgery who had served a sentence of imprisonment for an offence committed when he was a teenager, although he is now an adult. He would have been subject to the registration provisions of this legislation. However, he has now settled down, put his prison period behind him and, I believe, effectively escaped from that part of his life.
Many believe that offences committed when one is under the age of 16 should be discounted for registration purposes and that, if we do not do so, there is no point in maintaining a statutory distinction between youths and adults. It is very important that society gets it right in establishing whether someone who has not reached his majority—even if he has reached the age of criminal 238 responsibility—should be dealt with differently and less seriously for offences committed at that age. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East argued, it is very important that young people do not carry a stigma with them for the rest of their lives. I hope that the Government will respond in a positive manner to an enlightened and sensible proposal.

§ Mr. Kirkhope
The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has explained his desire to exclude some young offenders from the scope of the registration provisions. At an earlier stage in the consideration of the Bill, he sought to take under-16s out of registration altogether. Now he has modified that approach and seeks to give the courts discretion whether or not to impose the notification requirement in the case of under-16s.
I am afraid that I remain equally opposed to that approach. The key point is that registration is not a punishment, but a device to secure public protection from those who have committed serious offences—and, as we all know, some under-16s have been responsible for horrific sexual crimes.
In convicting an under-16 of such an offence, the court will already have considered whether the child appreciated that the action was wrong. The younger the offender, the more careful the court will have been in that respect, but having reached a decision on criminal liability, however, what possible basis could there be for the court to decide that registration was not necessary in a particular case? We have not provided for discretion elsewhere in the Bill, and I see no case for it in this instance.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I am extremely unhappy that the Government are not prepared to consider the amendment, and have given no indication that they might consider it further and table amendments in another place. I feel that I have put strong arguments.
The Bill is weakened by the fact that it contains bizarre provisions that could require an eight or nine-year-old to register for life. The Minister said that it was tough. On Second Reading, the Minister of State said that the Bill contained draconian measures. I find such requirements quite extraordinary. By not accepting earlier amendments that would have strengthened the Bill, we are in danger of producing a measure that is just a toothless soundbite. If it bites at all, it will bite on children themselves.

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean)
Before the hon. Gentleman launches into rhetoric about toothless soundbites, may I point out the nonsense of the statement that he has just made? One cannot convict an eight or nine-year-old. The age of criminal consent is 10. If that is the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to resist his proposals tonight.

§ Mr. Thurnham
I am amazed by that intervention, because the Minister of State professes to be something of an expert on Scotland. He comes from Scotland. The Bill would affect eight-year-olds in Scotland. I referred to nine and 10-year-olds. The age of criminal consent is 10 in England and eight in Scotland, so the Minister does 239 not appear to have read the Bill. That confirms once again that the Government have not addressed the matter properly.
I should like to divide the House on the amendment, but as the Government have not indicated that they wish to continue with the business after 10 o'clock, I find it necessary to withdraw the amendment. If it was not for the pressure of time, I would certainly wish to divide the House. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.