Date: 20th June 2006
Released by: ANDREW TURNER

Island MP Andrew Turner has called for additional measures to protect children from sex offenders.

Speaking in a House of Commons debate on the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, which is designed to rationalize and update systems which prevent people with certain criminal convictions from working with children and or vulnerable adults, Mr Turner proposed three ways to add to safeguards,

• adopting ‘Sarah’s Law’,
• restricting foreign workers,
• helping schools deal with children who have offended against children, and
• protecting children in colleges.

On adopting ‘Sarah’s Law’, he said:

“The Government are moving in the right direction … when they talk about examining … the implementation of Megan’s law in the United States. Sarah’s law, as we might call it here … is not a charter for vigilantes. It gets to the heart of whether people can trust the state … I strongly advocate that we examine with an open mind whether it is better for people to know who the local sex offenders are than for those matters to be concealed from them and for them no longer to trust public authority. That will lead to people being treated more reasonably, not more unreasonably.”

He pointed to the difficulty of getting information about the criminal records of some foreign workers, and asked,

“Should it not be an offence … for foreign nationals who have been convicted overseas of a crime for which they would be barred in this country to apply for employment in a regulated capacity [i.e. with children]?”

He asked for more help for schools dealing with children who have offended against children:

“We need to address children who commit offences against other children. I include in that category lads of 18 who have sex with girls of 14. … The issue is not taken sufficiently seriously. The Bichard report said that every case should be notified to the appropriate authorities because only those authorities could assess whether that case was part of a pattern of behaviour.

“Not every case will lead to a prosecution. However, a failure to report followed by a failure to prosecute means that those who might turn out to be repeat sex offenders in later life have two opportunities to avoid scrutiny. …”

He pointed out that Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer, started his offending when he was under the age of 18, adding:

“I hope that the Government will examine how the staff and governors of schools can not only be informed of sex offenders among the pupils at those school, but be empowered to take the necessary steps to restrict the activities of those children, at least while they are on school premises and under the control of the school, so that other pupils can be protected.”

Finally, he referred to the protection of children in Colleges:

“We must also address the treatment of young pupils who undertake day-release courses, work experience or link courses in colleges of further education … Many children aged 14 and 15 now take courses in colleges of further education. Some of those children will be segregated from older students—those aged 16, 17 and 18, and perhaps older still—while attending their courses, but not for the entire duration of their time in the college. Not all adults in colleges of further education are covered by the Bill … There are adults among the teaching and the non-teaching staff [at colleges], as well as adults and persons aged over 16 among the students, from whom it is reasonable for parents of younger children to expect them to be protected.”

END

Contact: Andrew Turner 01983 530808

Follows : Extract from House of Commons Hansard, 19th June 2006

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Conservative): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), who has painstakingly—almost painfully—illustrated some of the devastating difficulties that she has become familiar with and that some of us have sadly become familiar with through our surgeries. That sets in context a couple of the rules that I almost invariably come to the House with. One is that there is no problem so great that the Government cannot make it worse and the second is that a Bill that has all-party support is almost certainly either wrong or inadequately scrutinised, or both. This is not such a Bill.

The broad shape of the Bill is reasonable. Difficult judgments have to be made and many difficult lines have to be drawn in what is inevitably a grey area. It is as well to recognise that, although we are working hard to get that right, we might well—on both sides—get it wrong in good faith. Whatever we do and however hard we try, we cannot guarantee safety either for the vulnerable adults or for the children who are the subject of the Bill. The best people to safeguard children are their parents, acting together and making decisions on the basis of their knowledge of their children and of the people who are to work with their children, and, in many cases—let us be honest about it—on the basis of their gut instinct.

A friend of mine had a dog that gave birth to six beautiful puppies a few days ago and she remarked to me how wonderful it was to see that new mother bite the umbilical cord. What taught that dog to bite through the umbilical cords of those puppies? It was nothing other than instinct. The instincts of parents will quite often point them in the right direction. No amount of regulation or legislation can do that. One of the things that most concerns me about the action of professionals in all sorts of areas is that they inadvertently undermine parents’ confidence in their instinct to act in a particular way. We are as bad sometimes, because we illuminate and flag up difficult cases, and we frighten people who need not necessarily be frightened. If they look after their children to the best of their ability and their knowledge, they are certainly going to safeguard them more than any number of politicians or professionals can. If they exercise their knowledge of their children and exercise trust in those whom they know, and if they have some choice in where their children are educated, they will be making good decisions. To those who say that most sex abuse takes places in the home, I would mention that most sex abuse that takes place in the home takes place between people who are not blood relations. It is as well that we should recognise that and not use that point as an excuse to undermine what goes on inside the home.

There have been a couple of welcome changes in the Government’s position in recent days. One is the recognition that there is a shortage of prison places in this country. The protection of vulnerable people is, in part, assisted by the imprisonment of those who would exploit or abuse them. There is a lot wrong with our prisons, but the aphorism that prison works is certainly true in one respect: it takes out of circulation those who would exploit or abuse young people and adults.

Anne Main (St Albans) (Conservative): The point about prison, whether it works and how long we imprison people for has been a subject of much debate. For example, in my constituency—I know that this is fairly typical—Mr. Michael Marsh, who had already served a sentence for sexual assault on an 11-year-old and had been let out, was convicted again on Friday for the abuse of a six-year-old boy, but his case will probably be eligible for consideration in 2008, despite the probation service saying that, in its opinion, he will remain a constant danger. Surely that is all part of protecting our vulnerable young people. If those people are in prison, we must make sure that they stay there for the correct sentence.

Mr. Turner: We must indeed make sure that they stay in prison. We must make sure that the judiciary are enabled to imprison them for an appropriate length of time and that the judiciary and the Prison Service are enabled to provide appropriate services in prison so that, for example, prisoners are not shunted from one prison to another in the middle of courses that may be designed to address their offending behaviour. There is a lot that is right about imprisonment, but there are some things that are wrong about the way in which our prisons work and we would do well to recognise those things.