(Bolsover) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit a person
subject to notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual
Offences Act 2003 from changing their name; and for connected
purposes.
The Bill is one of several steps that need to be taken to fix
safeguarding in this country, and to ensure that those who have
committed some of the most heinous crimes—including rape, assault
by penetration, indecent photographs of children offences, and
sexual communications with a child—are not able to use a loophole
to change their names to escape scrutiny and the authorities,
and, in some cases, end up working with children and vulnerable
people.
As is so often the case, my attention was brought to this
situation by a constituent’s casework. They know who they are,
and I will say no more, other than that they are very brave and
what they have been through is horrific and unimaginable for most
of us. However, the person who is responsible for their pain is
in prison and wishes to change his name. I could not believe that
this was possible, but it turned out to be the tip of the
iceberg. Further research led me to the excellent work on the
issue done by the hon. Member for Rotherham () and, in turn, to the
Safeguarding Alliance’s superb research, and also the advocacy of
my right hon. Friends the Members for Harlow () and for Bromsgrove (). I pay tribute to their work,
and from here on in steal many of their arguments and
research.
The crux of the situation is this: registered sex offenders are
able to change their names by deed poll, both enrolled and
unenrolled, allowing them to go under the radar of the
authorities and putting society’s most vulnerable at risk.
Bizarrely, the onus for keeping details up to date on the sex
offenders register lies with the offender, rather than the onus
being on the police and other authorities to keep a close eye on
the offender. It is illegal not to notify the authorities if you
do change your name, and it can result in a sentence of five
years in prison, but there is an automatic right for sex
offenders out of prison to be able to change their names. It does
not take a genius to realise that sex offenders are not the most
trustworthy group. The Safeguarding Alliance’s report of April
2021 revealed that 16,000 offenders had breached notification
requirements in the past five years and 905 had gone missing
between 2017 and 2020, and this morning the BBC News website
released new figures showing that 729 had gone missing between
2019 and 2021.
Rose West, Ben Lewis, Vanessa George and Ian Huntley all changed
their names. The Bichard inquiry of 2004, set up in response to
Mr Huntley’s horrific crimes, identified name-changing as a
problem that needed solving, yet it remains unsolved. The same
inquiry led to the establishment of the Disclosure and Barring
Service, or DBS, of which many of us will be aware. It is meant
to provide an assurance for employers that an employee or
volunteer is safe, but a sex offender can now change their name
and, with little difficulty, receive a passport or driving
licence with their new name. At no point will they be asked
whether they have a criminal background. In some cases, that can
in turn lead to a DBS check under their new identity, and too
often we find these people working in schools, care homes and
elsewhere.
A few years ago there was a debate in the House on whether
prisoners should have the right to vote, and it was agreed that
they should have no such right. The Bill seeks to extend that
principle, providing that someone who commits a heinous crime and
is on the sex offenders register must in turn surrender their
right to change their name while they remain on the register.
Last Monday, the Government announced several new and very
welcome additional measures on domestic abuse and violence
against women and girls. Two in particular are worth mentioning.
Those who receive a sentence of 12 months or more for coercive
and controlling behaviour will now be added to the sex offenders
register, and the domestic violence disclosure scheme—or Clare’s
law, as it is better known—will be put on a statutory footing.
However, both measures are redundant if offenders can change
their names and slip off the system. The same problem applies to
the child sex offender disclosure scheme, or Sarah’s law, which,
again, relies on accurate records. This is a major safeguarding
breach at the heart of a system that is meant to protect us.
I think most people would be horrified to discover that this
loophole exists. There are different approaches to fixing it, as
I am sure we will discover during tomorrow’s Backbench Business
debate initiated by the hon. Member for Rotherham; but that the
current system is not fit for purpose and needs urgent change is
beyond doubt. Too many of us have constituents who need us to
act, and I hope that a solution will be central to the
forthcoming Victims Bill.
Imagine being a young person and having the most horrific thing
happen to you. Imagine that offender saying to you, “If you ever
tell anybody, I will come for you.” Imagine living with that for
decades. Imagine how the parents of that young person feel over
decades. Imagine finding out that that offender may be changing
their name and bringing back all those memories and that fear
that they will come for you again. This Bill is about being on
the side of victims and making sure that they do not have to go
through that.
Again, I pay tribute to my very brave constituents, who I know
are watching the debate, for bringing this mind-boggling matter
to my attention; to the Safeguarding Alliance for all the work
that it has done on this; and to all my colleagues who have
supported the Bill, particularly the more than 50 Conservative
Back Benchers who have supported it both publicly and privately.
I cannot mention them all today. In particular, however, I draw
the Government’s attention to the fact that two former Home
Secretaries and a former Justice Secretary have supported the
Bill, as does the former Prime Minister and Home Secretary, my
right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
Safeguarding is about ensuring that our most vulnerable are
protected, and we must end the real, immediate and significant
risk of harm that this loophole creates. We cannot wait for
another inquiry to tell us what we already know: that the law,
and the system as it stands, are not fit for purpose.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That , , , , , , , Sir , Sir , , and present the Bill.
accordingly presented the
Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24
March, and to be printed (Bill 258).
