Abu Qatada

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Of course, we have been looking across the board at our policies on this subject. We have a far stronger policy on exclusions from the UK than the one adopted by the previous Labour Government. I believe that that is right. We have a duty to protect British citizens and it is right that we should consider every avenue to ensure that we can do that.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I welcome today’s arrest of Qatada and congratulate my right hon. Friend on her work, particularly with the Jordanian authorities, in this case. However, the central fact remains that in this case the European Court of Human Rights did not weigh up the interests of UK national security against the interests of Qatada. Will she assure the House that if the European Court of Human Rights cannot be reformed to meet the standards of security that British citizens expect, we should consider leaving it?

[Mrs May]

Of course, as I am standing at the Dispatch Box before the Brighton conference on the reform of the European Court has taken place, I can only refer my right hon. and hon. Friends to the speech made by the Prime Minister earlier this year and to the areas in which change should be made that he set out. I am afraid that in terms of what will come out of the Brighton conference, my hon. Friend will just have to be patient.

Metal Theft

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on securing this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) said, this is an important debate because metal theft has been growing exponentially over the past several years. This issue is a national concern and also affects individuals and communities. I cannot believe that any of the UK’s 650 constituencies has not been affected in one way or another by the blight of metal theft.

In 2011 in Crawley constituency there were 108 reported incidents of metal theft. However, the police tell me that that is, in fact, only a small fraction of the total number of such thefts, and I am sure they are right. There has been a range of different types of metal theft in my constituency, as I am sure is also the case throughout the country. In my constituency, eight schools and three churches had lead taken from their roofs in the last year. Such crimes are often only discovered when it rains several days later and the buildings concerned suffer a great deal of structural damage. Other types of theft include thefts of catalytic converters from garages and thefts from domestic dwellings.

I pay tribute to my local police. Chief Inspector Steve Curry is in charge of Crawley police station, on behalf of Sussex police. He has done a phenomenal job over the last year in reducing crime in my constituency. Dwelling burglaries have fallen by 25.8% over the last year, for instance. Unfortunately however, non-dwelling theft has increased by 25.7%, and much of that has been metal theft.

Metal theft has a massive effect on the UK economy. Many of my constituents commute to London every day, and, sadly, it is not uncommon for the theft of cable, often miles away, to result in trains grinding to a halt across London and the south-east. I am not fishing for sympathy, but I have suffered from that myself. On a day when I was planning to get to Parliament very early as I had an early question on the Order Paper, I almost did not arrive on time.

The cost of these thefts to our economy runs to many tens of millions of pounds, and I congratulate the Government both on their £5 million investment in the taskforce to tackle this problem and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, on introducing amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 was written for a “Steptoe and Son” age. I therefore greatly welcome the Government’s commitment to updating it for the sake of our constituents, the country and the economy.

Abu Qatada

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These hypothetical ruminations are always very enjoyable, but perhaps we can return to the subject of Abu Qatada. I know I can rely on Mr Henry Smith to do that.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Is not the absurdity of the European Court of Human Rights such that Abu Qatada could even challenge his stringent bail conditions, and does that not mean that we really should be moving towards a British Bill of Rights?

[Mrs May]

As I have said in answer to a number of questions, it is right that we look at the prospect of a British Bill of Rights. That is why the Government have put in place the commission that will be reporting on that very issue later this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I commend the hon. Gentleman’s ingenuity in putting that question. As he will recognise, the vast majority of trafficking comes from outside the European Union, so his question, though ingenious, is not strictly relevant.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

What specific support can be given to local authorities with children’s services responsibilities that have major ports, such as Gatwick airport in West Sussex, within their boundaries, particularly with respect to supporting 16 to 18-year-olds who are so often those who go missing?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend makes a good point in that local authorities that have major ports within them tend, obviously, to face bigger problems with trafficked children but also tend to develop greater expertise as well. That is why bodies like CEOP and the United Kingdom Border Agency do their best to spread best practice around the country so that every local authority can know that it is performing as well as possible in this important area—

Border Control Scheme

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

Well, that is not what the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has told him.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

For years there has been contamination of people arriving at entry points on domestic and international flights. Can the Minister assure us that such contamination will come to an end, and that there will be segregation of incoming passengers?

[Damian Green]

I am indeed aware of that, particularly at Stansted and Gatwick, and it is one of the priorities at the moment.

UK Border Force

Henry Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Yes, it is my pilot, and the arrangements for that pilot were made known to UKBA officials at the various ports where it was operating.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

My constituency contains the nation’s second-busiest air gateway, and a majority of my constituents are deeply concerned about immigration. Will the Secretary of State say whether Gatwick was part of the pilot? If so, when her investigations are complete, will she tell us how many people came through during that period? Will she also confirm that national security will always be a greater priority than the length of the queues in immigration halls?

[Mrs May]

Yes, indeed Gatwick was included. It was possible for the pilot to be operated across all the ports; it was not specified for any particular ports. There was a focus on particular ports, but Gatwick was included and I believe that Manchester was too.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Henry Smith Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

Everyone would have sympathy with those circumstances. We have all, in the process of representing our constituents, encountered wheel-clamping cases that are to the detriment of the industry itself and the previous measures that applied.

I am mindful that other Members wish to speak on an important provision, so I shall merely make the point that new clause 15 adds nothing whatsoever to the existing criminal law. As much as I support the efforts of The Times and various organisations, what we have is sufficient.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I am conscious, after the previous debate in which we discussed DNA, civil liberties and serious crime, that this may appear to be a mundane matter. However, as we have heard this evening and on other occasions, it is a source of great concern to our constituents up and down the country. I am pleased that it will be addressed in the Bill.

I very much support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said a few moments ago, the introduction of a ban on wheel-clamping. As the Minister pointed out, a ban has been successful for 19 years in Scotland, and it is high time that such a provision was introduced in England and Wales. However, I very much wish to echo the concerns outlined by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) that we may be shifting the problem elsewhere.

The protections that motorists enjoy as consumers differ enormously, depending on whether they park on local authority-controlled land or on privately controlled land. Under the local authority system, which is covered extensively by legislation, as we have heard, there is an appeals process that is laid down in legislation, and there is a reasonable level of fining. If someone transgresses, or apparently transgresses, the rules in a council car park, they are issued with a penalty notice of about £50, which is reduced to half that amount if it is paid within 28 days. Some two thirds of people who appeal to local authority car-park operators are successful, because they can demonstrate that they did indeed buy a ticket, which perhaps fell off the dashboard, or they can give another legitimate reason for their appeal.

That contrasts significantly with the situation of people who park on privately available public car parks and those operated by rogue car park operators. I have had one of those in my constituency. I know from raising the issue in a Westminster Hall debate that many other hon. Members have had similar problems. People, often elderly and vulnerable, receive a threatening letter in the post demanding payment, sometimes of £70 or even more. Within a couple of weeks that demand is hyped up to perhaps double the amount. There are then threats to send in the bailiffs and threats to destroy credit ratings. Even people whom we would not describe as vulnerable get very concerned, understandably, that their credit rating might be affected, and they end up paying the so-called fine—it is not, of course, a criminal penalty—because they simply want the problem to go away.

Earlier in the Session I introduced a private Member’s Bill on the very issue of consumer protection in relation to private car parks. Of course my Bill is rapidly going the way of the vast majority of private Members’ Bills. In it I proposed that local authorities should have the ability to license the operation of private car parks, in the same way as they license publicans or taxis. That would allow a responsive approach through the democratic system at a local level. However, I accept that my Bill is unlikely to find its way on to the statute book.

I hear what the Minister says with regard to self-regulation through the British Parking Association. I have met the chief executive of that organisation on a number of occasions. My assessment of its operation has been that the pilots that it has run so far have not been overly successful. It tends to be the responsible companies that are involved in such schemes, and the irresponsible ones that, understandably, are not.

I recognise that we have enough regulation on the statute book, and that the self-regulation route is the best way to go. However, if we are to go down the self-regulation route, I note that the legislation has provision for reserve powers to have the matter reviewed. I seek an assurance from the Minister that when the British Parking Association and perhaps other accredited organisations introduce an independent system of appeals, that is reviewed in a timely manner. If, as I suspect—I hope I am wrong— self-regulation does not work, those reserve powers will have to be used.

[Diana Johnson]

We have had an interesting debate re-examining the issue. Having listened to the Minister explaining the provisions that she is seeking to introduce by means of amendments to the Bill, and having heard her explanation of clause 54(3), I am even more concerned that companies that wish to get round the law, operate in an intimidating way and issue excessive parking tickets will see this as an opportunity to go ahead. Under clause 54(3) putting down a barrier in effect immobilises a vehicle, so I am particularly concerned about the Minister’s response on that.

The impact assessment sets out that when issued with a ticket, 74% of people will pay up, so it is well worth rogue ticketing companies putting tickets on vehicles and getting those 74% of people to pay up. They do not have to worry about dealing with the 26% who might appeal from the keeper liability angle.

I am keen to test the opinion of the House on new clause 15. In terms of rogue wheel-clampers, I think that motorists are going to be out of the frying pan and into the fire and that the rogue companies will run riot. The problem will not be solved and I think that we will be back here another day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Henry Smith Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the inter-ministerial group on gangs is not only looking at the enforcement issue; we are looking at other matters, such as preventing young people from getting involved in gangs and diverting them from gangs when they become gang members. We are examining examples of good work from both outside the UK and within it—for example, in Strathclyde and Waltham Forest.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

16. What steps she is taking to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The new Prevent strategy was published on 7 June 2011. It outlines three key objectives: responding to the ideological challenge of terrorism; supporting individuals at risk of radicalisation; and working with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation.

[Henry Smith]

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House, and indeed the country, that we will not see a repeat of the scandalous situation under the previous Labour Government where public money intended for counter-terrorism actually ended up funding some extremist activity?

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. As far as this Government are concerned, extremist organisations have no role in delivering the Prevent strategy, and if organisations do not support British values, we do not intend to fund them. Organisations funded by central Government must clearly demonstrate that they are working in the public interest. In this area, the transparency that has been adopted by this Government, both at central and local level, will be an important part of the process of enabling people to see where the money is being spent and to challenge that, if necessary.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Henry Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). It has also been an enormous pleasure to listen to the contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

At the outset, I want to make it clear that the issues with which the Bill grapples are not, as I suspect many Members have found, necessarily easy. I have not found them easy. For my part, during my consideration of the measures proposed by the Government I have from time to time changed my mind, or at least changed the direction in which I thought I was travelling, before finally alighting on the position that I intend to set forth this evening.

What, then, is the dilemma for all Members? On the one hand, it seems plain from the responses to the Government’s consultation that there is general agreement among the majority of those who offered their views that in the case of a very few individuals there is a continuing need for the Government to have access to the sort of powers proposed in this Bill to protect the public from potential harm. One simple reason for that, as the responses make clear and as I, at least, am persuaded, is that in the case of some of those very few individuals prosecutions are impossible for either security or legal reasons. By the same token, not every threat to national security is or has yet become a criminal offence. Are such threats to be ignored, as some would urge us to do? I venture to suggest not.

On the other hand, the suggestion that the sort of powers that we see in this Bill should exist at all—they effectively permit the Executive to detain individuals without trial—is naturally abhorrent to Members of this House and is regarded as such on both sides, as it is by all right-thinking people. It is said with force that we now have, and that within the memory of this House we have always had, a system of open justice and it is legitimate to ask, as many Members have done, why in those circumstances we should make even one exception, no matter how carefully hedged about with safeguards, to the principles that have long underpinned our democracy and the rule of law in this country.

The question, then, is how that dilemma is to be resolved. That is essentially the question faced by the House in deciding whether to give the Bill a Second Reading. Differing from hon. Members of all parties and some people outside the House who advocate the complete revocation of any system of civil measures that interferes with the rights of the individual, I have come to the view that what the Government propose, subject to the amendments that will no doubt be made in Committee, strikes the right balance for reasons that I shall come on to. That is, I accept, my judgment. It is my opinion, consistent with the position that my conscience dictates, but that is not to say—and I do not say—that it is the only view that it is possible to take. This is very much one of those issues where reasonable people may come to completely contrary conclusions and where Members have come to contrary conclusions. My task, if I have one at all, is to explain in the course of this debate how I have come to my conclusion and my reasons for having done so.

The starting point—I suspect that all Members would agree that this should always be the starting point for any Government, but it is one which might perhaps have been lost sight of from time to time during the course of the debate—is that the primary duty of the state to its citizens is to keep them safe. National security and public safety are and must always remain the first duty of the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in her statement on 23 May 2011 and as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, acknowledged in her opening remarks in this debate. If one accepts, as I think one must, that that is the starting point, it must in my judgment follow that if there are circumstances in which those who threaten the United Kingdom from within her own borders cannot, for whatever reasons, adequately be dealt with by a system of open criminal justice, which I accept should remain the norm in the vast majority of cases, their rights cannot override those of the majority to the safety of their existence, which the Government are bound to protect.

In one sense, of course, this is a question of degree. Is the derogation from the ordinary principles of the rule of law and the rights of the subject that this Bill entails justified given the threat that we know we face at the beginning of the 21st century? In my opinion—I stress again that it is my opinion and that others are driven to a different view by their consciences—it is. We have merely to look at some of the events that we have witnessed during the past decade, such as the bombings of 7 July 2005 in London, to know what may happen when the balance is poorly or inappropriately struck. Of course I do not for a moment suggest that the mere existence of the measures in the Bill—of TPIMs—or even of the existing regime of control orders can ensure that such events will never happen. However, if one wonders, as I do, whether future atrocities might be prevented by proportionate derogations from generally accepted minimum standards regarding the rights of the subject—derogations that can and must be kept to a minimum, as I think all Members accept—it is my belief that they might. It follows that the existence of a regime that is necessary to protect the public, such as that contained in the Bill, cannot be avoided given the world in which we live.

The matter can be viewed in this way: many Members on both sides of the House will quite properly oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, or will at least have indicated that they will not give it a Third Reading in its current form. However, let me posit an eventuality that I hope will not occur—circumstances in which someone who might have been subject to a TPIM is instrumental in a future atrocity that results in our fellow citizens being maimed or killed. Would it, in those circumstances, be right that the Bill fell today or in future? I suggest not, for that would be to strike the wrong balance between the rule of law and the first duty of the Government, which I have already outlined.

I accept that none of this is easy. My view, I am perfectly prepared to accept, may be wrong. It may even, as the courts will be able to inquire given that there will now be no possibility of derogation from the law relating to the rights of the subject, be unlawful, although I think not as the Bill has been carefully drawn. However, it is the view to which I am driven by a consideration of the issues I have outlined and by the horrendous possibility of being wrong and, in being wrong, of failing to prevent a potential terrorist outrage.

The second argument that drives me to support the Government’s proposals and therefore to lend my support to the Bill’s Second Reading is the very fact that there are certain rights that I and the vast majority of people consider to be inalienable, the most important of which is the right to life. That this right is inalienable seems to me naturally to entail the proposition that it should, by the nature of the law as it should be framed, be protected—if necessary at the expense of other lesser rights, which are not necessarily inalienable. Schedule 1 identifies a series of measures that the Secretary of State may take, should the Bill become law, which would undoubtedly interfere with the second of those groups of rights. It enables the state to obstruct the liberty of the citizen, to oblige him or her to comply with the directions of those who exercise its authority and to disturb the free enjoyment of property rights. However, not one of those rights is, or at least should be, regarded as absolute and inalienable. The right to life and to security, in the sense of freedom from hurt or injury, is in a different category altogether. As the Bill makes clear throughout, particularly from the safeguards with which it is hedged, it is that right that is being protected and the other, lesser rights that are being obstructed. That cannot but indicate, as many Members on both sides have noted, that a balance is being struck. Whether it is the right balance will be a question that future historians will no doubt assess.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making a powerful argument about the balancing of rights. Does he feel that this consideration should be reviewed regularly to ensure that the balance remains correct in future?

[Stephen Phillips]

I can see that there is a powerful case for amending the Bill in Committee to introduce some annual review by Parliament, but there are countervailing arguments, some of which have been alluded to during the debate. The first of those arguments, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), is that with the whipping system being what it is, such an annual review may prove pointless. The second is that if the House forms a view in relation to TPIMs, which are not control orders, it will have reached a settled view, and that will not fade from parliamentary memory. I think that everyone on both sides of the House accepts that once the reasons why TPIMs or control orders need to exist have disappeared, this legislation should also disappear. In those circumstances, while I can see the case for an annual review, it is not something on which I have a conclusive view, and I look forward to debating it again in due course.

Returning to whether it is right in principle for the Bill to strike the balance that it seeks to strike, what finally has driven me to the view that the Bill must continue its passage through the House is the fact that the arguments against the balance being struck at all either misinterpret or only interpret semantically and without regard to its content what the rule of law actually means. We have created for ourselves, as have most other nations, a system of justice that involves the open trial of individuals for those things that we characterise as wrongs that deserve punishment. That system, however, is a fabrication of the society in which we live—no more, no less. It is not the only system that man could devise, but it has been found over the years to be the best system, even though we must occasionally alter or change it so that it meets the needs of the times in which we live. This is such a time, so the Bill seeks to fashion a different system from the ordinary criminal justice system, and it does so because, in my judgment, it must, for reasons that I have given.

Is the system contrary to the rule of law because it is different? No. It is contrary to the rule of law, if in any sense, because we say it is, yet the rule of law as created must be protected, as it answers so well to the circumstances of existence that we must not seek to undermine it any more than is necessary. Again, there is a balance to be struck—what is necessary is what is proportionate to the circumstances, and in my view that is the regime that the Bill seeks to create. The same cannot be said universally of the regime that will be repealed if and when clause 1 comes into force. While the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 sought to strike a necessary balance, in my judgment it struck the wrong balance, which is tacitly accepted by the Opposition Front-Bench team, given their acceptance that the control order regime was not necessarily the best way of dealing with the threat that the legislation that they introduced sought to deal.

I know, as I have said before in the House, new as I am, that it is the Opposition’s duty to oppose, but for those of us who have sat through this debate in its entirety it has been odd to note the opposition from their Front-Bench team, but the consensus among Back Benchers on both sides of the House that the Bill should at least complete its Second Reading.

The previous regime of control orders permitted the Government to derogate from the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill does not do so, which is progress. While I am no fan of the Human Rights Act, I accept that it includes welcome protections that have existed in our law for generations, even if consistently misinterpreted or over-interpreted by the Court in Strasbourg. The previous regime of control orders likewise provided a non-exhaustive list of the way in which the rights of the subject could be hindered. The Bill, by contrast, tells the Home Secretary precisely what she may do, circumscribed by Parliament. I know which I prefer and which meets the need to tackle the mischief at which the Bill is directed.

The previous regime of control orders likewise allowed the Home Secretary powers overly and unnecessarily in effect to extinguish individual rights, the best example being the 16-hour curfew. The Bill, by contrast, limits the Home Secretary’s powers—again, always subject to review—to something which, to my mind, is more capable of justification, even though overnight detention orders require more definition. Most importantly, unlike the present regime, mere suspicion on the part of the state will no longer be enough to trigger the powers in the Bill—and rightly so. The Bill makes it clear that there must be reasonable belief that individuals can no longer be deprived of their rights merely on the basis of suspicion. Lawyers other than I have suggested this afternoon that there is little difference, but I disagree. Even if I am wrong, I am more content with a regime that requires some form of objective proof and justification than one that can be triggered merely on the basis of vague, subjective assertion on the part of the state.

For these reasons, and many others which there is now insufficient time to develop further but which will undoubtedly be explored in Committee if the Bill goes forward tonight, it is my belief that this is the right Bill to address the dilemma that I posed at the outset and which the Government face in striking a balance between the rights of the individual and the obligation to protect all the citizens of this country. If the House divides tonight, the Government will therefore receive my support to give the Bill a Second Reading, as I believe they should receive the support of the remainder of the House.

Criminal Records (Public Access) Bill

Henry Smith Excerpts

Friday 13th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

Yes, it would. Of course there are far fewer Crown court convictions and far fewer Crown courts, so it is much easier to get access to that information. As my hon. Friend will have noticed, the Bill states that

“‘a criminal records office’ means the Criminal Records Bureau or any successor body with similar statutory functions to the Criminal Records Bureau”.

It also states:

“A criminal records office must keep, in electronic form, copies of all Magistrates’ Courts Registers, and any other registers produced by a court listing convictions”.

Obviously, that could include Crown court registers.

In drafting this Bill, I have tried to make the regulation and the demands placed on the criminal records office as light as possible. I have done so by, among other things, saying that none of this would have to be retrospective, and so only after the Bill was enacted would the magistrates courts’ registers have to be communicated in electronic form to the criminal records office. There would be no burden on the criminal records office to collate the information on all those records. All that would happen would be that the records would be available in electronic form and could be investigated on the internet by members of the public.

I expect what would happen—this has already been happening in the US—is that people who were interested in providing a public service would start to collate the records themselves, thereby producing a combined database that would be accessible, perhaps for a fee, by members of the public. It would set up almost a private sector alternative to the Criminal Records Bureau.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Many people will be quite astonished that records of convictions are not as publicly available as they should be, I would argue, in a free society such as ours. Does my hon. Friend think that this provision would make the Criminal Records Bureau a little more efficient? If people had direct information about those who have been convicted, it might free up some of the bureaucratic burden for which that organisation is, unfortunately, somewhat infamous.

[Mr Chope]

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I have not recently had any constituency cases relating to the Criminal Records Bureau, but there is a real problem with the time it takes to get information out of it, particularly if one wants to check records for potential volunteers or members of staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which fits neatly with my point about available technology and the sort of database that could be created. It is quite likely that a private sector organisation could put such information into a searchable database on the internet, which, as my right hon. Friend rightly says, could easily be accessed on a mobile phone. That is the way in which the internet is going. It is more and more likely that people will carry their own personal computers around with them—tablets are already available —and if a search can be made on a desktop computer in an office, it can be made as one walks down the street. I see no reason why that should not be the case. I cannot see the problems with that.

The main point is that the information must be accurate. We already have the technology to make that happen; of that there can be no doubt. We have already seen the excellent Home Office website that enables individual householders to search right down to street level to find the number and category of crimes committed in their area. Having seen how complicated that website is, covering every road and street in the entire country, I think that the proposed database would be much easier to construct. Provided that measures were in place to ensure that the information on the register was accurate, which could be done easily by ensuring that people could check their own record free of charge, I see no reason why—

[Henry Smith]

Does the Bill not merely extend information that is increasingly becoming publicly available, as my hon. Friend is setting out? In the Sussex police force area, the recently passed Sarah’s law allows people to check whether anyone in their neighbourhood has been convicted of a child sex offence. That has empowered people, and certainly has not led to any vigilantism.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Generally speaking, people can be relied on to treat this information, which is publicly available, with common sense and reasonableness.

One area where problems are likely to occur is when people change their name. I know that what we can do to prevent people from giving false names is of particular concern to the Home Office, because there is no law that prevents someone from changing their name. A name can be changed simply by statutory declaration, rather than by going through the complexity of doing so by deed poll. No one has to give a reason for wanting to change their name. In fact, many people do so for the slightest of reasons, perhaps because they do not like their name. I am not normally the first to suggest further regulation, but I wonder whether the need to monitor sex offenders, in particular, might result in some further control, to ensure that those convicted of sex offences are not free simply to change their name and walk away from their past.

This short Bill would be warmly and widely welcomed outside this House. I wish it well on Second Reading and look forward to seeing it on the statute book before too long.