Change of Name by Registered Sex Offenders

Mark Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

In anticipation of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), I should say that I think we are all slightly baffled as to why we are here. This is a ludicrous loophole and we know that it is a problem. We have found out, to a certain extent, the scale of the problem, although there are still questions about that. The fact that there is a problem and that it should be solved is agreed, I think, by Members on both sides of the House, although I wait to hear from the Home Office on that front. It is very clear that we should be solving it. I did a local media interview yesterday, because I had a ten-minute rule Bill on the same subject, and the local BBC reporter, who was trying their very best to be devil’s advocate and to be impartial, reached the point of saying, “Are you banging your head against the wall? This seems an absolute no-brainer.” I feel that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) strayed into that territory.

I shall go back to where I intended to start, which is to thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) not just for securing the debate, but for all the work she has done on the issue. As she knows, I am a latecomer to the matter: I have ended up in this world because of some constituency casework. However, having spent the past two months or so looking into it, I cannot say that I am any the wiser as to why it has not been solved. Undoubtedly, there are some complications. She and I have a small and minor disagreement about how to solve the matter, and I will touch on that.

I should also say thank you to the staff of the Safeguarding Alliance, as I did yesterday, who have provided so much data, so much leadership and so much coherence, and who, I fear, have been banging their heads against the wall a lot more than I have in recent times. It is a great credit to them that so many MPs are in the Chamber today. Many of my Conservative colleagues are in Windsor for an away day. Some lucky Whips and others have drawn the duty of avoiding that, and it was probably wise of them to volunteer to do so.

I do not wish to draw on any of the details that I covered in yesterday’s ten-minute rule Bill, when I set out the problem, as the hon. Member for Rotherham did today, and the sheer horrendousness of this situation. It feels as though we are prioritising the rights of sexual offenders over the rights of the general public and over the rights of people who need to know whether the people working in their schools are safe, whether the people working in their care homes are safe, whether their partner has a past or whether someone who is interacting with their child is safe.

Yesterday, I drew on the Ian Huntley situation and the Bichard inquiry, to which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West referred only seconds ago. That happened in 2004, and yet here we are in the same situation, still talking about the need to prevent sex offenders from changing their name. It is worth noting that the Disclosure and Barring Service that we now use came about as a result of Ian Huntley’s horrendous actions. Indeed, the Bichard inquiry led to the creation of the DBS system, and it is that very system that is being undermined by the ability of offenders to change their name and to escape recognition, thereby creating a blind spot for the authorities.

The hon. and learned Lady and I have a small disagreement over what needs to be done. I am not necessarily sure whether either of us would object to the other’s solution being accepted; it is the problem that needs solving. None the less, it is worth stating to the Minister, in advance of her speech, that I am pretty solutions-agnostic. The fact that there is a problem and that it needs solving is beyond dispute, but how we get to solving that problem is crucial. I think it is worth acknowledging that there are complications to what we are trying to do. Undoubtedly, they are what Home Office and Ministry of Justice officials will use to try to prevent any progress, so I shall put those complications on the record now, so that we can consider them together.

First, we have long and established common law rights in this country to change our name. That is well established in law. My perspective is that a person surrenders certain rights when they are charged and found guilty of an offence by the state. That is my opinion; it is not necessarily the opinion of this House, because we have not voted specifically on this issue. However, as I said yesterday, we have prevented prisoners from exercising their voting rights, which is a clear comparison.

It is worth noting that changing our name through the unenrolled process could not be easier if we tried. Effectively, the wording is:

“I [old name] of [your address] have given up my name [old name] and have adopted for all purposes the name [new name].”

I could leave this Chamber being called John Bercow if someone would kindly countersign my form. It is that simple. I use that example perhaps facetiously. I certainly do not wish to bring Mr Bercow back into this Chamber in any way, shape or form, but it is worth considering that that is the unenrolled process.

There is a slightly different system if someone wants to take the legal route. I changed my name when I was seven years old. My original name is Mark Hannington, which is my dad’s name. I changed it because my mum remarried. It is relatively common and, indeed, incredibly easy to change one’s name. I know that we are talking about a very extreme situation here, because we have to go through those who have committed an offence, are on the sex offenders register, and then wish to change their identity, and then may get a new document and then may get a DBS check. It is a flow chart that has to be followed through. We should consider the processes involved, but it is, none the less, an incredibly easy thing to do.

Yesterday, the Home Office released a statement in response, in part, to the BBC’s latest research, on which the hon. Lady has already touched, about our incredibly “robust” response. I found myself laughing about that in more than one local media interview. I find that very difficult to defend, because it is not a robust response. It might look tough on paper and Home Office officials might have persuaded themselves that this is actually a robust system, but the sheer scale of those breaching the system is huge, and that is before we even get on to the ones that we do not know about. I give great credit to the hon. Member for Rotherham for being so polite when she touched on that particular section; I will not be as polite when I come to her amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Bill in, I think, 2021. Our robust system is no such thing.

One thing we have not touched on is this: what is the sex offenders register? We have 43 different police forces in this country. They each have a version of the sex offenders register, which is usually highly localised. It is, in effect, a document or an Excel spreadsheet of some variety that sits with that force. The super-important national system that captures all offenders and is easy to refer to is no such thing, as I was horrified to discover from my discussions with the Safeguarding Alliance. It is part of the system and it sounds official—it sounds good—but it is not the robust and safeguard-friendly system that we would like to see.

[Sarah Champion]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has used every tool that the House provides to fight this campaign and I am grateful to him for doing that in such a cross-party way. On the specifics of the national database, there is HOLMES 2—the Home Office large major enquiry system—but it requires the officer to input the details. It does not flag, so it means that they have to know that someone has changed their name to know that they need to look for them, and the once-a-year check gives someone a lot of scope to go around in their different identity. It is madness. The public believe that the systems are there; they are not there.

[Mark Fletcher]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I hope that the cameramen who cover the Chamber had the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley in shot, because her facial expressions said almost everything that I would want to say about that, but I am not necessarily sure that I can.

It is undoubtedly true that there are complications around name changes. The simplest of those is that someone on the sex offenders register may get married, which may provide a complication or a barrier—again, I refer to my previous statements about giving up certain rights. Complications have also been alluded to with regard to changing gender, on which we have heard two excellent speeches, so I will not touch on that further.

Another complication, however, which falls outside what I suggested in my ten-minute rule Bill yesterday, and which I think was vaguely alluded to earlier, is the growing trend for someone to change their name when they are charged with an offence—not necessarily when they have been found guilty, but during the process before they go to court. Someone charged with an offence will therefore go through the court under their new identity—we often see cases in the newspapers of someone “also known as”—then once they have been found guilty, assuming that they are in this instance, and come out the other side, they change their name back to what they were originally known as.

That situation is a bit more complicated. If my ten-minute rule Bill had a flaw—it probably had more than one—it is that it did not capture that. Hon. Members have already alluded to two documents that we keep with us throughout our lives, however: our birth certificate and our national insurance number. They do not change, so if we want our system to be robust, the answer lies in those two bits of information.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend raises some concerns about where exceptions can be made. We can do that, because as it stands the right for someone to change their name, which is an important right, is not completely unqualified. There are six criteria according to which someone cannot change their name—for example, if it promotes criminal activity; if it promotes racial, sexual or religious intolerance; or if it ridicules people or businesses. I recall that some years ago, a disgruntled customer changed his name to “Halifax building society are complete bastards” or something to that effect—I may be doing Halifax an injustice. Another criterion is if someone is intending to commit fraud, usually by conferring a title or honour on themselves. The situation that he refers to is effectively an attempt to commit fraud, so we need only extend the existing criteria to capture many of those people anyway. It is not a big deal—it is easily done; it is a no-brainer—so let us just get on with it.

[Mark Fletcher]

My hon. Friend, as always, brilliantly makes an incredibly eloquent point. I imagine that the Minister is scribbling down that suggestion, so I look forward to seeing it in the victims Bill alongside every other sensible recommendation that has come from hon. Members today.

I put some of those complications on the record simply because I acknowledge that this is not a perfect scenario. The issue is an absolute head-banger, however: some 20 years on from a horrific set of crimes in which it was identified, we still have not done anything.

I return to the proposed amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I have read her speech in Committee, in which she eloquently told Della’s story. She tabled a sensible amendment, which was miniscule in the grand scheme of things, to ask for a report into the scale of the problem. One thing that I struggle with is that we do not know how widespread the problem is. We could change the law today to prevent it happening in future, but unfortunately we have had years in which it has been operational and not necessarily allowed, but happening.

I am relying on second-hand testimony, but it was easy to read that the Minister at the time said, “We will happily do the report, so please don’t move your amendment.” It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to do that, but it is unacceptable for the Department not to release said report and to use many different reasons not to publish it. It is a tremendous slap in the face for the work of the hon. Lady, and for those who are sitting in the Gallery and are victims of the problem. I cannot fathom how that has been allowed.

We are dealing with a situation where we know there is a problem, but we do not know the scale of it. Until that report is released, I do not think that any of us will feel satisfied. It may be that that report is quite damning and that the scale is quite bad, or it may be the opposite. Either way, we as lawmakers have been co-operative and constructive with the Government Front-Bench team as far as I have seen—again, I thank the hon. Lady for being generous to me—so I cannot work out why we have not seen that report. I urge the Minister to give thought to that.

I conclude by saying that, simply, I am banging my head against the wall because we need to take action on this issue. I came to it because of constituency casework, and as we have heard, several other MPs have had similar casework. This problem needs to be fixed. The rights of sex offenders and the right of someone to change their name do not trump safeguarding in this country. I urge the Government to think long and hard about any forthcoming opportunities to amend the statute book and to ensure that, legally and operationally, this problem is not allowed to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I, like everybody else, rise to give huge and enormous credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I will not say her name, because protocol does not allow it, but there is an element of nominative determinism about her name in these instances. She truly is a great Champion, alongside the Safeguarding Alliance, and has once again ensured that Della’s name rings out in this place. I love to hear from my hon. Friend at all times, both inside this Chamber and outside of it, but I would like not to have to hear from her again on this issue—no offence to her. Let today be the end of these demands.

If we were to do one of those fancy word clouds based on today’s debate, I feel that “no-brainer” is the word that would pop out biggest. It seems absolutely phenomenal that after 20 years, we are still in this position. To talk through some of today’s contributions, the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) told us about the very important case of Joanna in which her perpetrator, Clive Bundy, changed his name. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) talked about a very serious potential safeguarding loophole in certain cases, where it is not just a name change consideration—where there is an advanced level of secrecy with regard to the DBS. Again, going back to the word cloud of this debate, another phrase would be “safeguarding has to come first”. There is nothing else; there is no other priority.

Following on from the Scottish National party Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), I could not agree more that the line here is the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people. That is the line; that is the most important thing; that is the starting point, not the end point. It should be the primary concern, and we must do everything we possibly can to ensure that that is the case. The fact that Ian Huntley’s name was able to ring out across this Chamber so many times today is a harsh reminder of how many years this has been in train.

This Chamber has a long tradition of the constituency of Bolsover being represented in a plain-speaking fashion, should we say; one that does not mince words. Today, that fine tradition was honoured by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher)—I look forward to his contributions at the first King’s Speech. His brave and certain questioning of the Government’s speed, some of the responses they have given, and how robust they claim the law is was refreshing to hear; long may that plain speaking continue. In the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he said that it seems unbelievable that the rights of a perpetrator often trump the rights of a victim. I am here to tell this Chamber and the world that that is true in almost all cases, whether of rape or of domestic abuse, just by the very fact that a perpetrator has legal counsel and support. A victim of a crime is merely evidence in a case—that is it. That is what it feels like to be a victim; certainly for children, it is a very hollow feeling when they are asked to give evidence and take part in these cases for years and years.

Let me give an example. Last night, I went to an event around the case of Joanna Simpson, a woman murdered—sorry, unlawfully killed—whose perpetrator was found guilty of manslaughter, regardless of the fact that he had prepared a grave for her months before. He is due to be released after 13 years of incarceration for her unlawful killing. He knows exactly where her family live, but they are not allowed to know where he will be released to, not even on a regional basis. That is the case for people who suffer sexual crimes: they have absolutely no right to know anything. It is just a fundamental flaw.

[Mark Fletcher]

I referred earlier to a piece of constituency casework that relates very much to that point. The constituents who have inspired me to be involved in this conversation are desperate for the clarity of knowing the new name of the offender involved, but they are unable to get it. The answers from His Majesty’s Prison Service are hilarious, and I cannot fathom why this is acceptable. I have written to the Minister for clarification on whether HMPS is upholding the regulations correctly, but I support the point that the hon. Lady is making— I entirely agree with her.

[Jess Phillips]

It seems baffling. I think that if we were to go and speak to anybody on the Clapham omnibus—if we were to go outside and speak to any member of the public—they would not believe that that is the case in most circumstances. They would be absolutely horrified.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) called on Home Office Front Benchers to publish the documents, something that we have heard again and again in this House. It is not acceptable that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), our great champion, has forced those documents and that assessment and review to exist, Members in this place cannot see them. I join in those calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree.

I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), because he has been trying to tackle this issue in this place since, I think, the year I was born. [Hon. Members: “Ouch!”] I realise that that sounds like a terribly backhanded compliment, but it is not intended that way at all—when he was citing some of those cases, I was thinking, “I was five then.” He has announced his departure from this place, and he will undoubtedly be remembered for championing the rights of children during his time in this House, specifically those who have suffered from sexual offences. The fact that the legislation on paedophilia that we are all familiar with did not necessarily exist all those years ago, but now exists, is in no small part down to the hon. Gentleman’s work in this place. He is absolutely right to point out that these offenders are manipulative: in the case of Joanna Simpson, which I highlighted, the reason why a manslaughter charge was given rather than a murder charge was the adjustment disorder caused by a divorce—that was the manipulation used. It is terribly hard to adjust to divorce, and almost everybody in the country who has to do that ends up murdering somebody— I don’t think.

There is that level of manipulation, and how our state agencies in fact back that manipulation up. There is an opportunity today, by supporting this motion, to stop some of that manipulation and to stand in its way. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) reminded us why this issue matters, its importance, the lifelong trauma suffered by the victims of these crimes and how we should never forget that. There are victims here today, and many of their names have rung out. If only all the victims, such as Sandy, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), could be here today to listen to this debate. It is not okay that things have taken this long.

I will finish up my remarks. Like the hon. Member for Bolsover, I also changed my name. I did it online. I went online and I changed my name, and a woman called Angela in my office just signed it—that was it. That was what it took. I paid £36. It is probably more now, as inflation has gone up since then. It took absolutely no effort whatever to change my name. It was considerably easier than getting a driving licence or applying for other things. It was very easy for me to change my name with no effort and no check whatever, so I know how easy the process is. We have to make sure that this easy liberty —I am not saying it should not be easy for me, although I was stunned by how easy it was—which I may very well be entitled to, is used with caution, if at all, in the case of those on the sex offenders register. It should certainly never ever be able to be used without the proper processes and systems that flag things up.

[Jess Phillips]

I agree. I would have been more than happy to undertake a much more robust process to change my name from the good Northern Irish name of Trainor to Phillips. It would have been no bother to me if it had taken a lot more effort. Many other things in life take a lot more effort when they should not.

[Mark Fletcher]

I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Member again, and I am grateful to her for taking a second intervention. There is an advantage in some cases for the ease of changing a name, particularly through the unenrolled process, which is for domestic abuse victims. I neglected to mention it, and I am glad that the opportunity has arisen. In some cases there is advantage in not doing the enrolled process, and in the ease with which it happens, and we do not want to affect that. I am sure she would agree on that point.

[Jess Phillips]

I do agree with the hon. Member on that, and it throws up another anomaly in the system. I have worked with many domestic abuse victims, who have tried desperately to not be able to be found, yet, our state systems, whether that be our family court system or our criminal court system, are willy-nilly giving out details of people against their safeguarding and their request. Once again, it feels like the onus is on the victim to protect themselves and we, as a state, are protecting the perpetrator. The balance is off.

I want to ask the Government directly what action the Home Office is taking to identify the hundreds—if not thousands; as has been identified, we expect it to be far more—who have gone missing. What assessment have the Government done of reoffending in that group? Funnily enough, I asked about reoffending rates and assessments that the Home Office was doing in cases of court delays, where people accused of sexual offences against children or adults are waiting years and years. I wanted to understand what measures were being put in place to ensure that reoffending was not happening in cases waiting for three or four years to get to court. That came across my desk because of a multiple child abuse case, where the victims had been waiting five years for their court date, and it was then put off for another year. They will be adults, incidentally, when they sit in the court room. It was found that the perpetrator in that case was living with children. The House might not be surprised to hear that he had not notified anybody.

I asked the Home Office what assessment was being done of reoffending in this space and I also asked the Ministry of Justice. I did get an answer: they are not doing an assessment of that reoffending. I find that harrowing. Where is the independent review looking into this issue and the management of sex offenders, which was, as we have all said, commissioned a year ago?

I will close my remarks by saying that if we want to know about the offender management that exists in this country, let alone whether it is robust, we need only read any of what HMICFRS—all those letters; we changed it to a ridiculously long name—has written about probation and police forces in this country and the level of reoffending in the groups we are talking about today. We should be under no illusion: safeguarding is not being achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Dines]

If I may say so, I have been afforded the utmost professionalism and courtesy by colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. It has been very helpful. We are working on this matter together; we were discussing it just yesterday.

[Mark Fletcher]

I thank the Minister for accepting the intervention. I admit that she is on a slightly sticky wicket today. I know that she personally cares passionately about the issues we are discussing. We have mentioned the robust system and not wanting to give people ideas. However, I return to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the review that was meant to be published. Will the Minister commit to at least some of us in this House being able to see that review? We will still not know the scale of the problem until we have seen that. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to letting at least some of us see it.

[Miss Dines]

The review is now complete and I am carefully considering the findings. There are some immediate actions that can be taken, including work to ensure that law enforcement partners are fully utilising and monitoring the tools, information and resources available, such as those provided by the Passport Office. As hon. Members will understand, some of it is very sensitive. However, I am currently considering it with the Home Secretary.

In addition to the internal review, there is lots of work being done. The former Home Secretary appointed Mick Creedon, a former chief constable of Derbyshire constabulary, to undertake an independent review into sex offender management more generally.