'(1) Police cautions, including conditional cautions under Part 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), shall not be issued in relation to offences against a child under the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) and Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42), save in the circumstances provided for in subsection (2).

(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where the person issuing the caution believes that the person in receipt of the caution is not likely to commit further offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 or Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

(3) In this section, child means a person under 16 years old.'. — [Bob Spink.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2— Encrypted data and indecent photographs of a child—

'(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 53 (failure to comply with a notice)—

(a) after subsection (5A)(a) there is inserted—

"(aa) in a case to which subsection (6) applies, seven years;"

(b) after subsection (5B) there is inserted—

"(6) This subsection applies where—

(a) a person has been previously convicted of an offence contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37) or section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. 33); or

(b) the apparatus or data storage device containing the protected information contains an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or

(c) the apparatus or data storage device containing the protected information has come into the possession of any person together with other apparatus or a data storage device which contains an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child; or

(d) the court is satisfied that the protected information is likely to contain an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child.

(7) Subsection (b) will not apply where the person to whom the notice is given can show that the protected information does not contain an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child.

(8) In this section 'indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child' shall have the same meaning as that set out in the Protection of Children Act 1978 (c. 37)".

(3) After paragraph 36 of Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) there is inserted—

"36A An offence under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) if subsection (6) of that section applies."'.

New clause 3— Extension of offences requiring notification—

'After paragraph 29 of Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) there shall be inserted—

"29A An offence under sections 48 to 50 of this Act (abuse of children through prostitution and pornography) where the offender—

(a) was 18 or over, or

(b) is or has been sentenced in respect of the offences for a term of at least 12 months".'.

New clause 9— Police powers of entry and examination of relevant offender's home address—

After section 88 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) there is inserted—

"88A Police powers of entry and examination of relevant offender's home address for confirmation of residency and risk assessment

(1) Upon application by a constable of a relevant force a justice of the peace may grant a warrant authorising him to enter premises named on the warrant if he is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied and that it is necessary for a warrant to be issued.

(2) The conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are—

(a) that it is necessary to enter the premises named on the warrant to confirm the residency and risk assessment of the relevant person;

(b) that it would assist the carrying out of the purpose of confirmation of residency and risk assessment, for a constable of the relevant force to examine and search the premises and the things in them; and

(c) that on more than one occasion a constable of the relevant force has attempted to examine and search the premises and the things in them for the purpose of ascertaining residency and risk assessing the offender and has been unable (whether by not being able to search and examine the premises and the things in them, or by not being able to obtain entry to the premises) to do so.

(3) Section 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) applies to warrants issued under subsections (1) above as though it were a search warrant issued under that Act.

(4) The power to issue a warrant conferred by this section is in addition to any such power otherwise conferred.

(5) This section does not prejudice any other power of entry, examination, search or seizure.

(6) In this section—

'premises' means an address whose address has been notified by a relevant offender under sections 83 to 85 of this Act.'the relevant force' means the police force maintained for the area in which the premises are situated." '.

New clause 10— Duty on sexual or violent offender to co-operate—

After section 67 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) insert—

"67A Duty on offender to co-operate

(1) A relevant sexual or violent offender shall co-operate with any reasonable steps requested of him by the responsible authority.

(2) 'Reasonable steps' shall:

(a) include, but not be restricted to, providing access to his home address during a reasonable time of day to facilitate a risk assessment by the responsible authority; and

(b) be restricted to steps necessary for them to discharge their responsibility under section 67 of this Act to assess the risk posed by the offender.

(3) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a reasonable step requested by him under subsection (1) of this section shall be liable upon summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both.

(4) In this section—

'relevant sexual or violent offender' has the meaning given by section 68;'responsible authority' shall have the meaning given by section 67;'home address' shall have the meaning given by section 83(7) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)." '.

Amendment No. 42, in title, line 8, after 'children', insert

'and offences relating to child pornography.'.

According to answers to my parliamentary questions, the police cautioned 807 people in the past two years alone, mostly for taking indecent photographs of children. Given the nature of paedophiles and their tendency to reoffend, it is a fair assumption that some and probably many of those 807 people went on to commit further offences, which may or may not have been detected. Those offences clearly damage our innocent young children. The use of cautions in those circumstances, rather than the public trial that such people deserve, helps them to reoffend and therefore damages our children.

All hon. Members know that those offences destroy children and families. I put it to the House that, if only one of those 807 people went on to reoffend—the House must remember that they have admitted their offence and that they are guilty of an offence against innocent children—the use of the caution was wrong in all cases and should not have been used. Cautions should be used generally only where, first, the offence, which must be admitted in full by the criminal, has only minor consequences for either individual victims or society at large and, secondly, where offenders are unlikely to reoffend, where the caution will do the job of pulling them up, showing them that what they did was wrong and preventing them from going on to reoffend. Clearly, neither of those two tests is usually met in the case of paedophile activity.

Instead of leaving the decision about whether to caution to a police officer, who may or may not be an expert in dealing with serious child abuse, Parliament—which should protect our children, not the abusers—should prevent the use of cautions for paedophile activity in all but truly exceptional cases. New clause 1(2) sets out the exceptional case, where the officer believes that the offender is unlikely to commit further offences, but that exception would not normally apply. Once paedophiles are apprehended, they should be put through the courts—the right place for such serious offences, thus ensuring that the public are aware of their proclivities and giving parents in the locality a better chance of defending their innocent children by keeping an eye on the offenders.

When the subject was debated before in the House, the argument was advanced that it is sometimes easier to secure a confession and therefore to impose a caution than to secure a conviction. It was argued that it is therefore sometimes possible to pin down someone as an offender by offering a caution, when they might escape conviction if the matter was taken before the courts. That is a serious argument against taking people who abuse children before the courts, and I should like to address it very briefly now.

The offence and its consequences are so serious that I believe that, on balance, a trial in court is the right way forward in almost all cases. The use of summary powers that the Bill generally seeks to extend is not appropriate for such particularly obnoxious offences. I strongly suspect anyway that an offence is only admitted and a caution only accepted by paedophiles when they know that the evidence against them is so compelling that they would be found guilty, since the cautioned criminal will be entered in any event on to the sex offenders register and no reasonable person would accept that lightly without the very high probability or almost certainty of being found guilty at trial.

I am sure the House will be surprised that the use of cautions for such offences has increased almost tenfold over the past few years. I want that trend to be reversed. I want paedophiles to get the justice that they deserve and our children to get the protection that they deserve. I hope that hon. Members will support my new clause, which would let the police, the courts and the public know that the House takes the matter very seriously and is intent on giving maximum protection to our innocent children.

I shall speak to new clauses 2, 3, 9 and 10 and amendment No. 42, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself. I welcome the Minister to his new post. We are not discussing teeth, and I am sure that he and I are both pleased about that, but the subject that we are discussing is very grim, and it is a bit hard for him to be covering it on his first day at the Dispatch Box.

The new clauses strengthen the law against sex offenders, especially against those who offend against children. As the Minister will know from his background research, I have spent some time with the Metropolitan police paedophile unit and the issue has developed into something of a minor campaign for me. There has been enormous co-operation between various Home Office Ministers, civil servants, Conservative Front Benchers and me. Perhaps the best example is the Committee stage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which saw some very close discussion and changes. It was an unusual Committee stage because of the co-operation. In effect, the new clauses derive from those discussions.

At that stage, the then Minister, Paul Goggins, asked that the ideas that I am putting forward today be stored for further consideration. Over recent weeks, my small team of Alisdair Gillespie, who is an academic barrister and a specialist in this area, Detective Chief Inspector Matt Sarti and I—we are all on the unit that is working on this area in the Home Office, although I must admit that their attendance is considerably better than mine—had a number of meetings with the Minister's predecessor to discuss the way forward on the new clauses.

Amendment No. 42 simply broadens the long title to enable the new clauses to be covered. The meat of the clauses starts with new clause 2 on encryption. It is well known that paedophiles collect child abuse pornographic photographic images, some of which are real and some of which are pseudo. There has been a huge increase in such activity with the arrival of the internet, and the activity is expanding massively at the moment. Paedophiles use the images to stimulate themselves and others. The images are sold between individuals, frequently not for financial gain, but for new abuse images. One must remember that every single abuse photograph represents at least one child being abused on one occasion. The thought of new images being constantly produced to fulfil that demand is quite horrific.

Many of the images are in the form of videos or DVDs or are on computers. Increasingly, they are kept on remote storage. Some of the computers that the police collect have no hard drives at all. They are driven or initiated by a disk and the information is stored remotely. Increasingly, the information is hidden by encryption. We used to have simple encryption, but we have moved to 128 bit and, even more, to 256 bit encryption. The software is freely available on the internet and relatively easy to use. Essentially, it is unbreakable.

The other thing that particularly alarms me is that Vista, which is the replacement for Windows OS, is due out generally next year. Once that system is on board the security is such that, when the computer is turned off, it automatically encrypts all the information on it so that when the police collect the computer and turn it on, they cannot break through the encryption. Some information can be destroyed, preventing access by the police. The police clearly need access for obvious reasons. They need to seek evidence against individuals and, frequently—because offenders sometimes work in packs or groups—against others. In a way, perhaps it is even more important that the police can identify the children in the photographs and movies. Once those children have been located, it is possible to seek care and counselling for them to try to bring them back into a normal life. There is some evidence that abused children go on to become abusers themselves.

The new clause deals with encrypted data found on computers and storage in cases where the police believe that the encrypted data contain abusive images of children. It does not create any new offence or scheme, but rather amends the sentencing regime under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which is commonly known as RIPA. Part III requires a person to comply with a notice issued by the police to hand over the encryption key for protected data. The penalty for a breach is two years, but that is ludicrous for a paedophile because the alternative penalty, if the information was turned over, would often be five years or more and, frequently, having to go on the sex offenders list. Accordingly, it is unlikely that an offender who has indecent and abusive photographs of children on his computer would comply with the notice. To achieve compliance, we need to step up the penalty, so I suggest that such offenders should be liable for up to 10 years' imprisonment, which is the penalty for contravening section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978—there is thinking and a link behind the idea.

The new clause would simply raise the sentence if a court was satisfied that it was more than likely that the majority of the encrypted data consisted of indecent photographs of children. I suggest that the civil burden is permissible because the offence would be not possessing the photographs of children, which would be punished separately, but the failure to hand over the key. The higher sentence would apply only when one of two thresholds was passed: first, that the computer had non-encrypted indecent photos of children or a child on it, as an indication; or, secondly, that the person had been previously convicted of an offence contrary to section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 or section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

I will move on to new clause 3. Sections 48 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which make provision for the offences of recruiting or controlling a child involved in pornography or prostitution, are not, for some reason, prescribed for the purposes of notification requirements under part 2 of the Act. I am afraid that my Front-Bench colleagues and I missed that when the legislation was passed. Those sections are not being used by the police and prosecutors because they do not have the notification that applies to most of, if not all, the other provisions relating to the abuse of children. I hope that the Minister will agree that there is no valid reason why people convicted of such an offence should not be required to notify the police of their details, because they are directly involved in the abuse and exploitation of children and need monitoring and risk assessment.

New clauses 9 and 10 are two different approaches to the same problem: the risk assessment of offenders on the sex offenders list. It is coincidental that we are debating the matter today because it relates to two recent high-profile cases: today there was a report on the rapist and murderer of Naomi Bryant, and, three or so weeks ago, a paedophile was reported as having persistently raped a nine-year-old girl over a period of three years. Both people were on the sex offenders list, and it is possible that a change along the lines that I am suggesting could have helped in those cases.

The police in this country are required to risk-assess offenders. The House will be aware that paedophiles are especially prone to reoffend. If I may quote a well-known barrister steeped in the practice of defending paedophiles—I cannot think of a more obnoxious task—they are the "most devious, lying individuals" she has ever had to deal with.

Most western countries have sex offenders lists and virtually all require risk assessment. Most give the police the opportunity to do that, but, unfortunately, those undertaking such risk assessments in this country have limited rights of access. Here, to date, most offenders co-operate, but I am fairly sure that that is mainly because they are ignorant of the fact that they can shut the door in the face of the police or their agents who come to check a residency for the purposes of a risk assessment.

Unfortunately, it is increasingly becoming apparent that more and more such individuals are realising that there is a flaw in the legislation. Many give false or temporary addresses. They move to caravans or move around in caravans. I know of a group of them who live in canal boats in London. Some live with relatives, or give relatives' addresses. It is quite hideously worrying for the police that one individual, whom I will not name, owns a block of flats, and, as far as he is concerned, the front door of the block of flats is his front door. The police thus cannot get into the block, although they are aware that single-parent mothers and their children live in flats in that block—one's imagination can run with that.

We discussed all these matters with the Minister's predecessor. I felt that there was general agreement between my team and the Minister that change was needed, but it was the approach that we were discussing. New clause 9 follows the approach that I believe the Minister and his advisers wish to follow. I understand that it is the approach that has been taken in Scotland. Ministers prefer that both countries should have comparable legislation, unless we can arrive at better legislation. In spite of my Scottish ancestry, it might be appropriate that we have better legislation here in England and that the Scots copy us rather than the other way round.

New clause 9 enables the police to obtain a warrant to ensure confirmation and risk assessment. I personally feel that new clause 10 is a better approach. It is a lateral-thinking approach in that it requires the offender to co-operate, both within a reasonable excess request and to co-operate with any reasonable risk assessment requests. The clause goes further than new clause 9 but is gentler. New clause 9 requires admission and new clause 10 co-operation. I think that we will find that most of our beleagured police forces would prefer new clause 10 because it goes that step further.

I suspect that some people may believe that the human rights of the offenders that we are discussing are being breached. I point to the word "reasonable", which appears in both of the new clauses. Secondly, it would be rather nice if we considered the human rights of the children who could be abused. Child sex offenders frequently go on to abuse. They abuse the human rights of individuals. Some offenders may rape, something which I have mentioned already. There is sometimes murder, as has been reported in today's media.

I hope that the Minister will see that there is an opportunity to act now. It is an opportunity to move: before even Microsoft is ready for us, we are ready for it. Delay would leave a breathing space for some horrible offenders who have a record of often horrendous abuse towards innocent members of our society, especially children. There is a figure that the police gave me some years ago; they conservatively estimate that there are 230,000 active paedophiles, many of whom are women, in this country. That is a sufficient number for one in every street.

I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend Bob Spink. I understand that conditional cautions were being handed out as a means of discouraging people who might have committed one offence from committing further offences. It was a form of warning. As my hon. Friend said, it was a way of pulling people up short. It is clear that the system is being flagrantly abused. It seems to have been transmogrified into a means of keeping people out of the courts and ultimately out of prison, which I believe is a means of saving money. I find that unacceptable.

Labour Members will know that only one crime in 20 is solved. I believe that that includes the 30,000 or so people who are issued with cautions every year. That means that anyone who commits a crime can be assumed to have committed at least 20 offences before being caught. We have been discussing paedophiles disseminating child pornography, and it is reasonable to assume that they will have committed many more than 20 offences when they are finally caught.

It is ludicrous that we caution people who have committed such serious offences. We issue cautions for offences such as burglary or grievous bodily harm. I would much rather scrap the system of cautions when people have committed serious crime and bring them to court, punish them and give their victims justice. If we must continue with the ludicrous system of cautions, which is abused, the very least that we can do is try to ensure that those who have committed the most serious offences are not able to escape justice by accepting caution. There are not many offences that are more serious than disseminating child pornography and abusing children for some perverted and twisted personal enjoyment. It is only appropriate that we remove the right of criminals to be able to accept a caution for something as serious as the offences that they have committed.

In welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post, I should like to draw his attention to a loophole in the existing legislation. Individuals on the sex offenders register can be elected as local councillors. They are not covered by guidance from the standards commission, as they were included on the sex offenders register before it was introduced. If we expect local councillors to have close links with local schools and vulnerable people there ought to be a means whereby their inclusion on the register is considered in risk assessment by local authorities and the police.

In the past 12 months and over a longer period, I have gone round the houses raising the issue with the Standards Board for England, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office. I raised it with my right hon. Friend Ruth Kelly, who was then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, during the passage of earlier legislation in the House, and I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter in January. I asked the Home Office

"whether the proposals to develop a new vetting and barring scheme will include provisions to bar those on the sex offenders register from holding office...as a local councillor and...on a police authority".—[ Hansard, 3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 1630W.]

I was told that that was a matter for the Education Secretary and that responsibilities for vetting procedures for the police lie with the Home Office and those for local councillors with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Having gone round the houses, there is still a flaw or loophole in the legislation. My constituents are very concerned indeed that a local councillor in a position of authority may have to deal with residents' worries about people on the sex offenders register, so I urge the Minister to consider whether that loophole should be allowed to exist.

I, too, welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box.

In tabling new clause 1, my hon. Friend Bob Spink has done the House a considerable service, as he has raised an extremely important issue that causes people anxiety. The granting of cautions for serious offences is bound to cause public disquiet. The circumstances surrounding recent cases tend to relate to serious allegations of sexual misconduct against children or others which, however, are very old—sometimes those allegations were made 20 to 25 years previously. The Crown Prosecution Service may have considerable anxieties about whether a conviction can be secured, whether the evidence can be put together, and whether a trial will be a difficult undertaking in the circumstances. I entirely accept that one must bear that in mind, so I have some sympathy with the problems faced by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

The paedophile police, if I may use Daily Mail terminology, say that if they get offenders or potential offenders early, they use the caution as a means of forcing them to get treatment, which does not necessarily land on the taxpayer.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The cases that I was citing are cases in which, I fear, the person concerned has gone on to commit a multiplicity of offences, but there is no evidence that he has been committing offences for some time. In some cases the alleged offender is very old.

Difficult issues are involved. I have anxieties about the principle of cautions being used in serious offences. It cuts both ways. If the offence is very serious, people may end up accepting cautions when they ought to be pleading not guilty to the offence. That is a form of plea bargaining, and we know—we will come to it in the next group of amendments—that there may be a massive disparity between the sentence that a person may attract if they are convicted in court, and the relatively lenient sentence that may be visited on them if they accept their guilt previously.

I am following my hon. Friend's arguments carefully, and he is making a lot of sense, but given that accepting a caution means that the offender will go on the sex offenders register for offences against children, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that it is highly unlikely—indeed, unthinkable—that anyone would accept a caution and not go to court, if they were innocent?

I hesitate to be so certain in my own mind. We know enough about the criminal justice system to know that it is human and fallible. Sometimes accusations are made against individuals that are subsequently shown at trial not just to be unproven, but to be wholly wrong. There are circumstances about which I have anxieties. Those go beyond cautioning to extensive plea bargaining, with huge disparities between the sentence that will be attracted on conviction and that which will be visited on a guilty plea. One can end up with a situation—I see the Minister nodding—where there are excessive inducements to individuals to try to bring the matter to a premature conclusion.

These are difficult matters, and those of us who have practised in the courts know the difficulties that we sometimes have in getting our clients to sign the back sheets of our briefs to indicate that they have been fully advised about cases before they accept any form of formal or informal plea bargaining. I wait with interest to hear what the Minister says in response. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point is that this is a matter that should properly concern Parliament.

I shall not repeat the arguments ably put by my hon. Friend Sir Paul Beresford. Over a number of years he has been assiduous in trying to deal with the problem of paedophile sex offenders. We have had a number of opportunities, which we have sometimes missed, to try to firm up the framework of the legislation that we need to deal with them. As my hon. Friend rightly said, they are sometimes offenders whose high intelligence means that they have a unique capacity to wriggle off the hook, coupled with their unique capacity for self-denial about their behaviour.

On the issues of child pornography that are at the centre of new clause 2, we know from all the research that has been carried out that there is an absolute causal link between the use of child pornography and the commission of substantive offences. That is becoming so abundantly clear that it raises some extremely difficult questions about, for instance, pseudo-photographs and even cartoons, and the extent to which we are over-tolerant of those and reluctant to prosecute those who may possess them. That is one of the serious matters that the House must go on to consider in future.

What my hon. Friend proposes strikes me as eminently reasonable, and we support him. We take the view that penalties must be sufficient to act as a clear incentive to provide the keys to the encrypted data. If, in fact, people can escape with a rap over the knuckles by not providing the data and thereby save themselves from a substantial term of imprisonment, it is clear that many will avail themselves of that opportunity and that such cases will become more frequent when encryption becomes more readily available.

So far as notification and powers of entry and examination are concerned, I have no difficulties in terms of human rights in saying that those who have been convicted of such offences can properly be placed under a regime on release—we know that we must do this for public protection—which may curtail some of the rights that others may enjoy. Entry into a person's property to check whether there are clear signs that, notwithstanding whatever treatment that person may have received when they were in custody, the problems, which are of an wholly obsessional nature, are present and that that person is liable to commit further offences or is committing further offences such as downloading pornography or having pornographic material in their home seems to strike a reasonable balance. Whether the Government adopt new clause 10 or new clause 9, I hope that they respond positively, because we have raised the matter previously and the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley is valuable.

I do not want to take up any more of the House's time. The matter has no party political aspect, and I hope that the Government will provide some reassurance that they will take this opportunity. On a number of occasions, we have missed such opportunities, and those of us who want to see something done look at each criminal justice Bill to see whether we can hang something on it. There is an opportunity, and when the Bill finally goes through, I hope that we receive reassurance that some of the loopholes have been covered.

I begin by associating myself wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend Joan Walley and the hon. Members for Castle Point (Bob Spink) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). The hon. Member for Mole Valley welcomed the approach adopted by my hon. Friend Paul Goggins when he was responsible for these matters, which I intend to continue in future. The motivation behind all the new clauses is shared on both sides of the House.

I will assist my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North in obtaining an answer to her questions. I led for the Department of Health on the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, so I am familiar with some of the issues that she has highlighted.

New clause 1 seeks to ensure that an offender who is involved in making and distributing indecent photographs of children or who commits a sexual offence—for example, rape, sexual assault or sexual grooming—is not given a caution, with or without conditions, unless it is clear that that person is unlikely to commit further offences of that nature again. Conditional cautioning may not be considered for any of those offences, bar one, because they are all either-way or indictable-only offences and are therefore not included in the list of offences in the Director of Public Prosecutions guidance on conditional cautioning issued in December 2004.

Decisions about cautions cannot be taken by the police alone. The DPP's guidance on charging issued in January 2005 makes it clear that police must refer all indictable-only offences to a prosecutor, which is a point that the hon. Member for Castle Point made forcefully. It is important that police officers have recourse to the specialisms that prosecutors can bring, and police cannot administer a simple caution in those cases at their own discretion.

The decision on the right course of action is framed by the simple guidance set out in the code for Crown prosecutors—the more serious the offence, the more likely it is that prosecution will be needed in the public interest. Indeed, one of the specific factors in favour of prosecution is listed in the code at paragraph 5.9:

"there are grounds for believing that the offence is likely to be continued or repeated, for example, by a history of recurring conduct".

A review of cases in this area has shown that there are truly exceptional circumstances, as the hon. Member for Castle Point acknowledged, in which prosecutors should be allowed to consider caution. Mr. Grieve alluded to that sentiment and provided some examples. One further example could involve an allegation of rape by one child against another, where a final warning is accompanied by packages of treatment in a programme of interventions designed by youth offending teams or social services to address the offender's inappropriate sexual behaviour. In such truly exceptional circumstances, the offence may be suitable for disposal by a caution, but only providing that all the criteria are met.

The hon. Member for Castle Point referred to some of the consequences of a caution. It is true that, in the absence of a charge, a caution is better than dealing with the case by no further action, or better than detecting but not proceeding. A caution has the benefit of ensuring that the offence at least appears on the person's criminal record and can be cited in future proceedings. It is also significant that the offender will become subject to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for two years from the date of the caution or for one year in the case of a youth offender.

The hon. Member for Castle Point is right to say that it is important to exercise great care in taking the decision whether to caution those who admit offences of this nature, and that a trial is right in almost all such cases. The risk of re-offending is, of course, one of the key factors to take into account in the decision-making process. The existing guidance on cautioning and charging, and the principles set out in the code for Crown prosecutors, provide the necessary safeguards.

For those reasons, we believe that it is desirable that the opportunity to use a simple caution for offences of this nature should continue to exist for extraordinary cases, but with reference to the important principle: the more serious the crime, the more important it is to prosecute. I think that the House is united in its view about the gravity of these offences.

I welcome the Minister to his new position, which I forgot to mention earlier. I welcome his approach to the problem, but does he share my concern at the fact that, over the last two years alone, 807 cautions have been given, mostly for the taking of indecent photographs of children? Does not that massive increase give rise to serious concern?

I share that concern and I was keen to understand the issue when it was raised in my briefing from officials at the Home Office. The assurance that I have been given is that the new codes, particularly the one for the Crown prosecutors, will confront those issues head on.

I would like to deal now with new clause 2, the ambitions of which are welcome. As the hon. Member for Mole Valley explained, the new clause is designed to increase the maximum penalty for an offence under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—failing to comply with a requirement to disclose protected information or the key to it. The increase in the maximum penalty would apply in the circumstances set out in new subsection (6) of section 53 of RlPA, including where the offender has a previous conviction for possession of indecent images of a child.

The use of encryption is, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley pointed out, proliferating. Encryption products are more widely available and are integrated as security features in standard operating systems, so the Government have concluded that it is now right to implement the provisions of part 3 of RIPA, including section 53, which is not in force.

The threat to public safety posed by terrorist use of encryption technology was recognised in section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2006, which increased the maximum penalty for the section 53 offence to five years in a national security case. The Government will therefore publish for consultation a draft statutory code of practice for the investigation of protected electronic data and the exercise of powers in part 3 of RIPA.

We have previously given an undertaking to bring forward proposals in line with new clause 2 in the context of consulting on the implementation of part 3, and we shall shortly begin those consultations. We remain very sympathetic to what the new clause is designed to do, but we want to allow an opportunity for public consideration and comment on the proposals first, before implementing any legislative changes.

On new clause 3, schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 lists the offences for which a conviction, finding or caution will, subject to certain sentencing thresholds being met, result in the offender being made subject to the notification requirements of part 2 of the 2003 Act—more commonly known as the sex offenders register. When schedule 3 was drawn up, we decided not to include the offences under sections 48 to 50 of the 2003 Act because we were of the view that such offences could be motivated by factors such as greed. We did, however, include the offences in schedule 5 to the 2003 Act. Inclusion in schedule 5 means that if there is a demonstrable risk of serious sexual harm from the offenders, courts can make a sexual offences prevention order either when dealing with such an offender or on subsequent application from the police. That order has the effect of placing the offender on to the sex offenders register as well as making him subject to the prohibitions imposed by the order itself.

I am, however, extremely sympathetic to the view of the hon. Member for Mole Valley that, while offences in sections 48 to 50 are not strictly sexual offences, those who perpetrate them demonstrate, at the very least, a callous disregard of the sexual well-being of children, pose a threat, and may require the monitoring that registration brings. My officials will therefore review the content of schedules 3 and 5 over the summer. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his proposals will be central to that review. Changes to schedules 3 and 5 do not require primary legislation and can be made by order subject to affirmative resolution. Instead of making piecemeal changes today, we should await the results of the review and look to make all necessary changes through an order to be laid in the autumn. This morning, after we spoke, I explored precisely what order-making powers are available under section 130 of the 2003 Act.

New clause 9 introduces a new power for the police to enter and search the home address of offenders who are subject to the notification requirements of part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On that point, I associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mole Valley for the work that he has undertaken. In 2005, he dedicated his private Member's Bill to this issue, and I very much appreciate the thought that he has given to it. In March, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East said that although we had previously rejected measures similar to those contained in the new clause, we must keep our position open and under review.

In recent months, several developments have caused the Government to review that position. Professor Irving's report for the Scottish Executive looked carefully at the way in which offenders are managed in the community to minimise the risk that they pose. Professor Irving concluded that a power of entry for the police was necessary. Officials at the Home Office conducted a review of the effectiveness of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, taking into account the views of law enforcement professionals, prosecutors and the courts, and reached a similar conclusion. As the hon. Member for Mole Valley is aware, officials have been working on drafting an appropriate clause, and we are seeking an appropriate legislative vehicle to make the change. I assure him that we are giving these issues very serious consideration, and we hope to be in a position to put something before Parliament in the near future. Government conventions prevent me from going any further at this stage, but I know that he will be aware of programmes in another place.

Finally, I want to say a few words about new clause 10. Hon. Members will be aware that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides the statutory framework for inter-agency co-operation in assessing and managing violent offenders and sex offenders under arrangements known as multi-agency public protection arrangements. I should like to offer the House officials' first view of the new clauses drafted by the hon. Member for Mole Valley, which may need further reflection. Under the arrangements, the police and probation services and the Prison Service, supported by additional agencies, work together to manage the risk posed by dangerous offenders to the public. The "critical few" offenders who pose the highest risk are referred to a multi-agency public protection panel—MAPPP—where their cases are regularly scrutinised by senior representatives of local agencies.

As I understand it, new clause 10 tries to introduce a requirement on all such offenders to "co-operate" with any "reasonable steps" imposed on them by any responsible authority. That would include the probation and police services and the Prison Service. Failure to do that would be a criminal offence. However, we believe that the new clause may need further reflection because, in a great many cases, MAPPA offenders will be subject to the sex offenders register, a community penalty and/or release from imprisonment on licence. That means that there will already be clear requirements on the offenders, with repercussions if they fail to comply. We would therefore like the opportunity to give the matter further consideration.

In the light of those comments, I hope that my assurances will provide sufficient comfort for hon. Members to agree to withdraw the motion but to work with us on implementing their ambitions.

I am grateful to the Minister for considering the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.