We should not ignore the truth about sexual offences

The Government was eager to emphasise the toughness of the Home Office review of the 1997 Sex Offenders Act, published yesterday. Following the ignorant mouthings that were exposed by the contentious Brass Eye programme on Channel 4, we must hope that this review will bring us back to the realm of common sense. A total of 15,000 names are on the sex offenders' register. That number will now expand, through a number of new measures (though not dramatically; consensual sex between teenagers will, rightly, no longer be a reason to be placed on the register). The range of offences requiring registration will be enlarged. Burglary with intent to rape will require automatic registration. British citizens convicted of sex offences overseas will for the first time be subject to the same registration requirements as offenders here. Registered sex offenders must inform the police of a change of address within eight days; failure to do so can be punished with a jail sentence of up to five years.

It is a relief to hear that the review has not acceded to the vociferous demands of tabloid newspapers for the public access to details of the register – despite a statement from the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, in which he publicly contemplated such a change. That was a disastrous signal, and we hope it will not be heard again. The review – set up a year before Mr Blunkett came into office – concludes that such access is "likely to hinder rather than help measures to protect children". A publicly accessible register would, as we saw with the News of the World's loathsome campaign, be little more than a licence for lawless vigilantes. Public access to the register can also make the register itself less effective. Under the existing system, 97 per cent of offenders comply with requirements; if names on the list are publicly accessible, offenders have a (dangerous) incentive not to register.

Perhaps the most important weakness of these proposals is the implication – if only by omission – that the main threat faced by victims of sexual abuse is from outsiders. The bitter truth is that, too often, offences are committed by relatives. Sounding off about the dangers of sex prowlers can be a way of avoiding confronting the heart of the matter. Accurate registers are useful. Most useful of all, however, is a society that seeks to confront sexual crime within the home. Registers must not make it possible for society to bury its head in the legal sand.