| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.15 pm
Mr. Maclean: It is appalling that the Government should even mention that I may have done similar things in my past life. I suspect that the Minister will not have the information to hand, but I should be grateful to be informed of any precedents for retrospective application.
Mr. Forth: The remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) raise an interesting question concerning how long previous ministerial misconduct can be taken into account in this place.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): In the right hon. Gentleman's case, for ever.
Mr. Forth: For quite a long time, but my right hon. Friend and I will have to learn to live with that. Following on from the thrust of what he said, I am worried about and intrigued by whether we are being consistent.
When we debated the previous amendment, which has been accepted, it was argued that we must be worried about what people have done in the past and must not put any obstruction in the way of the consideration of past misdemeanours and the application of the full force and benefit of the Bill. Having said that, we now seem to be saying that there is no obligation to consider what may have happened in the past. It may or may not be desirable, but, to use the intriguing word used by the hon. Member
for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), nothing provides that employers should "trawl" for previous offences or misdemeanours.
If we accept the thrust of what the hon. Lady argued only a few moments ago, however, I should have thought that obligatory trawling might be a good thing. I am anxious that we seem to be heading in two quite different directions. We have said that we must look back at past events and that they must all be taken into account, even if a long time has passed, but, if I understand correctly, we are now saying that there is no obligation to look back and that that may or may not happen, depending, presumably, on the employer's judgment or, more worryingly, on whether he is inclined, or can be bothered, to investigate.
If we have come down to that, a weakness may be beginning to emerge. An employer may not be inclined, or may not have the facility or the resources to trawl--to use the word used by the hon. Member for Stourbridge. Is there any danger that we are encouraging or creating a loophole?
We have almost reached the final stage in our deliberations on the Bill and we are getting it ready to be passed to the other place for further consideration. I have raised this question because I do not want such weaknesses to emerge at such a stage, although I am comforted because they could still be corrected finally by the revising Chamber, which, I am delighted to say, is still with us and is still doing such a wonderful job.
Mr. Hammond:
I welcome the principle of the amendment, which closes what appears to be a gap in the wording of clause 2 and makes it absolutely clear that there is no requirement on employers to go back through their records and report what happened in the past. In the great generality of cases, that will be welcome clarification. Retrospective cases will be referred as a result of amendment No. 21 being agreed to, and this amendment will bring such cases into line with cases referred under the normal provisions of clause 2. It is equitable to do so.
Another problem occurred to me as the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) was speaking. I may have misunderstood what she said, so I should like clarification. The hon. Lady noted, as did my right hon. Friends, that, although child care organisations will not be required to make a referral in relation to something that occurred before the coming into force of this measure, they will be permitted to do so. To a large extent, that simply reflects the current position, in which voluntary referrals can be made to the Secretary of State for inclusion in his non-statutory list. However, the hon. Lady said that voluntary referrals would not be included in the list until the Secretary of State was sure that they met the criteria set down in clause 2(3).
My understanding is that no one will be put on the list unless the Secretary of State is sure that he or she meets the criteria listed in clause 2(3), because it must appear to the Secretary of State, from the information submitted with the reference, that it may be appropriate for the individual to be included in the list before he or she is even provisionally included.
The implication behind the hon. Lady's remarks is that the way in which the Secretary of State will deal with voluntary references about events that occurred before the
Act comes into force will somehow be different from the way in which he will deal with statutory referrals after the Act comes into force. I am not sure, from what she said, how that is the case. I wonder whether she intended to imply that those who were referred voluntarily in respect of events occurring before the statute came into operation would not be subject to the provisional inclusion regime, but would be left off the list altogether until the Secretary of State had completed the processes set out in subsection (3) and made a decision, as is required of him in subsection (5). It would be helpful if the hon. Lady would clarify that point.
Ms Shipley:
It might be worth my reiterating--I may have stumbled over my words--the precise wording, because it is very important. As with all aspects of this technical Bill, the wording must be precise.
As I explained, such cases will not be automatically entered into the procedure for considering listing by the Secretary of State unless and until he is satisfied that they are eligible under clause 2(3) criteria.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms Shipley:
I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 5, line 14, leave out
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 26, in page 5, line 17, leave out
Ms Shipley:
The amendments will allow the new tribunal to hear appeals against decisions by the National Assembly for Wales to put someone on List 99, as well as appeals against decisions made by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
The amendments are necessary because the powers of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988 in respect of Wales will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. The transfer will include the power to bar teachers on the new grounds set out in clause 5. As a result, the new tribunal will have to be able to hear appeals from people who are barred by the Assembly as well as by the Secretary of State.
Removing references to the Secretary of State from clause 6 will enable the tribunal to hear appeals against any decision to put someone on List 99, regardless of whether the decision is made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Maclean:
I had not intended to comment on the amendment, but I have just one query which the Minister might be able to answer. If the words
No doubt there is some technical, legal, drafting reason why that is not possible, and I do not want to delay the House as people frantically advance the reasons. If the Minister does not want to respond to me now, I am happy for him to send me a little note explaining why he wants to delete the reference to the Secretary of State and leave the provision anonymous, and why he does not want to take up my suggestion.
Mr. Hutton:
The right hon. Gentleman is right. I am happy to correspond with him about that issue.
Mr. Maclean:
I am grateful to the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 26, in page 5, line 17, leave out
Mr. Lansley:
I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 6, line 36, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in page 6, line 48, at end insert--
Amendment made: No. 24, in page 3, line 16, after 'above' insert
', or the condition mentioned in section 2(2A) above,'.--[Ms Shipley.]
'of the Secretary of State'.
'of the Secretary of State'.
"of the Secretary of State"
are deleted from subsections (1)(a) and (b), the first sentence is left hanging and reads "a decision . . . to prohibit". When I initially considered the amendment, I asked myself who would be making that decision. I now understand the reasons that the hon. Lady has advanced. As it will be either the Secretary of State in England or the Welsh Assembly in Wales, why leave it blank? Is there some good reason why the Bill cannot be amended to say "a decision by the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Welsh Assembly"? That would make it absolutely clear.
'of the Secretary of State'.--[Ms Shipley.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |