---

Mr. Hoon: I have read the relevant report. I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman picked out only those aspects of it that make the Opposition case and failed to read the full report as thoroughly as he should when making such representations. Contrary to what he said, the report reveals that there has been a significant improvement—since 1997, I might add—in reducing the number of failing schools. When the hon. Gentleman makes such observations, I hope that he will give the House the full picture rather than simply select the highlights that make the Opposition's political case.
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 433
 

 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 435
 

Safeguarding Children

12.5 pm

The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Ruth Kelly): I am grateful for this opportunity to make a statement about the arrangements for vetting and barring those who work with children. As the House knows, I laid a written ministerial statement at 9.30 yesterday morning and I now want to update Members of the House and answer questions.

Child protection has been a top priority for the Government, as it was for previous Administrations. Over the past 10 years, the child protection system has improved fundamentally as a result of action first taken by the Conservatives, on which we have built, with cross-party support, in reforming our sex offences laws and setting up the Criminal Records Bureau. Given the scale of change over the last decade, it is helpful to set out briefly the systems currently in place before examining how the issues have arisen and what I propose to do about them.

List 99 covers those barred for life from working in schools and has been in place for decades. The decision-making process has remained substantially the same, with Ministers in successive Governments required under law to make sensitive child protection judgments on individuals who have come to the attention of the police. Members on both sides of the House will have experience of making such difficult judgments.

We have significantly tightened List 99 in recent years, with more individuals automatically barred from working with children, and the criteria for inclusion on List 99 being broadened. However, the list does not act in isolation. The previous Government paved the way for the introduction of the sex offenders register, which came into force in 1997. We established the Criminal Records Bureau, which reveals all cautions and convictions to employers where relevant. We have now committed to strengthen the system further through the implementation of a new vetting and barring scheme, as recommended by Sir Michael Bichard. All those measures significantly tightened the protection available to children and ensured that we have some of the toughest sex offender laws in Europe.

The system currently works in the following way. Where a teacher is convicted of one of a number of specified offences they will automatically be included on List 99, which bars them for life from working in schools. The vast majority of sex offenders are therefore automatically barred from working in schools. For other offences, or where the individual has received a caution, the law currently requires each case to be considered individually and a decision taken by Ministers, based on evidence and advice, even though the individual may have been placed by the police on the sex offenders register.

In my statement yesterday I said that initial inquiries indicate a small number of such difficult cases. I fully understand the concern that that has caused and I am determined to do something about it. I have, therefore, commissioned as a matter of urgency an exhaustive review of all such cases since the introduction of the sex offenders register in 1997, to confirm the precise number of those individuals, their whereabouts and whether their behaviour has been of concern to the authorities.
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 436
 

I am sure, however, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those cases raise questions about whether the long-standing arrangements need to be changed. I will therefore also review urgently the decision-making process surrounding such cases and the policy implications—in particular, how the closest possible alignment can be secured between List 99, the sex offenders register and other data sources; whether Ministers can be removed from the decision-making process; and how police advice can be more fully considered prior to decisions being made. That review will take place with the greatest possible speed, and I will report to the House as soon as the facts have been established and I have reached my conclusion.

I reiterate the Government's commitment to implement Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations to tighten the system for vetting and barring those who wish to work with children and vulnerable adults and to introduce legislation in this Session of Parliament. The Bichard system will also entail the vetting in advance of entry into the children's work force, the continuous updating of police information and the ability for parents to check whether tutors, nannies and other individuals whom they employ are barred. It will ensure that cautions and convictions are treated exactly the same.

The House will remember that legislation to implement the Bichard report was in the Queen's Speech. I can announce today that the Government will be able to introduce that legislation at the end of February. Assuming the full co-operation of the other parties, I am confident that parliamentary time can be found for the Bill in this Session.

It is vital that public confidence in our child protection system is maintained. That is why I made a written statement to the House at 9.30 yesterday morning and why I am grateful to the House for this opportunity to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House. As Secretary of State, I am accountable for all decisions taken in my Department, and I am determined to keep the House and the public informed. I will make a further statement as soon as the full facts have been established.

Mr. David Willetts (Havant) (Con): I am pleased that the Secretary of State has come to the House to give the statement this morning, but it is extremely disappointing that all she can offer us today is another review and legislation that, in the Government's own words, was "urgent" 18 months ago. Why did she fail to begin by setting out the basic principle that sex offenders should not   be able to work in schools? The case of Mr. Reeve has    seriously undermined public confidence in her Department's ability to meet that basic principle.

The Secretary of State can restore people's confidence in the system only by answering the following questions, which she failed yet again to answer this morning. First, how many people on the sex offenders register are being allowed to work in schools? I tabled that question on Monday, but I have still not had an answer. That is not an obscure point that requires research in ancient files. We are talking about her Department consciously taking a decision that someone on the sex offenders register should be allowed to work in a school. That is a very sensitive decision indeed. Why can the Government not tell us, even now four days later, in respect of how many people they took that decision?
 
12 Jan 2006 : Column 437
 

Secondly, who took the decision that Mr. Reeve should be allowed to work at Hewett school? The Secretary of State hinted during the week that her junior Minister took the decision. He has replied that he is innocent. How can the Department be in such disarray that it does not even know who takes these decisions?

Thirdly, one of the main proposals from the Bichard inquiry after the Soham murders was that there should be a single list of sex offenders. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said:

"We will therefore urgently consider his recommendation that a register be created to bring together all the relevant information held on individuals in a way that is easily accessible."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1186.]

He said that 18 months ago. The Secretary of State now comes to the House to say that she will legislate, but she has not said that she will legislate to introduce that single list. In fact, last night, Sir Michael Bichard said that there were "real dangers" while different lists continue to have different decision-making processes. However, instead of plugging that loophole, which is at the heart of the scandal that we are debating today, the Secretary of State says that she will review how the closest possible alignment can be secured between List 99, the sex offenders register and other data sources. That is what the Bichard report is all about. That is the loophole that she needs to close.

Yesterday, in the statement that the Secretary of State gave, she said that, in future, such decisions would be taken by her personally. What are these decisions that she is going to take? The only decision that she could possibly envisage in that statement is that people who are on the sex offenders register should still be allowed to work in schools. So why does she not just say that people on the sex offenders register should not be allowed to teach in schools? Why can she not make it as simple and straightforward as that?

Today, a year and a half after the publication of the Bichard report, the Secretary of State has announced a review and legislation with no substance or explanation. We hope that her review comes up with useful proposals, but any system ultimately depends on the judgment of the people who run it. No review, no legislation can change that.

The Secretary of State was no doubt relieved that she got at least tepid support from 10 Downing street yesterday, but the question is not whether she has the confidence of the Prime Minister. The question is whether she has the confidence of millions of parents who will be deeply concerned that she has failed to ensure basic standards for people who work with children in schools. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the confidence of millions of parents in her judgment and in the Department that she runs is fast ebbing away? Nothing that she has said today has restored that confidence.

---