| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ruth Kelly: I am delighted to be able to answer some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but let me make the point that he fundamentally misunderstood the nature of List 99, the current legislation and, indeed, Bichard's recommendations.
First, List 99 does not give approval for individuals to be employed in schools. Schools must take that decision not just on the basis of checking List 99; they also have
12 Jan 2006 : Column 438
a responsibility to check an individual's criminal records if the individual has been out of work. The criminal records check, which we have introduced, will reveal whether an individual has a caution or a conviction. Other data sources are also relevant to those decisions. List 99 does not give automatic approval. What it does, under the framework of the law, is bar certain individuals with specified offences from working with children for ever.
I have made it absolutely clear to the House and the wider public that there should be a much closer alignment of all those individuals on the sex offenders register and on List 99. That is not how the current law operates, and it is not how the current law has operated for decades, with Ministers under successive Administrations deciding whether to include an individual on List 99.
I know that people are concerned about how it is possible for an individual on the sex offenders register not to be barred automatically for life from working in schools. That is a complex legal issue. The legislation as it stands and has existed for decades does not allow the Government or Ministers automatically to bar someone who has accepted a caution for an offence, even if they would have been automatically barred if they had been convicted for that offence. If they accept a caution, the law means that we must consider whether to include the person on the list and, indeed, to let that person make representations. In rare cases, despite the individual accepting a caution, the evidence may not be sufficient to show that they present a risk to children. I do not think that that should be the position, which is why I am tightening the legislation to ensure that cautions and convictions are treated identically and why I am seeking to secure the closest possible alignment between the sex offenders register and the new vetting and barring schemes.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations about bringing the lists together, but those recommendations were about bringing the existing lists—List 99, the protection of children list and the protection of vulnerable adults list, which is overseen by the Department of Health—into a list that determines whether an individual should be barred from working with children or with vulnerable adults. Sir Michael was not discussing the sex offenders register. Indeed, there are seven potentially relevant data sources. I think that we as a Government and I as Secretary of State have a responsibility to see whether we can further align those lists, given the importance of complete public confidence in our system. That goes beyond the Bichard recommendations.
I shall also consider whether it is possible to incorporate police advice more fully. At present when a decision is made, according to the law evidence should be taken from all relevant parties. The police are automatically consulted if they have considered the individual's history, as are scientific experts, medical experts and forensic experts where relevant, and psychological reports are taken. I am considering whether it is possible to give the police an even bigger role in determining the final outcome so that a full risk assessment from the police is incorporated into the decision-making process. I am also considering whether it is possible to remove Ministers entirely from these
12 Jan 2006 : Column 439
sensitive child protection cases—something about which many groups that are interested in these sensitive issues are concerned.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of cases and where the individuals in question are working. Initial inquiries in my Department have produced provisional figures suggesting that since 1997 there has been a small number of cases in which individuals on the sex offenders register have not also been included in List 99. The reverse also applies: there are individuals on List 99 who are not on the sex offenders register. However, I think that it would be wrong to give those provisional facts to the House without establishing with absolute certainty the number of cases, where those individuals are working and how we will proceed. I shall come to the House and give a full explanation of the facts and of the whereabouts of those individuals if they are still employed working with children as soon as possible.
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): I thank the Secretary of State for that statement. I also thank you, Mr. Speaker, for protecting the right of this House to hear such an important statement.
The Secretary of State is right to say that protection of children matters are complex, but was it not the present Government who produced the mess that she now has to review? When did she become aware that the system was so muddled? In how many decisions has she been personally involved? Does she know that number? Did she at any time prior to this week ask for the matter to be looked into? Did any of her Ministers raise the matter with her?
The right hon. Lady has not answered the questions put by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). Will she explain why more than one list is needed? Even if she is right to say that all people on the sex offenders register should not be automatically put on List 99, surely there should be published guidelines and criteria for making such sensitive and difficult decisions.
Is not there a history of shambolic government in this respect? First, we were promised that the Criminal Records Bureau would provide a one-stop shop, but that failed to deliver when teachers were not checked in time for the start of term. The then Secretary of State bypassed the CRB to deal with the crisis, but never restored to the guidelines for schools the advice to ensure that enhanced checks are carried out on people who apply to work in schools. Then we had the Bichard recommendations, which have still not been fully implemented, as the Secretary of State acknowledges, but a key computer program behind those recommendations is three years behind schedule. We now know that Ministers and officials failed to read across from the Bichard recommendations to the interrelationship between the sex offenders register and List 99. Why has no one in the Department for Education and Skills raised that question during or since the Bichard inquiry?
For which of the mistakes does the Secretary of State take responsibility? Hon. Members on both sides of the House understand that the rules and guidelines have to be proportionate and that they must protect the rights of individuals—for example, when the offence is not only unproven but unrelated to any risk attached to the work
12 Jan 2006 : Column 440
that the individual seeks to do—but surely this episode suggests that the present system and lists are not fit for purpose. The right hon. Lady's review must be broad enough and tough enough to sort that out.
Ruth Kelly: The review will be broad enough and tough enough to sort it out. If further action is needed, I will not hesitate to take it. Child protection is the Government's first priority. It is also important to ensure that there is full public confidence in the system. The recent case raises issues relating to whether that confidence exists. That is why I have set out the steps that I am taking, with immediate effect.
I agree that the existence of so many independent data sources and lists is not satisfactory. I have identified seven relevant sources: some are held by my Department, some by other Government Departments and some by other agencies. Sir Michael Bichard considered some of those lists and made recommendations that we have accepted, and we are determined to legislate at the earliest opportunity to make a reality of his proposals. I believe that last night Sir Michael was saying how impressed he was by departmental officials' work in preparing the Bill and dealing with the complex issues that he set out. We have secured legislative time in this Session and the Bill will be introduced in February. I think that that is what people expect in view of the seriousness of the issues.
The hon. Gentleman asks in which cases I have been involved. I can tell him that that is not what parents are worried about; they are worried about the issues. I take full responsibility for every decision that has been made in my Department and, as I have said, if any further action is needed, I will not hesitate to take it.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): I ask my right hon. Friend to continue to deal with the matter in a calm and measured way. There is nothing worse than making decisions on such issues in panic and hysteria driven by the media, ably assisted by the both main Opposition parties.
The issue is serious, but we must be careful about starting witch hunts and creating a system that bars not only those who have received a caution or conviction, but those who have been the subject of an allegation. As a constituency MP, I have seen too many lives ruined by false allegations. The balance must be kept right. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ignore the hysteria and carry on the measured manner in which she has started.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |