---

Mr. David Willetts (Havant) (Con): Parents and teachers will be relieved that at last the Secretary of State has made her statement today. After nearly a fortnight in which teachers and parents have become increasingly worried and confused about sex offenders at schools, at last we have some basic information, and we welcome that. We also welcome the right hon. Lady's regret at the uncertainty that we have seen over the past fortnight. We welcome her final statement that no one convicted or cautioned for child sex offences should be allowed to teach in schools. But it is a great pity that even after Soham, even after the Bichard report, it looks as if the Secretary of State and her predecessors were taking decisions that broke that principle. Does she now regret taking decisions that breached the principle that she enunciated today?

Why has it taken so long to get from the right hon. Lady elementary information about what has been going on in our schools? Ministers were personally deciding whether sex offenders should work in schools. She rightly stressed today the delicacy and the difficulty of those decisions. We understand that, but surely, then, the Department would have been keeping track of the sex offenders that it was releasing into our schools. Instead, for a fortnight the Department has been incapable of answering basic questions about those offenders.

Even if the Secretary of State did not decide on individual cases, surely it was her responsibility to make sure that they were properly monitored. Instead, parents have been shocked that Ministers have been so ignorant of decisions that they themselves have taken. As parents' concern has mounted, the Secretary of State has remained largely invisible and largely silent. It is this complete absence of reliable information or strong leadership from the Department over the past fortnight that has contributed to the lack of confidence that we see today. Does she accept how much damage the uncertainty and anxiety of the past fortnight has done to the confidence of parents and teachers in the regime that is supposed to maintain the integrity of people in our schools?
 
19 Jan 2006 : Column 971
 

There are other key questions that I put to the Department 10 days ago. Although the Secretary of State has given us much useful information today, she has not answered all the questions. For example, why is it still possible to work in a school without even completing a basic criminal records check? Why did a previous Secretary of State specifically recommend schools to continue recruiting people before those checks had been completed? Were head teachers and governing bodies informed if Ministers did decide that a sex offender should be permitted to work in their school?

Why did the Secretary of State tell the House last week that offenders were "automatically" put on List 99, which "bars them for life" from teaching, when we now know that that has not been the case? Indeed, in her statement today she said: "From the year 2000 those included on List 99 on the grounds of unsuitability to work with children have received a full bar." How can we reconcile that statement with the apparent evidence that in 2001 a previous Secretary of State did place someone on List 99 without a full bar on their working with children in schools? Did the Secretary of State receive advice last year that the system was not working properly? What steps did she take in the light of that advice?

The Secretary of State set out a range of proposals today. We welcome the independent review that she announced. We called for precisely such a review last week by an independent person so as once more to restore confidence in the system. The right hon. Lady says that she will finally implement the Bichard report, but may I take her back six years to the Protection of Children Act 1999? The purpose of that Act was to achieve

"a 'one-stop shop' to compel or allow employers to access a single point for checking the names of people they propose to employ in a post involving the care of children."

That was the purpose of legislation passed by the House six years ago. We want to know not just why the Secretary of State and her predecessors have failed to implement a proposal in a report 18 months ago, but why they have failed to implement legislation passed by the House six years ago.

We will, of course, work with the Government and aim to implement constructively the legislation that the Secretary of State proposes—legislation that Ministers described as urgent 18 months ago. Of course we will work with them on that. Our priority will be to restore the confidence of parents and teachers, after a fortnight during which their confidence in the Secretary of State and the system that she administers has ebbed away.I believe that she is an honourable person, but it must be for her and her conscience whether she is capable of regaining the confidence of parents and teachers who have suffered such anxiety, concern and uncertainty over the past 10 days.

Ruth Kelly: I had hoped to welcome the constructive way in which the Opposition had decided to deal with these issues. I of course welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, is prepared to work with us in taking forward the Bichard legislation. I wish he had said that 10 days ago, but at last, having reflected on
 
19 Jan 2006 : Column 972
 
these issues, he has decided that it is right to take forward the proposals that were set out in the Queen's Speech and which we have decided to bring forward in February.

I have been at pains to give credit to the Opposition for the work that they did on child protection, including paving the way for the sex offenders register to be introduced in 1997. Not only have I provided the figures which the hon. Gentleman asked for—I have gone further. I have looked not just at the cases determined by Ministers and decisions made not to bar individuals who were on the sex offenders register, but I have also considered decisions made by officials not to bar in respect of people who were on the sex offenders register, and I have gone further than that. I have looked at all the decisions where the cautions and convictions were made before the introduction of the sex offenders register in 1997, and examined all those cases as well, because I think it is important to put the fullest possible information into the public domain, so that we can restore confidence in the system and reassure parents about the robustness of our vetting arrangements.

Ten days is not a long time in which to carry out such a comprehensive review of thousands of files. Each case has been considered, and each individual has been assessed by the police, with visits to ascertain whether such individuals are currently working with children or pose a risk to children. I have told this House that none of those 10 cases is currently working in a school and that the police have no cause for concern about them in relation to children. The public expect the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to provide public confidence in the system and to conduct the review properly and robustly and in a calm and rational way.

Over the past 10 days, I have carried out a root and branch review of our child protection processes to make sure that we can make some changes immediately to tighten up the system—for example, introducing an independent panel to review the entire process, to consider all future individual cases and to make recommendations on how to incorporate more fully the advice of the police and the child protection agencies into that process. The panel will also review every single case in which Ministers, who followed the legal framework at the time and who worked under the best expert advice, in this Administration or previous Administrations made decisions to see whether any new information has come to light to warrant revisiting those decisions. Again, I think that the public expect me to do that before reporting to this House.

I have considered how we can broaden the range of offences that lead to someone being barred from working in schools. I have explained to this House how we will be able to lay regulations to extend the range of offences that will automatically bar an individual from working in a school, subject, of course, to the appeal process.

To meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Havant about the Criminal Records Bureau, I have explained how we will review our current strong guidance to schools to undertake CRB checks and replace it with a mandatory system, so that all employers who work with children—in particular, the schools work force—will have a responsibility in law to conduct a CRB check, which will reveal not only the cautions and convictions of people who have previously worked
 
19 Jan 2006 : Column 973
 
in the education sector, but the cautions and convictions of those who have not previously worked in the education sector.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Bichard review and the length of time that it has taken to implement the report. Sir Michael Bichard himself, who thoroughly reviewed the process, said just a few days ago how impressed he is with the Department's work to date in implementing the reforms that he has set out, and we have now committed to a date for their introduction.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the parliamentary questions and other questions that he tabled in the past 10 days. I intend to answer all those questions today, and I have supplemented my oral statement with a full report and review of List 99, which is available to all hon. Members.

The hon. Gentleman asked how a decision to make a partial bar could have been made in 2001, but he should examine the legal framework more closely. If a caution or conviction was committed before the introduction of the regulations, it cannot be considered under the new legal framework, but all cautions and convictions considered after that date include the imposition of a full bar. Again, the report attached to my statement covers that issue.

The hon. Gentleman has called for an independent review. We have conducted a review in the fastest possible time, providing full public confidence to all employers and parents in particular that child protection is our first priority, and I hope that public confidence can now be restored.

---