| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD): May I thank the Minister for her statement and pay tribute to her work and that of her officials and the police in the past 10 days to conclude this vital review? Despite the comments from some Conservative Members, the Secretary of State has gone a long way today towards ensuring the outcome that everybody wants—the restoration of parents' confidence in the child protection system. However, I hope that she acknowledges that it will take more than one statement to complete that process, and we are prepared to work with her to do just that.
I particularly welcome the proposal to introduce a single list for people working with children, which will end confusion for employers and the dangers, inconsistencies and loopholes caused by the multitude of lists. I also welcome the removal from Ministers of the responsibility of conducting individual case reviews and the new guidance to schools on appointment procedures and mandatory CRB checks.
Will the Secretary of State explain why the latest guidance issued by her Department in June last year did not require schools to receive an enhanced CRB disclosure before appointing a teacher, as set out in previous guidance? What can she say to reassure parents and schools that the CRB can perform the increased number of mandatory checks quickly?
I support the proposal to appoint a panel of experts to review individual cases. Can the Secretary of State confirm that its criteria and guidelines will be published? Can she confirm that her plans will ensure that certain categories of work with children that are currently exempt from CRB checks will now all be covered? Why
19 Jan 2006 : Column 974
were child carers minding children over eight years old ever exempt from CRB checks? Can she confirm that all schools—state schools, independent schools, community schools and city academies—will be subject to the same vetting requirements?
Will the Secretary of State accept that parts of the package that she has introduced today urgently require more work? Does she share my concern that some agencies supplying staff to schools appear to be particularly poor at checking references and records, and if so, what is she doing about it? When people from overseas apply to teach in our schools, is she convinced that her plans provide for sufficient checks? Will guidance for police on issuing cautions be changed in light of today's announcement?
Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that in this vital drive to protect children, we will also remember to protect teachers when false allegations are made? Will she ensure that new guidance and training remind schools of the need for safeguards for teachers who may have been wrongly accused? Will she legislate to stop teachers being named before they are charged with offences?
Will the Secretary of State accept that the situation has arisen largely because of delays in implementing the recommendations of the Bichard inquiry? How many of the 18 Bichard recommendations that remain unimplemented are her responsibility, and why have they not been implemented? How many of the unimplemented Bichard recommendations are the responsibility of the Home Office? Given the Home Office delays with computer projects for Bichard, will she reassure the House on the time scale for the IT projects that lie behind today's proposal? When will those IT projects be implemented and what safeguards exist for the interim?
It is in the interests of children, teachers, schools and the wider public that confidence is restored rapidly and the hysteria is ended. The Secretary of State has made a real start today—if she delivers on her promises and answers our reasonable questions, Liberal Democrats will work with her to complete the task.
Ruth Kelly: I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman has treated these serious issues. It is important that we restore confidence in the system and take sensible, immediate, practical action to make it more robust. We will tighten up our vetting procedures through legislation and introduce a positive vetting procedure, which will reassure parents and employers, too. He has welcomed a number of our measures, and I thank him for his support.
The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the categories covered by the new mandatory CRB checks. We are in the process of reviewing that, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families will have more to say shortly.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we need to tackle the issue of supply agencies, which I mentioned in my statement. CRB checks will be made mandatory for supply agencies.
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention overseas teachers and workers in schools; we will review the process for vetting them.
19 Jan 2006 : Column 975
The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that cautions and convictions are currently treated in different ways. We will in future bring those together for certain specified offences against children. The police may need to rethink how cautions are issued in light of that, although the most important point is that there is a quick appeals system with a right of representation for the individual.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest, however, that there has been a delay in implementing Sir Michael Bichard's report. The Department has been working on this with considerable vigour and urgency over the past 18 months. Sir Michael Bichard himself reviewed the implementation timetable and endorsed it. Moreover, he recently said that he was "very impressed" with the work undertaken by officials. Nobody in the wider public who realises that four different computer systems need to be replaced with one computer system that continually updates records will think that 18 months is an excessive length of time to pave the way for that legislation. It is of course important that we keep child protection right at the top of our list of priorities, and that is my commitment to the House.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op): May I criticise my right hon. Friend in one respect? Some of us with a bit of interest in history will be quite sad to see a piece of legislation that has lasted 79 years at last being dragged out of the cupboard, shaken up and renewed, although only a slight amount of nostalgia is involved. No other Government have done that.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who, in all the frenzy over the past two weeks, has kept a clear, cool head, has not listened to the trumped-up charges from the Opposition, and has come through, after hard work, with proposals that have taken the game away from them. Does she agree that one educational lesson to come out of the past 10 days is: "You might have two enormous brains but you do not have much common sense"?
Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I can assure him that I take my responsibility as Secretary of State very seriously indeed. The Education Secretary is responsible for ensuring that the systems and processes that employers use to check the suitability of a candidate for working with children are as robust as possible. I have explained how we intend to tighten the system further, while accepting that it has been tightened progressively over decades, particularly in the past eight years or so. The legislation that we are implementing to introduce the Bichard proposals will bring in a completely new vetting and barring system and give the public yet another tool to assess the suitability of those applying to work with children.
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con):
Is the Secretary of State aware that although anybody who has worked with List 99 will welcome improvements to it, she will not regain parents' confidence until she can explain the delay more fully? What part of her proposals or her review could not have been announced immediately after the Bichard report 18 months ago?
19 Jan 2006 : Column 976
Ruth Kelly: Clearly, I had a responsibility as Secretary of State to carry out the review thoroughly. That meant that I had to be precise about the numbers that I presented to the House. I had to put them into context and make sure that I was not inadvertently misleading the House by not looking at similar cases where there may be cause for concern. In addition, I have asked the police to review each case individually and to visit the people involved. I do not think that 10 days is such a long time to go through that process.
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North and Sefton, East) (Lab): I thank my right hon. Friend for the clarity and completeness of the review that she has carried out, which was reflected in her statement. Does she accept that most fair-minded people will be reassured that she now has a clear grasp of the scope of the problem and a clear strategy for dealing with it?
Ruth Kelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He always approaches these issues in the most sensible way. The key issue is that we have a robust system for child protection in which parents can have confidence. I have set out the steps that we need to take in the short term and the medium term to ensure that that is the case.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |