| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord sits down, I rise merely to say that he accuses me of being over-inflationary in my predictions about what might
happen. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. The noble Lord and his colleagues opposite supported, as the amendments are put to the Committee, a wider use of it. In fact, the mainspring of the argument put by noble Lords opposite is that there will be such pressure that more checks will need to be done on more of the volunteers, particularly for people working with children. As under the amendment the fee has been waived completely, the idea is that that will not be an inhibitor for the voluntary sector to respond to any of those pressures but merely to check whether it believes that the check is needed.We took a view that more checks would need to be undertaken. We believed that the code of practice would be applied properly; there would be a much more modest number of checks done. Therefore our assumption of what impact that would have on the voluntary sector, given that the fee would fall on the individual, was very much more modest. The noble Lord cannot argue that there will be a substantial cost on the voluntary sector and then say, when that has been waived, that somehow the sum does not become substantial and the number of applicants does not increase.
In response to a point the noble Lord has just made to my noble friend Lord Renton, perhaps I may say that he is now looking at ways of determining which criminal conviction is relevant, as opposed to which information is relevant. The noble Lord has conceded by that remark that for each application for one job or another job, voluntary sector or employment, a different certificate will be needed because the conviction, and the relevance of a conviction, will need to be freshly thought through to provide the certificate. The noble Lord is making a case for a very much enlarged number of certificates that would have to be introduced under the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If that were the case, and I am by no means certain that it is, it could well be argued that it is a price worth paying to achieve the objective of the rehabilitation of offenders. I wish I thought, with the right reverend Prelate, that it was only a matter of moral philosophy. A balance between rehabilitation and protection has to be achieved. I do not believe that there is any right to protection. I want to think again about how to achieve that balance better than it is achieved in the Bill. That is why in a minute I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Before I do, it is probably unseemly for us to go on talking about the merits or demerits of a previous amendment rather than this one. I regret that I responded in that way to the Minister. The point I was trying to make was that at present voluntary organisations can obtain certificates on volunteers without charge. It is the Government who were proposing the change, not the amendment which has just been carried. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 100, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Perhaps I may first make a clear distinction in opposing the Question that Clause 100 stand part of the Bill between Clause 100, which I should clearly like to see deleted from the Bill, and Clauses 101 and 102, which we on these Benches wholly support and which are widely supported on all sides of the Committee.
I make it clear in relation to Clauses 101 and 102 that we support, without reservation, all the appropriate measures to protect children and other vulnerable groups. There may be a case for extending the definition of vulnerable groups in the Bill.
Clause 100 does not deal with those matters at all. If your Lordships have not previously focused on that, I would ask you to look at Clause 100 as being very different from the two clauses that follow it. Secondly--it is fair to say this, because these are arguments which the Minister may well bring forward--I recognise that widescale vetting would be a convenience for employers, and I choose that word carefully.
I recognise, too, that the clause as printed represents a tidying up of the present ad hoc arrangements. I hear the argument--I put it no stronger than that--that Clause 100 may possibly help those with spent convictions to maintain their privacy. I gladly concede those arguments in advance because they are relevant and must be taken into account.
However, in my view, those arguments are outweighed by the principle of routine intrusion into private lives, which Clause 100 embodies, and the practical problems of devising a system that is efficient, reliable and fair. Our previous debate on the amendment which was withdrawn by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, illustrates that point. In my view, there is a real danger that Clause 100 will do more harm than good. Far from protecting society against crime, it might help to create circumstances in which criminal acts will persist.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I confess that I was surprised when I reminded myself of its provisions. Perhaps I may refer to them for the Committee's convenience. First, a prison sentence of more than two and a half years can never be spent. Therefore, under Clause 100, an offence committed at the age of 18 will show on a criminal conviction certificate when an applicant for employment is 28, 38 or 48. Indeed, it will show for ever. If he is sent to prison for more than six months it will show for 10 years; that is 10 years during which he may be seeking employment. A non-custodial sentence will show for five years.
Those offences of varying quality--if I may use that word--will be shown on a criminal conviction certificate. The consequence will be that a large number of men and women who are now law-abiding citizens, perhaps having committed an offence in their late teens, will have their conviction recorded on a certificate for between five years and a lifetime. That is the force of Clause 100.
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux is not a campaigning organisation but it has made clear its view about Clause 100. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I quote its comments because, given the high regard with which the view is held, they are important. It states:
- "The Citizens Advice Bureaux service is deeply disturbed about the introduction of a 'voluntary' criminal record disclosure scheme as contained within Clause 100 of the Bill. We believe that such a system, particularly in the current climate of public concern generated by events such as the Dunblane tragedy, is over-reactive and ill defined. Rather than creating the basis for greater security, we are concerned that, in fact, it will lead to increased job insecurity and an environment in which crime levels may rise rather than be reduced".
The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux goes on to state:
- "Based on the evidence that we receive from local Citizens Advice Bureaux working throughout the country, we believe that the consequences of introducing such a measure may be to increase unlawful discrimination and to exclude applicants who are unable or unprepared to pay for this service to prospective employers".
The amendments that we have debated and the amendments which follow--Nos. 119 to 124 and 128--are in one way or another an attempt to constrain the incidence of Clause 100 and to build in safeguards. They recognise its dangers. Although I wait to see whether the Minister accepts them, either way the Bill would be better without this clause.
I wish to put forward five points for the Committee to consider. First, as I said in relation to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Clause 100 will lead to discrimination in employment against anyone with an unspent record who is trying to go straight. That point was made most forcefully by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. A highly regarded organisation, the Penal Affairs Consortium, states:
- "We have grave concerns about the introduction of criminal conviction certificates. We consider that this proposal is likely to undermine the successful reintegration of offenders into society. It would give employers extensive information about criminal convictions which in most cases will have no relevance to the job for which someone is applying. There is a real risk that many employers will decide to 'play safe' and refuse to employ anyone with a criminal record. If as a result ex-offenders find it significantly harder to find jobs, this must increase the likelihood of reoffending".
That is the view of more than 30 highly reputable bodies which are deeply concerned about these matters. I believe what they say to be true.
Secondly, in practice there will be no even-handedness between an applicant for employment who, we anticipate, will be expected to show such a certificate and an employer or interviewer who may regard it as impudent to be asked for one. This is not some narrow and minor point. We know that it is very possible that from time to time employers--not necessarily those in reputable undertakings--will have a criminal record of a kind. It is wrong that the prospective employee should be required, although the certificates are voluntary, to show a certificate while the man or woman who is employing him or her will not be required to do so.
Thirdly, self-employed people will be exempt because in normal business relations they are unlikely to be asked for a certificate. On Second Reading I mentioned the issue of candidates for Parliament. I said that my tongue was half in my cheek. However, the more I think about it, the more I regard the point as serious. Candidates for Parliament and other elective public offices, where very important issues of trust are involved, will also be exempt because the Bill contains no requirement for such a certificate to be deposited with the returning officer at the time of nomination. I see no way under this clause that that can be done. I return to what I said about fairness; it is a very unfair clause if those are the automatic exemptions which appear to follow from the clause as written.
Fourthly, despite what the Minister said--and I thank her for her remarks on Second Reading on 11th November reported at col. 833--there are endless possibilities of forgery, fraud and even blackmail, whatever security measures may be properly taken by the Home Office to avoid that. If I were a betting man I would say now with absolute certainty that there will be examples of forgery and fraud and there may be examples of blackmail if the clause stands in the Bill.
Fifthly, as has been referred to in passing by others, including my noble friend Lord Lester, it is certain that certificates will contain errors. There is no redress nor compensation for anyone--applicant or employer--who may suffer. There is only Clause 104, which states baldly that if the Home Secretary is convinced of an error he will issue a new certificate.
In making those points, I leave aside the question of cost which was explored in an earlier amendment. However, it must be said that, whereas the voluntary sector has been deeply concerned about the cost of the certificates falling on it because it does not believe that they should fall on volunteers, it will be true that the cost of the certificates will fall on many men and women who may not have the resources to pay for them, although the sums may be small.
Clause 100 is not central to this part of the Bill. The priorities for this part of the Bill are in Clauses 101 and 102. We should be far better off if we concentrated on those clauses and dealt with the need for greater safeguards and certain refinements. We should let those clauses stand but delete Clause 100 from the Bill.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page