| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I support the two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Clearly, vulnerable old people and those with mental disabilities need protecting. It is also very important that the managers who hire the people who are in contact with children, old people or those with mental problems are subject to the provisions about enhanced criminal records because managers essentially set the tone and institute particular regimes which affect those who work with them.
It is just as important that children should not be subjected to the attentions of paedophiles as that old people should not be subjected to the attentions of people who may bully them or have convictions for assault. Regimes of the kind that used to exist in institutions--not so much nowadays but there is still the occasional case where old people are bullied--could be prevented by these amendments. I therefore support the amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: In the Second Reading debate I highlighted my concerns and those of MENCAP to ensure that vulnerable adults were afforded the same protection as vulnerable children and elderly people. I was heartened by the Minister's response to those concerns.
If Amendments Nos. 110 and 117 are accepted, I understand that Amendment No. 111, to which my name is attached, cannot be moved. However, I am assured that vulnerable adults will be protected by those amendments. Therefore, I support them and hope that
the Minister will be able to accept them and give vulnerable people of whatever age the protection that they deserve.
Baroness Blatch: I am in some difficulty in responding to my noble friend's amendment. I should quite like to have had it grouped with Amendment No. 111. I understand that the advice is that, if this amendment were accepted, Amendment No. 111 could not be called, and I want to respond rather more warmly to Amendment No. 111, which I believe will have a direct impact on this amendment. I shall respond to this amendment in the way that I have prepared.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I may interject. I too prefer Amendment No. 111 from the point of view of MENCAP. But clearly I have been, as it were, disbarred from moving that amendment at this moment.
Baroness Blatch: Only disbarred if this amendment were carried. But let me refer first to this amendment.
The amendment would extend considerably, perhaps by as many as 1 million, I understand, the number of people eligible for enhanced checks. They would place a very significant extra burden on the police, who would then be required to undertake the local element of the check. In addition to those who have regular unsupervised contact with children for whom provision is already made in the Bill, these intrusive checks would be available on almost anyone who has contact with a child, an elderly person, a vulnerable adult or even an adult who is simply ill. They would also cover managers and supervisors who may never come into personal contact with the individuals that the amendment seeks to protect and who would never be in a position to abuse them.
The amendment would cover clerical and administrative staff in schools and hospitals who regularly work with children or patients but who, common sense suggests, are not necessarily, or certainly should not be, in a position to pose a risk. At a practical level, these proposals would mean that the police would have to take on extra staff in order to cope with the workload. Again, I remind the Committee that it is a workload which would be additional to that contained within Amendment No. 103.
Inevitably, enhanced checks will take longer than those which require only a check of central records, which will build delay into the recruitment of many staff and cause applicants additional expense. In my view, that would be quite unjustifiable, if they were not likely to be in a position where the job that they wished to do would not fulfil the criteria of contact, which are such where abuse could take place.
Annex A to the White Paper makes clear that it is our intention that all those to whom these amendments would apply would be eligible for a full criminal record certificate. It would provide details of centrally recorded convictions, including those which are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and centrally recorded cautions. That is considerably more information about criminal records than is presently available to those working with people other than children.
As I have referred to centrally recorded cautions, I think I ought to refer back to at least one definition. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was concerned about very serious offences being dealt with only by a caution. The noble Lord will know how much we have done to reduce the incidence of cautioning before, if it is appropriate, people are eventually put into custody. An example is theft. It is a potentially serious offence. It can be dealt with in the early stages by caution. But it would indeed be relevant where someone, having had a caution and having admitted guilt to the theft, was seeking work in a position of trust.
It is important to remember that those making appointments will not normally be doing the job in isolation. There will be many other procedures to be followed and many other people to check that the wrong people are not being appointed to sensitive posts. It is necessary to strike a balance--we are here talking about a balance--between protecting the most vulnerable in our society and the rights of individuals to privacy. Finding the right balance will always be a question of judgment, but the Government believe that extending enhanced checks to this potentially enormous group of people would be difficult to justify. For those reasons, I hope my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister indicated that she will respond rather more warmly to Amendment No. 111. Perhaps it would be better if we moved on to that. However, that is up to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
When the Minister responds to Amendment No. 111 I ask her to recognise that her objections have, as I understand them, been entirely confined to questions of practicality. The Government say in their response to the White Paper that they expect there to be continual demand for checks on those working with vulnerable adults which it might be difficult to meet during the agency's early period of work. However, they say that they will be prepared to consider the possibility of extending enhanced checks to that group once experience has been obtained of the value of the new arrangements. If that is the force of the argument rather than an objection in principle or an objection about the definition of vulnerable adults, so be it. However, I put it to her that the extension to vulnerable adults should not require further legislation. In other words, in whatever form the Bill passes, it should allow the extension to vulnerable adults to be carried out by resolution or by administrative action rather than require new legislation.
Baroness Blatch: It is not just about practicalities. Of course I had to bring in the fact that we are increasing the number of people to whom this part of the Bill will apply. I have given some indication that the number will be approximately above 1 million and so it cannot be disregarded as an issue. I was also addressing priorities. We are looking at the most vulnerable and we are looking at that group of people who will have access to, and work in an unsupervised way with, young people.
They become the category of people on whom this part of the Bill must bite. Therefore, it is a question of priorities, practicalities and of course cost.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that was roughly what I was saying. I understand the need for priorities. I understand the need for practicality. We must not let the Bill go through in such a way that there is no provision when resources permit for protecting vulnerable adults. If that has to be done by putting a provision into the Bill now and providing a different commencement date, that would be better than nothing. What we cannot do is have a Minister coming back afterwards and saying, "We can do it but only when legislative time permits".
Lord Swinfen: I should like to read what my noble friend said because she said a good deal on these two amendments. Between now and the next stage of the Bill I should be grateful if she would reflect seriously on the position of someone who would be regularly involved in appointing, dismissing, managing or supervising a person or persons regularly involved in any relevant activity. He would be in a position to cause a great deal of mischief. He could be the leader of a paedophile gang, for lack of a better example, or someone who was going into individual vulnerable elderly people's homes and stealing from them.
I shall not press the amendment today but will be happy to come back the issue at a later stage in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 111:
The noble Lord said: I may not be a good draftsman, as I am sure many members of the Committee would point out to me, but I realise that, with the difficulties that started with the Child Support Agency, there could well be difficulties in putting the Bill into effect. Therefore, I have worded this amendment in such a way that the Secretary of State may, by order, at some time in the future, bring in gradually, when practicable, different groups of vulnerable people who in my view need the same protection as vulnerable children. There is a danger that we could all sink back into childhood as we become elderly. In no way am I likely to be exempt from that.
I have had a number of letters of support on this amendment. I have before me one from a director of a voluntary organisation that runs a home for elderly people. It says:
The British Association of Social Workers has written to me, saying:
I have before me an article from the Guardian dated 17th August 1994 which reports:
I do not know whether any noble Lord saw the programme on BBC Television North East on Thursday evening entitled "Close Up North". It detailed the rape of an elderly woman by a care worker. It also referred to an earlier case where a man was sentenced to six years' imprisonment for the rape of a female demented resident in a home. There are numerous examples that I can give to the Committee, but it is getting late and I shall not do so. I am very anxious to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say on this particular amendment. I beg to move.
Page 41, line 15, at end insert ("or
(ii) of persons whom the Secretary of State may, by order, designate as vulnerable or otherwise requiring special protection,").
"We are extremely concerned that there could be substantial numbers of people moving from job to job who have histories of abusing people in their care but whose references do not necessarily show this. This situation is encouraged by the fact that it is often not in the employer's interest to carry through disciplinary procedures or indeed to report people to the relevant authorities since this is likely to create publicity that could be damaging to the employer's business".
2 Dec 1996 : Column 527
"I appreciate that the Bill is aimed mainly at carers for young people, but if it were possible to build in a further provision for old people and adult disabled people, this would be helpful".
"Your proposed amendment to the Police Bill to enable police checks to be made on care workers is supported by this association. We do believe that this measure can only be effective within a wider framework of social care regulation".
"A child sex attacker who left prison under an assumed name and began preying on elderly and psychiatrically disturbed women was given two life sentences for rape yesterday ... Bannerman's past as Henry Walker was revealed through a fingerprint check at Scotland Yard. His identity was confirmed again when a warder at Strangeways Prison, Manchester, saw a police picture of him and found an almost identical shot in prison files recorded under the name of Walker and taken while he was serving eight years for the rape of a Manchester woman".
7 p.m.
Lord Rix: What I have to say has already been said. I am obviously in support of this amendment because my name is attached to it. I spoke in support of Amendments Nos. 110 and 117 because of the possibility that Amendment No. 111 would fall if the others had been carried. The vulnerable people to whom I am referring, as I am sure the Minister knows and recognises, are those with a learning disability. The numbers are considerable--well in excess of 1 million people, of whom certainly over 50 per cent. are adults. I hope that this amendment, or a version which might be put forward by the Government and which will be acceptable, will be carried.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page