| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no requirement in this Bill, or in any other statute, for any particular person or member of any group to produce criminal record certificates. It simply makes provision for such certificates to be provided to individuals and other bodies in certain circumstances. Criminal conviction certificates would be issued only to individuals. If this amendment were accepted, any parliamentary candidate would be compelled to disclose his certificate to the returning officer. It would also be necessary to amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 in order to give returning officers the power to disqualify candidates who refused to lodge their criminal conviction certificates.
I cannot see why the noble Lord singles out candidates for election to the United Kingdom Parliament for this special treatment when there are equally valid reasons for requiring candidates for a whole range of other occupations or posts to be treated in the same way. I have in mind, particularly, candidates to the European Parliament or local councils, and a significant number of nominees for public bodies and committees, many of whom give their time voluntarily.
As I made clear in Committee, a selection committee, or indeed an individual elector, has a perfect right to request sight of a candidate's criminal conviction certificate if they so wish; but it should be up to the candidate himself to decide whether or not to disclose it. The committee or elector may, of course, infer what they wish from an unwillingness to disclose these details; that is a matter for them and for their prospective candidate. But at least the individual would be given the right to make the decision himself, like every other citizen in the land. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I fully understand what the Minister said; namely, that there is no requirement in the Bill that people should show a criminal conviction certificate. But the message is very plain. That is why this clause was included in the Bill: employers will in future have a very convenient way of finding out whether their employees have or have not any spent convictions by asking them to produce a criminal conviction certificate. It will of course be issued on request; it will be issued on payment of a fee. However, I am sure experience will show that it becomes a routine requirement, although the legislation does not make it a requirement under statute.
Secondly, if it requires an amendment to the Representation of the People Act 1983, so be it. I am not aware that noble Lords are unwilling to legislate when there is a case for doing so because there may be consequential legislation required elsewhere. The noble Baroness has not said, nor could she say, that
it would be improper for this House to legislate in that way. Noble Lords could choose to pass this amendment and the consequences could follow.Thirdly, the Minister asked: why the UK Parliament? I was tempted to go much further. Originally I had it in mind to table an amendment of the kind that she proposes, although I am not sure that she proposes to table it herself, in order to add completeness to the proposal I presently have before the House.
The Minister is right in saying that all those elected to public office, whether to local councils or to the European Parliament, have a special trust. Were there time, and perhaps on another occasion or even at Third Reading, I might want to extend this provision to them. But I thought it wise to start somewhere. I thought it right to start at a point which is most attractive to Members of this House.
Whatever we believe about the European Parliament or about probity in local government, the fact is that we in this Chamber are part of Parliament itself. There are many, particularly in the party of the noble Baroness the Minister, who believe that the sovereignty of this Parliament is the essential part of our constitution. I believe that it has been compromised, and quite rightly, by our membership of the European Union. Yet it remains a fact that this Parliament of the United Kingdom is a source of the institutional democracy in which we all believe. And it is this Parliament of the United Kingdom that has been most under criticism for the sleaze which led to the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, and the adoption of new practices both by another place and by ourselves.
To argue that because we have provision in this amendment only for the UK Parliament and that somehow negatives its justification is a very narrow and rather mean way of looking at the amendment.
I said earlier that I thought we were proceeding beyond the point at which legislation could have proper scrutiny. I think it behoves me in those circumstances, as no other Members of this House feel prepared at this hour to participate, and it would be consistent with my view about proper scrutiny and not seeking to make progress with the Bill or to change it without other Members being able to take part in the discussion, to withdraw the amendment, which I now do.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Cox): My Lords, the Question is that the amendment be withdrawn.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 130:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if you felt that the previous amendment was less serious than some others before the House, and for that reason felt that it was not one on which you wished to intervene, I believe that this amendment gets to the heart of Part V of the Bill, in particular the provisions for criminal conviction certificates.
I referred to it briefly in moving the previous amendment. It is a development of what I moved in Committee. In Committee, I moved that Clause 102, as it now is, should not stand part of the Bill. There was significant cross-party support for that view, especially from the Labour Benches. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, felt unable to support it, but a number of his noble friends found that it had merit and would have preferred not to see the clause stand part of the Bill.
What I want to say tonight is, first, that Clause 102 is not central to the Bill nor to this part of it. Secondly, there is a clear distinction between Clause 102, which deals with criminal conviction certificates, and Clauses 103 and 104, which deal with vulnerable groups and which we strongly support. Thirdly, there is widespread anxiety about the consequences of Clause 102 as it stands.
In Committee, I drew attention in particular to the views of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which is not a campaigning organisation in the normal course of affairs but has made very strong representations about Clause 102. I also drew attention to the views of the Penal Affairs Consortium. Indeed, it was felt on all sides of the Committee that the consequences of this clause for those who have at some stage been guilty of a criminal offence were the strongest case against it.
As the Minister said that, and as she will no doubt say again in respect of this clause, those with a spent conviction have no need to worry. However, in Committee I made clear that many of those who committed an offence 10 years or more ago and have had a clean record since will nevertheless find that conviction on a criminal conviction certificate. It will make it far more difficult to rehabilitate criminals if they find it impossible to obtain work.
Although, as the Minister said in our previous discussion, there will be no requirement to show a criminal conviction certificate, I repeat that for a very large variety of jobs employers will require prospective employees to show one. If they fail to do so and the prospective employee when employed commits an offence, they will be open to criticism. However, if they require a prospective employee to produce such a certificate and that certificate shows unspent convictions, it is very unlikely that they will seek to employ such a person because they will know what criticism would fall upon them if that person, once employed, were guilty of a breach of trust. Indeed, I greatly fear that once a criminal conviction certificate has been made available to an employer, if
Therefore, I believe, like noble Lords on all sides of the House, that there are very strong reasons against Clause 102 as it stands. The clause is an unnecessary intrusion into privacy and, as I say, would make much more difficult the rehabilitation of those prisoners who wish to go straight and who need jobs. Indeed, those with a criminal record may be tempted to perpetuate the course upon which they once embarked or an attempt to go straight may be reversed because of the problem of finding employment as a result of the certificates.
It would not be appropriate on Report and the procedures of your Lordships House do not allow me to press again the amendment which I tabled in Committee. Therefore, I have tabled an amendment which is a compromise. I hope that it may be acceptable to all parties in the House. The phased introduction of Clause 102 is put forward as a compromise which I hope will be reasonably considered.
It is common among all parties in your Lordships' House and on the Cross Benches that the most important clauses in this part of the Bill are Clauses 103 and 104 which provide for criminal record certificates and enhanced criminal record certificates. Therefore, the priority is that those clauses should pass through your Lordships' House and be embodied in the Bill. On these Benches it is our anxiety that that should happen as soon as possible. But if the priority is that Clauses 103 and 104 should be put first, there is no cost whatever involved in allowing Clause 102 to be introduced over a period of time.
Secondly, widespread concern was expressed in Committee on behalf of many organisations affected by the Bill as to the matter of cost. Indeed, the Government are gravely concerned about the cost implications of the passing of the amendment which stood in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. If the provisions of the clause are not introduced except after a pause and reference to your Lordships' House, then that would be for the convenience of the Government as well as for the convenience of many organisations outside.
Thirdly, we are in new territory in Clauses 102 to 104. Sometimes, when we are in new territory, it is wise to walk warily and one step at a time. I am sure that we shall learn by experience how the rest of Part V works. When we have learnt by that experience, after the pause embodied in this amendment, it will be time, following report to Parliament, to go forward with the provisions of Clause 102.
Fourthly, and it follows from what I have just said, there are those of us--and I have expressed my view very plainly--who are deeply sceptical about this clause. We are very unhappy with it. But we may be wrong, just as the Minister may be wrong in believing that the clause is essential to the Bill. However, if we reach the compromise I mentioned we shall all learn
I believe that my amendment is a painless solution to multiple problems facing the Government and the Opposition parties. As I say, the Government are worried about costs and where they will fall, as are the public. Perhaps I may say, with great respect and not wishing to be critical in any way at this juncture, the Labour Party does not wish to be misunderstood in its belief in zero tolerance. Therefore, it is anxious that Clauses 103 and 104 should go through. I wholly understand and support that view.
In such circumstances, the House could support my amendment--as I believe it would indeed do if we were debating the matter at a different hour--which, if carried, would strengthen the Bill. It would take nothing away which is essential to it and would strike a degree of harmony which, alas, has been absent for large parts of today. Surely it should be our meeting point in a piece of legislation which many of us support in so many of its respects. I beg to move.
Page 41, line 13, at end insert--
("(5) Any day appointed by an order made under section 121 below for the coming into force of this section shall not be earlier than two years after the coming into force of sections 103 to 113 below.
(6) This section shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report containing an evaluation of the effect of sections 103 to 113 below and his assessment of that evaluation.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page