| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is quite right to remind the House that we were unable to support his opposition to Clause 102 in Committee. He is also right to claim that what he now proposes is a compromise--a fall-back, if you like. It seems to us to be entirely sensible. In the end there will have to be some form of criminal conviction certificate, but we believe that the highest priority must be for the criminal record certificates and for the protection of vulnerable young people and, indeed--in the light of the amendments that we shall shortly be discussing--vulnerable adults. The delay proposed in the amendment is simply a recognition of reality. Such certificates and procedures will be expensive, although not as expensive as the Government claim, partly because of the amendment which was passed in Committee under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
If we delay the implementation of Clause 102 as is now proposed, then the preservation of Clause 103 and 104 within reasonable budgetary limits, including the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is that much more likely. I believe that it is in the Government's interest to agree to this modest and sensible amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: As my noble friend Lord Rodgers said a moment ago, we are entering into new territory in considering criminal record certificates. The first question that we have to consider is: what purpose are they supposed to serve? Clearly there is no intention that a member of the public
should be able to approach an individual in the street and demand to see his certificate of criminal record, so there must be a purpose to it. That purpose is clearly in connection with applications for appointments and for jobs. When one reaches that point, one realises that there is a balance to be struck--where does the public interest lie in considering who should have access to criminal record certificates?When one looks as Clauses 103 and 104 and considers that these certificates are to be used and shown for the purposes of jobs and appointments in a very vulnerable sector, one can see quite clearly that the public interest lies in showing such certificates to the employers who will employ people for the purposes of dealing with children, and so on. Such assurance should be given to them. However, when one enters into the whole field of work, employment and appointments, very different considerations then arise.
It is certainly right that information should be available to employers showing that a person has been convicted of dishonesty if he is applying for a job or an appointment which involves a position of trust. Equally, it is of importance that a person who has convictions for violence should disclose those convictions if he is concerned with an occupation which is in direct contact with the public. It is a matter for the employer when he considers the risk he takes in employing that person, the insurance implications and the possible effect of having such an employee upon the other people who work for him. These are short-term protections for the employer.
There is a public interest in preventing further offences altogether. The rehabilitation of an offender is simply another and better means of protecting the public. In the long term it is healthier for society that people who have convictions should not re-offend.
The problem that arises in relation to Clause 102 in considering the whole breadth of the employment field is that, in order to avoid re-offending, a person who has been convicted must be given the responsibilities of a job and must have his home and family. A person who has been convicted, has received training and rehabilitation in prison and is given all the support services when he comes out of prison may be faced with severe job discrimination because of the fact that he has convictions recorded on his certificate of criminal record. It may be that he may apply, in competition with other people, for a job which has no obvious connection, or no connection at all, with the type of offence for which he has been convicted. If, through job discrimination arising out of a certificate of criminal record, the past offender cannot obtain a job and remains unemployed, the cycle is not broken. He is likely, through necessity, to commit more crime; he is liable to go back to prison; and so his life continues in that downward spiral.
Clause 102 gives rise to the problem that we are attempting to go into new territory without any form of pilot scheme or experience as to how this type of
certificate will work. Where the public interest is firmly in favour of the person seeking employment in a vulnerable field, surely that is the place for a start to be made. It is only in the light of experience over a number of years that we can truly evaluate whether the principles that lie behind Clauses 103 and 104 should, in the public interest, be extended to the whole range of employment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that the criminal conviction certificates are not as malign and intrusive as has been suggested. They will be issued only to the individual concerned and to no one else. They will contain details of unspent convictions only, in line with our commitment to the rehabilitation of offenders; and they will enable employers to confirm that the information that they have been given by an applicant is full and accurate.
It may well be the case that we will choose to phase in the introduction of criminal conviction certificates so that the fledgling agency is not flooded with applicants from the outset and is able, initially, to concentrate on issuing the more important and probably less numerous criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates. However, their eventual introduction is an administrative matter concerned with workload and timing. It will be done when it is considered that the agency will be able to manage this extra work. The introduction of the certificates is not dependent upon the perceived success of other certificates, nor should it be. They are different types of checks which are being introduced for different purposes.
I would suggest that it is not necessary for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an evaluation of the initial success of criminal record and enhanced record certificates before any criminal conviction certificates can be issued. During the passage of this Bill the whole subject of criminal conviction certificates will have received full parliamentary scrutiny, and, if the measures become law, parliamentary approval as well. In these circumstances further scrutiny should not be required.
The evaluation that will really matter is the evaluation undertaken when a system is properly up and running to measure the impact on those people who will be subject to it. By delaying the introduction of criminal conviction certificates by at least two years, we would perhaps be unnecessarily delaying the implementation of a new criminal record system which will be coherent, cost effective, transparent and, above all, fair.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I do not understand why there would be delay to the introduction of a new criminal records system if a decision were made simply not to issue certificates for a period of two years until there had been the possibility of evaluating the effect of Clauses 103 to 113. I must have misheard the Minister because I thought she implied that it was open to the Home Secretary to implement this clause when and how he
chose within the statute. The Minister is nodding her head. Perhaps she will explain the position more fully as I did not catch everything she said. Is she saying that it lies within the capacity of the Home Secretary, with the Bill as drafted, to delay the coming into effect of this clause of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is open to us to make decisions about implementation dates for the commencement of parts of the Bill, but I made it clear that we could choose to phase the introduction of criminal conviction certificates. I also said that our considerations would be workload and timing.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I shall want to read that response carefully. It sounded to me a sympathetic response. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the amendment was a recognition of reality. It may well be that what the Minister is saying is also a recognition of reality. She referred to the evaluation. The evaluation as provided for in this amendment would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. He would have the final say in deciding what came before Parliament. I think that the Minister is moving in the direction of my amendment. Certainly I shall wish to scrutinise carefully what she said. I ask her only to think further on this matter. If it needs an amendment, it may be possible to return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 131 I wish to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 137 and 172. These are self-evidently probing amendments. They set what I think would probably be impossible deadlines for the delivery of criminal conviction certificates, but they do so because of the concern that has been expressed in a number of quarters about whether the Phoenix database, which will be necessary for the establishment of the Criminal Records Agency, will be up and running. We moved different amendments with the same purpose at Committee stage making the Secretary of State responsible for the accuracy of the contents of the certificates. This time we are not concerned so much with the accuracy of the certificates but the timescale with which they will be supplied.
Despite what I said, it is not entirely stupid to require that certificates should be available within seven days; after all, it is always a question of urgency to apply for jobs when they are vacant. Any significant delay, in particular as regards criminal record certificates--I refer to Amendment No. 137--could be damaging. We are looking for an assurance that the Phoenix database system will be up and
Page 41, line 13, at end insert--
("( ) The Secretary of State shall issue a criminal conviction certificate to an applicant within 7 days of the receipt of his application.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page