| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support what I believe is the intention of these amendments, which is to ensure that the Criminal Records Agency operates speedily and efficiently and that the information it passes on, in whatever form, is not misused. Given that in many cases criminal conviction and criminal record certificates will be applied for by those seeking employment, it is important that these applications are dealt with as quickly as possible.
This Government have done much to ensure that the service that government departments and agencies provide to the public is efficient, a principle that is enshrined in the Citizen's Charter. The Criminal Records Agency will, of course, be required to adhere to strict targets relating to its performance. In line with other agencies, these will be set out in its business plans and key performance indicators.
To lay down in statute what these time limits should be, as Amendments Nos. 131 and 137 do, is somewhat foolhardy given that we do not yet know exactly how big the agency will be, where it will be located, or exactly how many certificates it will be required to issue each year. Nor does it take account of situations when there may be justifiable delays in issuing a certificate. It is important to ensure that the information on the certificates is as accurate as possible and delays may occur, for example, if it proves necessary to go back to an applicant in order to ask him to provide further proof of identity.
These amendments do not specify what the sanction should be if the agency does not meet these time limits, but if it is intended that applicants should be entitled to compensation, even though they may not have suffered any loss or inconvenience, this would divert the agency's resources or lead to an increase in the cost of checks.
I would, however, like to assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that it should be possible to deal with applications for these checks, which will involve consulting only the Police National Computer and in some cases, the microfiche records held by the National Identification Service, and not local police records, very speedily indeed.
I also share the concern underlying Amendment No. 172. This amendment insists that all information about criminal records which is provided to registered bodies, whether transferred electronically or otherwise, should be covered by the code of practice. I am glad to say that it already is.
In addition, our proposal in this Bill to punish those who disclose information when they should not will apply to data passed electronically, and I can assure noble Lords that there are also substantial protections in the Data Protection Act about the electronic use and transfer of information.
Changing the Bill in this way may be counterproductive, as, specifying that certain types of information exchange must be covered by the code of practice, might suggest that others which do not appear on the face of the Bill fall outside its scope.
tbam minded that the noble Lord did, as a preface to this amendment, say that it was only a probing amendment. I am advised that Phoenix is already in operation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 132:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause--
(".--(1) A person commits an offence if he requires an applicant for a paid position to supply him with information relating to any criminal convictions of the applicant (other than a criminal conviction certificate) supplied by a data user to the applicant as an individual exercising his entitlement under section 21 of the Data Protection Act 1984.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a serious matter, and it is one which I did raise in discussion of what is now Clause 102 at Committee stage. The problem with the introduction of Clause 102 is that it is not in substitution for provisions of the Data Protection Act, but in addition to them. That is against the wishes, as I understand it, of the Government, certainly against the wishes of the Data Protection Registrar and of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. The White Paper, On the Record, which is the basis for this part of the legislation, refers to the practice of enforced subject access, where prospective employers who require information about criminal convictions and who have an interest in establishing whether individuals have a criminal record, often require them to make an application for information under the Data Protection Act. This practice, known as enforced subject access, is unsatisfactory--this is dealt with in paragraph 7 of the White Paper--because it elicits both spent and unspent convictions, which clearly undermines the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
Paragraph 44 of the White Paper says that the Government's proposals will provide employers and others with a legitimate means of discovering about individuals' current convictions.
There will, in the Government's view, be no justification for the practice of enforced subject access discussed at paragraph 7 when the new arrangements are in place; and the Government therefore propose to consider what action should be taken to discourage or prevent enforced subject access to criminal records once the new arrangements are in place.
That is not new. In his l989 report, the Data Protection Registrar referred to the practice and said:
The Home Affairs Select Committee of the other place made a similar point in l990.
The amendment gives effect to the wishes of the Government, the Data Protection Registrar and the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee. It
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the increasing practice of enforced subject access, which this amendment seeks to outlaw, is undesirable and is contrary to the spirit of the Data Protection Act 1984. It also undermines the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. If it did not cease as a result of the introduction of criminal conviction certificates provided for in this Bill it would undermine the measures we introduce to protect information about spent convictions in this Bill.
We very much hope that the new criminal conviction certificates will give employers a legitimate means by which they can obtain confirmation of an applicant's unspent convictions and reduce the practice of enforced subject access. But I share the noble Lord's concerns that this may not eliminate the problem. We will think further about this problem and try to find a way of amending this Bill in order to outlaw this practice.
I am advised that the matter is not straightforward, but I promise that we shall attempt to address it in this Bill. In the light of that undertaking, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can hardly resist that plea. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause l03 [Criminal record certificates]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 41, line 17, leave out ("body") and insert ("person")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 133, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 134, 135, 136, 138, 142, 143, 144, 148, 149, 153, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167 and 169.
These are the first of a number of Government amendments to Part V of the Bill. Before explaining their purpose I wish to make noble Lords aware that although we would have wished to bring forward all government amendments before the Bill left your Lordships' House, it is likely to be necessary to bring forward two further amendments when this Bill reaches the Commons. These are both issues which require further consideration in order to ensure that they can be properly addressed. The first will extend the provisions which the Bill contains to allow the Lord Chancellor access to checks for judicial appointments to other Ministers of the Crown. This will be necessary to cover Scotland but also judicial appointments which are the responsibility of other Ministers. However, there are certain other situations in which Ministers of the Crown might also require access to checks for which we would seek to make provision.
The second matter is a difficulty which has emerged in relation to regulatory bodies, in particular the financial regulators. There are circumstances in which, in order to fulfil their regulatory duties, it is necessary and is current practice for them to pass on criminal record information which has been provided to them. The Bill currently makes no provision for this. We need to consider ways in which it might be possible to amend the Bill so that its provisions do not stand in the way of necessary regulatory functions.
I now turn to the amendments. The purpose of these amendments is to permit office holders, such as the Director General of the Office of the National Lottery, to register for access to criminal record and enhanced criminal record certificates. As these office holders are not bodies corporate or incorporate, they would not be entitled to register unless the Bill is amended in this way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
"I do not believe that this is a proper use of the Act. I recommend that it should be prohibited with a criminal sanction".
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 134 to 136 en bloc:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page