| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we support the amendment. If one looks at Clause 106(2) as drafted one sees that the Secretary of State has an absolute right to issue a new certificate without any further check upon its accuracy. With the certificates that will be issued under the legislation--indeed, the large number of certificates that it will be necessary for people to have--it is difficult to believe that they will always be accurate. If they are not accurate, what happens?
The formation of a criminal records tribunal as proposed in the amendment would give a proper means of redress. Such a tribunal could receive information and evidence and assess the accuracy of a certificate. Most importantly, it could also hear representations that are made and, finally, where a person has suffered damage of any sort, it could award compensation. Those are the necessary concomitants to the issuing of such certificates.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be wholly wrong if, for instance, someone's prospects of
securing employment were disadvantaged by inaccurate information appearing on a certificate. The need to ensure that that does not happen is already recognised in Clause 106. If an individual wishes to query the accuracy of the information on a certificate he will be able to do so. A thorough check will be carried out and the complainant and, where applicable, the registered body will be issued with a new certificate if any inaccuracies are discovered. I believe that this is a sufficient system of appeal. The accuracy of information in central records can be checked by means of fingerprints and chief constables will be responsible for the accuracy of local information.A criminal records tribunal along the lines proposed by the noble Lord and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would be unwieldy, bureaucratic and, I have to say, would add yet more costs to the Bill. Those costs would have to be borne either by those who were unsuccessful in their appeals, or, if that was not feasible, by all other users of the agency or, indeed, taxpayers. I am sure that our proposals are a sufficient guard against injustices. Individuals will see the certificate in every case and will have an opportunity to query the accuracy. I believe that that is a sufficient safeguard.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that I find the Minister's response quite unconvincing. Clause 106 has very limited scope. It has very limited detail and does not set out the nature of the further inquiry which would be carried on. All the Minister is saying in response is that if, for example, there has been a mistake in transcription from the records, that would be corrected in the new certificate. What we are saying is that the possibility of serious injustice from wrong material being included on whatever source material is being used--there being no possibility whatever of challenge to that--is a danger not only to the liberty of the applicant but also, in the end, could result in jobs working with young or vulnerable adults not being filled because no suitable person was available. I do not find that argument satisfactory and I shall seek the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I suspect that the noble Lord will find that we do not have a House and are therefore unable to complete a Division; we may find that that is not the case. If we do not have a House, if the noble Lord continues to press his amendment, we shall have to return at another date in order to complete the Bill at a time that may not be convenient to him. Having said that, he may wish to reconsider whether or not he wishes to push this amendment to a vote.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have three things to say about that. First, the Chief Whip cannot say that he has not been warned that we were dissatisfied with the timetable which has been imposed on this Report stage.
Secondly, it would not be my intention to ask those who agree with me to abstain from voting in order not to achieve a House; that is not the purpose of my seeking the opinion of the House. My purpose is to make sure, and make it absolutely plain, that there is proper consideration of all parts of this Bill at a proper time. It is the Government's responsibility to provide a House for government legislation. I shall not seek to frustrate it by refraining from voting or asking my friends to refrain from voting.
The final point I want to make to the Government Chief Whip is that the normal procedure under these circumstances is for the remainder of the business--it is a very small amount--to take place at the beginning of the next business day. If that happened, I would have no objection and there would be no delay--and need be no delay--whatsoever to the passage of the Bill through this House.
1.29 a.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 157 shall be agreed to?
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Monkswell, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]
Williams of Mostyn, L.
Blatch, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Courtown, E. [Teller.]
Ferrers, E.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
1.34 a.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as it appears that fewer than 30 Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 55, I declare the Question not decided, and further proceedings on the Bill stand adjourned.
- House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before two o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |