| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That was a most helpful reply. I felt that we had an adequate reply in Committee. However, the Association of Colleges still had these queries. It is extremely helpful that the Minister has set the matter out at such great length. I think that the association will be delighted with the reply. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 138 [Prohibition from teaching, etc.]:
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 121C:
- Page 85, line 37, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last word in the second line of the amendment as printed on the Marshalled List should read, "by". The amendment then makes a little more sense.
I ask the Minister for a reassurance that this part of the Act will not be brought into force until the systems that will be needed to operate it are running rather more perfectly than they are at present. I checked with one county council about the status of the checking that we now, quite rightly, perform. It started about three months ago, if I remember rightly. The council said that during those three months it had made 400 requests. It had so far received three replies—three okays—and all of them were also on the list provided by the authorities of applications of which they had no trace. So there seems to be a fair state of delay and chaos in the system at present. We should not pitch the enormous amount of applications that will come from schools into that system until we are sure that that system is working correctly.
We discussed the matter in Committee, and the Minister was kind enough to write to me afterwards, providing a good deal of explanation as to what was going on. It is clear from what was stated in the letter and what was said in Committee that parents who help out in schools will be caught by the clause, and specifically by subsection (3)(a), which states:
If the school discovers that someone who has been working with children is on the register—specifically, on the sex offenders' register—and that that is why they fall under the clause, there will be a good deal of general uproar in the school community and questions will be asked as to why the case was not cleared earlier. We owe it to governing bodies and others in charge of schools to give them some kind of guidance about how they are supposed to deal with parents who come in to help with reading or with school trips. In village schools, it is often other members of the local community as much as parents who are involved in such activity. It would be a great comfort to governing bodies if guidance were set out for them to follow.
I suggest that a sensible procedure for people who volunteer to help out in school would be for the process of checking them out to start immediately but that they should be allowed to serve two or three days in schools before they are cleared, because the process will clearly take some time. The first part of the amendment is intended to ensure that the process works smoothly for the school.
Secondly, what do we do if a parent or some other member of what the school would regard as its community fails such a check? It will be devastating for the parent and the child for the parent suddenly to be exposed as someone not considered suitable to be around children. That is something for which a school must be prepared.
If we are to believe the BBC—I do not know from where it gets its figures—there are 200,000 paedophiles in this country. That is the figure that it was advertising widely in advance of its latest programme on the subject. That means that roughly one in 100 parents will be a person who should fail such a check. So schools should expect parents to fail quite often. There may be many instances in which parents will fail such a check once the provision is fully in force; there will certainly be some.
In any case, it will be a delicate matter for schools to handle. When they discover that, are they meant to tell everyone? If not—and the Minister shakes her head—they will have to be very careful about how they carry out the check; who knows that the check has been carried out; and how the negative result is transmitted to the parent. Otherwise, it will become known anyway, without the school having to broadcast it, because such matters will travel fast and far. So, there is scope for guidance and for the department to tell the school how it should behave in those circumstances. That is what I seek to achieve, although I will be delighted if there are other ways of doing it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my amendment deals with something slightly different but is, nevertheless, to do with criminal checks. I have no intention, despite what I shall say about the way in which the system works, of speaking against the need to check the background of people who work with young children. It is a real issue, and the policy was decided by the team who worked with me at the Home Office before the 1997 election.
The introduction of the system has been horrendous. The problems appear to be insuperable. On 8th May, Philip Johnston wrote in the Daily Telegraph:
The delay causes huge problems. The Government have underestimated the impact of an Act of Parliament that was going to affect every teacher and every person who works in a school—the cleaners, the caretakers, the gardeners, the contractors on site, every volunteer, every mother who comes in to help with reading. I am talking only about the education system, never mind the health system or other public services. David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said:
I have one or two technical questions. On page 8 of the guidance document sent out by the department, there is a reference to health issues. The document says:
On page 10, the following question is posed:
The promises about how long it would take to process applications have not been kept. It would be helpful to know what will happen on that front. Every member of staff, volunteer, or contractor working on site who comes in contact with the children in our 24,000 or so schools has to be paid for: an application on behalf of each one of them, costing £12, will be a great expense on the education budget. I know that the guidance says that the cost for schools will be met by the LEAs, but I wonder whether that has been recognised in the budget provision.
I turn to the new checks and the requirement for disclosure, which is why I asked the first question about newly-qualified student teachers. Paragraph 38 of the guidance says that where persons take up,
Why must a person who has been a governor for many years have another check carried out on re-election? It is no good a Minister returning to the Dispatch Box to say that it is not necessary; it says in the guidance that it is necessary even if there is a current, properly certified clearance document. That seems excessive. Of course we do not want unsuitable people working with children, but this is a belt-and-braces provision too far.
The application form that has to be filled in is intrusive. It asks for information which is of no relevance to whether a person is suitable to work with children. Section E asks for additional information. It says that the information,
One answer is that additional information will help to process the application more quickly. I should like to know precisely how that works. Furthermore, my understanding is that it is not a compulsory part of the form. Information given by Warwickshire County Council to its teachers states,
The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me about the checks, for which I thank her warmly. But the letter did not deal with backlog and my concern about backlog needs to be addressed. Schools are losing volunteers and staff because they do not want to wait around. Some people in the community help with reading and tasks in the classroom in more than one school. It is excessive for them to be subjected to more than one check if they work in more than one school.
The noble Baroness's letter states on the second page,
I have yet another missive—there is so much information concerned with criminal checks—this time from the Criminal Records Bureau of the Department for Education and Skills, but I have no date or other reference for it. On page 5, it states that elected governors should be checked after election. That is even if they were checked before the previous election and the one before that. That seems to be really excessive.
The document also states that they must be checked before appointment. If there are weeks of backlog, how on earth can they be checked before appointment? Once selected, they are appointed to governing bodies within days—and sometimes sooner if they have previously been governors—but the idea that they are kept waiting is unacceptable.
I am sorry that I have spent a little more time than usual on the amendment, but there are great anxieties in our schools. I believe that we are losing important assistance to our schools—that is, volunteers and members of staff—and the Government ought to re-examine the way in which the system is working.
"( ) Where a person is a parent of a child at a school, and the work in question under subsection (2) or (3) is provided voluntarily and without payment to or on behalf of the school in
question, the Secretary of State, in relation to England, or the National Assembly for Wales, in relation to Wales, shall issue guidance as to—
(a) the circumstances under which such a parent should be checked for his status under this section;
(b) the persons who shall be permitted to know that such a check has been requested;
(c) the steps that should be taken, if a parent fails such a check, in relation to informing teachers, pupils and their parents of this fact."
"brings a person regularly into contact with children".
If we are to place such an obligation on schools, we must be a little more helpful to them.
"Two months after the agency started work, long delays in vetting teachers and care workers are being reported by the agencies that recruit them. The problems are so acute that Estelle Morris, the Education Secretary, has urged David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to take a personal hand in improving the system".
He went on to say:
"Teachers, care workers and others who work with children or vulnerable people need an 'enhanced disclosure' check from the CRB before they can take up an appointment . . . The system has now been centralised under the CRB, which is supposed to complete 90 per cent of the checks within 15 working days. But only 10 per cent have been completed within that time and agencies say thousands of supply teachers have been waiting for up to 12 weeks—causing many to look elsewhere for work".
Marcia Roberts, the director of external relations for the Recruitment & Employment Confederation said:
"Along with many other organisations we have been warning the CRB for months that it was underestimating the likely demand for checks. All our fears have now been realised".
"The CRB system is an absolute disaster. Now, the Government is going back to an unsatisfactory situation because there's been a monumental cock-up".
I use the words of other people. They work in education and are directly affected by the problems. It is dismaying to see that the company that has been given the work is Capita, the consultancy that also operated the individual learning accounts. It is not surprising that people are concerned.
"Anyone appointed to a post involving regular contact with children or young people should be medically fit".
My question is technical, but it is important. My understanding is that one cannot discriminate against someone with HIV/AIDS. If, however, staff must be medically fit, will someone with HIV/AIDS be excluded by that part of the guidance?
"What checks should be made on applicants for teacher training courses?".
My understanding is that courses that start after March 2002 should be asked to apply for enhanced disclosure. I understand that and agree with it. However, should there be a further check when someone takes up a post? All the rules say that they should because they would be working for a different employer in, perhaps, a different part of the country. It would be helpful to know whether the certificate of clearance can be passported around the country from job to job.
"a new appointment with a different employer, are re-appointed or re-elected as a governor, have a break in service of three months or more, or move to a post with significantly greater responsibility
26 Jun 2002 : Column 1450for children, or if the employer, school, further education institution or LEA has grounds for concern about their suitability to work with children",
another check is necessary.
"will help us to process your application more quickly".
It asks for marital status and the number of financially dependent children under 18. It then asks for bank or building society account number, sort code, employment status and occupancy status, and mother's maiden name. Many people in this country who have bank accounts and sort code numbers often use their mother's maiden name as a kind of security check. That information has nothing to do with whether someone is suitable to work with children. Why is it necessary?
"Unless otherwise told, please answer all questions in Sections A to H".
That includes section E, from which I have quoted. What have bank accounts to do with finding out whether someone is suitable to work with children?
"Parents who seek or offer to do work at a school should be checked in the same way as any other voluntary workers"—
—I do not disagree—
"However, these provisions do need to be applied with a degree of common sense".
When there is guidance from the department, and detailed and pedantic guidance from the local authorities to the schools, they have to follow it, but the guidance is not applied with any degree of common sense.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I shall attempt to give them as full an answer as possible and to deal with the significant points they made.
I shall begin with Amendment No. 121C. I appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the position of parents who undertake voluntary work at their children's school. I hope that it will help to allay his concern to know that provision for checking parents who volunteer is not new. A school may not use the services of a person as a volunteer to work regularly with children where that person is subject to a direction and on my department's list of barred persons—list 99, as it is known. Therefore, where a school seeks to use a volunteer, including parents, to work in regular contact with children, it must be satisfied that that person is not on list 99. In other words, a check must be carried out.
That has been the position since September 1998. However, the arrangements for checking list 99 changed in March this year when the Criminal Records Bureau became operational. Prior to March, a school or education authority could check the list directly and the person concerned would not necessarily know that the check had been made. There were also separate arrangements whereby education authorities could arrange criminal record checks with their local police forces. However, those checks could be made only if the person would have substantial unsupervised access to children on a regular basis.
Since March, checks of list 99 are undertaken alongside criminal record checks by the Criminal Records Bureau as part of what are now called "disclosures". And we have now issued guidance advising that in addition to people who have regular
contact with children, schools should also obtain a disclosure via the CRB in respect of anyone who is eligible to apply for one. I shall be happy to send the noble Lord a copy of the guidance to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred, and to follow up any questions. I hope that he will find it useful.We advise, for example, that any person who applies, seeks or accepts work with children at school should be asked to obtain a disclosure, regardless of whether the work is paid or voluntary. So, a parent or anyone else who volunteers to help out in the classroom should be checked.
Another category of person who should be checked is anyone who applies for, seeks or accepts any position where his or her normal duties will include caring for, supervising, training, or being in sole charge of children. Perhaps I may give specific examples. Someone who volunteers to accompany pupils on a residential trip and will be responsible for looking after or supervising the children should be checked. On the other hand, we would not expect a volunteer who will have only limited contact with children on a single occasion to be checked; for example, someone who helps out on sports day or accompanies an outing to a museum or local activity.
I can understand that noble Lords might be concerned that we should go too far in advising that parents who volunteer their services should be checked in the same way as other prospective volunteers and employees. However, being a parent does not of itself mean that someone is automatically suitable to work with other people's children or to have responsibility for them. It is a sad fact that a great deal of child abuse takes place within families and many of the people who are deemed unsuitable to work with children are also, unfortunately, parents—and in the case of Lauren Wright, who we will be discussing later, step-parents.
A number of safeguards are built into the arrangements for disclosures to ensure that information is not disclosed indiscriminately, that checks cannot be made without the individual's knowledge and that the individual is told what information the checks reveal.
In the first instance an application for a disclosure must be signed by the individual concerned to indicate his or her consent and then the person is sent a copy of the disclosure so that he or she can challenge any inaccuracy.
If a check reveals that a prospective volunteer is on list 99, however, the same safeguards in regard to confidentiality apply to that information as apply to any information about a person's criminal record that is revealed by a disclosure. Such information is confidential and its disclosure is governed by the Data Protection Act 1998 as well as the law of confidentiality. Also, the disclosure will be issued only to a person registered with the CRB and the Police Act 1997 provides that it is a criminal offence to reveal information supplied in a disclosure in a way that is not provided for in that Act.
It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which any staff other than the head teacher would need to have access to the information and it would certainly not be acceptable for any information to be disclosed to pupils or their parents. Because the individual has to agree and sign to have that check, I think that those with something they would not wish to be known which would make it inappropriate for them to work with children might be discouraged. That is the process that we believe makes most sense in this context.
There are two reasons why we believe that Amendment No. 130 is unnecessary. First, public authorities already have a duty to act reasonably in all circumstances, and they can be challenged in the courts if they do not. Secondly, as I have explained, there are already safeguards in place about the use of information provided by the Criminal Records Bureau.
The amendment raises concerns about two aspects of the new arrangements for criminal record checks, now called disclosures, that are operated by the CRB: the level of personal information that is sought on the application forms for a disclosure; and the fact that a disclosure for the purpose of child protection reveals information about the whole of a criminal record that a person has, not only about offences against children.
The CRB is clear that the information requested on its application form is needed to enable it to establish the identity of the applicant beyond doubt. That is necessary to ensure that highly sensitive information is not issued to the wrong person and that someone cannot obtain a disclosure by using another person's identity. The information requested is used only for the purpose of establishing and verifying the person's identity and is no more than people provide to a variety of organisations in the normal course of their lives—for example, when applying for a credit card. We believe that it is important to know precisely whom we are describing and talking about.
I am conscious of the concern, particularly among parents and others considering voluntary work among children, that some youthful indiscretion that is not relevant to children might become known in the school or the local community. It is not possible to limit the information included in a disclosure only to that which is relevant to the position the applicant is seeking. A person's suitability for work with children is invariably a decision that can be made only on a case-by-case basis in the light of the circumstances of each instance.
If we were to limit the information disclosed in the way the amendment suggests, schools would not be able to obtain information about drugs offences or offences of violence against adults. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would agree that such offences may well be relevant in assessing a person's suitability even if the offence itself did not directly relate to children.
Also the department's guidance about vetting staff and volunteers that I mentioned earlier stresses that a person's suitability for work with children should be judged in light of all relevant information and that a criminal record does not automatically make a person unsuitable to work with children.
The guidance advises employers to take account of a number of factors in deciding whether a criminal conviction is relevant: the nature of the offence; the age of the offence; the frequency of offences; and the nature of the appointment. A copy of the guidance is in the Library of your Lordships' House. I shall, of course, make it available to any noble Lords who wish to receive it. On that basis, I hope that I have reassured your Lordships on the two aspects of the amendment.
I want to talk about the Criminal Records Bureau. It is a large and complex project and is experiencing difficulties. Those difficulties are being dealt with as a matter of urgency. When these initial problems are resolved, we believe that the bureau will provide a more comprehensive and much quicker service than was available under the previous arrangements.
In the meantime, despite the vigorous efforts made by the CRB and noted by the noble Baroness, the position in regard to delays has not improved as quickly as we had hoped. We refuse to compromise on child safety, but we also need to make sure that the appointment of teachers can be done in a fast and efficient manner. We have therefore put in place interim arrangements to allow that. Those interim arrangements will stay in place until the CRB is fully up to date and meeting its performance standards.
Under the arrangements, CRB staff are trawling the backlog of applications and checking new applications to identify those in respect of teachers and other key staff for schools. For those applications, the CRB is performing checks of list 99. If that check is satisfactory, the employer or agency will be able to appoint the person provisionally. The full criminal record and police check will be performed and the relevant disclosure issued by the CRB as soon as possible after that.
I hope that, on the basis of my detailed explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am most grateful for that explanation. The noble Baroness has answered quite satisfactorily all the questions that I put to her. It will be a great relief when the system starts to work well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 121D not moved.]
Schedule 14 [Inspection of nursery education]:
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page