HC Deb 17 January 1986 vol 89 cc1405-9

Order for Second Reading read.

2.8 pm

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I begin by saying how delighted I am that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has secured a Second Reading for his important Bill. I wish it speedy progress on to the statute book. May I also say how honoured I am that the Leader of the Opposition is in his place? He has obviously come specially to give support to my Bill, not tempted just because it obliges the disclosure of certain records. It is good to see him here and to know that he is four square behind a Bill which has magnificent all-party support. I shall be brief, because it is important that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office should have the chance to explain and expound on the Government's view on this important matter.

The genesis of the Bill is interesting and important. We look back to one of the most brutal and appalling examples in recent years, of child abuse and cruelty, culminating in murder—the Colin Evans case. Colin Evans had a record, which was undisclosed. He was able to obtain a voluntary position of trust acting as a baby sitter and to murder one of his charges. This brought into the open the problem that has been highlighted, especially by the Association of County Councils—people with previous criminal convictions who have abused and assaulted the weak, the elderly and especially little children have subsequently been able to obtain positions of trust.

The ACC has circulated to hon. Members a number of illustrations of the types of cases that have made it so keen to see legislation on the statute book. I do not want to detain the House by quoting too many, but some should be put on the record. There is the case of a driver convicted of acts of gross indecency with mentally handicapped minors only to be found not to have declared his record of convictions on similar charges. There is the case of a school caretaker who had been convicted of indecent assault on a child, which was unknown at the time of his appointment to the county council. He was subsequently convicted of a similar offence with respect to children at the school and dismissed. There is the case of a resident warden on a gipsy caravan site on which a number of children lived. He was found to have been convicted and imprisoned for sexual offences in Zimbabwe. The association details drug offences and a number of sad cases of people convicted of theft and dishonesty who were able to obtain positions in registered private nursing homes or homes for the elderly run by local authorities.

The catalogue of 33 cases is but the tip of the iceberg. This week, the ACC furnished me with another list of 14 cases that have come to light in recent weeks. One particularly objectionable case involved a man appointed to the post of warden at a hostel for adolescent boys. His application showed that he had worked for 15 years previously in a similar capacity in a home for displaced teenagers run by a charitable society. Before his appointment, he claimed that he had been employed in a hostel for homeless families. He gave references, but these were later proved to be forgeries. He had a deplorable record, yet he obtained that position of trust. Such cases have made the ACC feel that there should be a statutory obligation to disclose the records of people seeking positions of trust in work with the young and with vulnerable adults.

There is no difference between me and the Government in determination. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is as concerned as every hon. Member. He shares my concern that modest measures like this should not become an excuse for a witch hunt. I was one of those many Members who supported the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. That measure enables those who have made mistakes, have been punished and have atoned for their crimes to have the opportunity to wipe the slate clean. I do not object to that and nor could anyone who had any feeling of compassion.

There are always exceptions—those who have abused the young, sexually or in other ways, and those who have defrauded the elderly and have convictions which are relevant and remain relevant. They remain relevant, especially if their acts come about because of some mental abnormality or flaw in their characters which makes it almost impossible for them not to do those things again. Society needs protecting from them and they need protecting from themselves. It is with that in mind that I believe that the Bill should commend itself to the House.

I was gratified when I talked to my hon. Friends—I use those words advisedly—in all parts of the House and had no difficulty in attracting an impressive list of sponsors.

I have not discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I have discussed it with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whose responsibility this matter is. He has apologised to me for the unavoidable reasons for his absence, which I accept. We have had what I call an enlightened disagreement.

I am aware that the Government feel that this matter can best be dealt with by some form of voluntary code. I beg to differ. I feel strongly, and I know that the ACC does, that the Bill will do something more than the code. It will ensure that anyone who seeks employment or offers his services as a volunteer—that is important—to care for children, the elderly, physically and mentally disabled people and all who are vulnerable should have previous convictions disclosed.

The Bill does certain things which the admirable guidelines upon which the Home Office has spent a great deal of time, care and thought in hammering out do not do. I know that my next point will appeal to the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). The Bill applies to Scotland. The Home Office guidelines do not. It is invidious that one important part of the United Kingdom should be omitted from such provisions. A number of bad cases have come to light north of the border. I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman and to see him nodding vigorous assent to that matter. For that reason alone, the Government should pause and think again.

Of course, the Bill is not perfect, although as one who drew seventh place in the ballot, I had the opportunity of having it drafted professionally. I realise that it is not perfect and I am more than happy, in effect, to say to my hon. Friend and his colleagues, "Put in what amendments you wish." I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will surprise us all and say that my argument has, at last, prevailed.

The Government have worked exceptionally hard. People involved in voluntary organisations and the local authorities have been consulted. A great deal of homework has been done. The experts in the Home Office know far more about the problem and its details than I do. However, I strongly and respectfully urge my hon. Friend to realise that there is no difference in interest and determination between us as we share the same objectives, and for a moment to reflect that on this occasion my road might be slightly better than his.

I believe that it is often right to rely on voluntary guidelines and codes of practice that do not have the force of statute. In many areas that is entirely the right road to take. I also believe that there are certain areas where legislation is necessary. When we are dealing with the wellbeing of the disadvantaged in our society, we have to do that in legislation. Just as it was right, laudable and proper for the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) to introduce his Bill today and to have all-party support in an area where it could have been argued that legislation was not absolutely necessary, so I believe that in this case legislation will improve matters. It will mean no ducking. If people seek to evade or avoid their responsibilities, there will be parliamentary and legislative sanction.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that to many of us the inference from his Bill is that, if the legislation is accepted by the Government, the code will operate without any recourse to the legislation?

Mr. Cormack

That is precisely why, at this late hour, I am urging my hon. Friend, whose sincerity is not in doubt and whose determination is not in question, to think again about legislation.

I speak as one who is convinced that this is a real problem for Parliament to tackle. As are so many hon. Members in the House, I am the father of young children. I know how vulnerable they can be. In my constituency I have seen many young and elderly people in danger of exploitation. We have all had similar experiences. Before I came to the House I was a school master for 10 years and during that time I came across evidence of many disturbing cases. They would have been dealt with more adequately had legislation of this sort been on the statute book. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend, whose credentials are impeccable, to reconsider whether it would not be better to legislate rather than to rely on a code of practice.

I am most anxious, as I am sure the House is, to hear the comments of my hon. Friend. I am anxious to hear his conversion and to learn that he has been sitting in Damascus rather than in the Chamber.

2·23 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw)

I do not think that anybody can fail to be moved by the cogency, clarity and extreme charm with which my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has made his case. I endorse the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) cannot be here. I am glad to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South recognises and acknowledges his absence. However, there is a continual confusion between Putney and Pudsey, so it is not surprising that I am here instead.

My hon. Friend has made an eloquent plea that the legislative route, which is what he would prefer to deal with this matter, is one that the Government should follow as opposed to the administrative route that we prefer. That lays upon me the obligation to expose to the House the reasons why we are not so minded at this time.

I am prepared to start from the position of common ground, which I am sure my hon. Friend will undoubtedly admit. Despite the close limitations placed on disclosure, there have been many changes within recent years to provide greater protection for children. For example, in 1982 it was agreed that information on the background of people seeking to register as child minders should be made available to the local authorities concerned. Many serious incidents of assault on children by those in a position of trust has led to widespread concern that more fundemental changes need to be made. The Home Office and the police share that view.

Following the particularly horrible case of the murder of 4-year-old Marie Payne and the conviction of her murderer in 1984, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South referred—I must point out that she was unknown to her murderer before the tragedy took place—the then Home Secretary decided that the arrangements for disclosing the criminal background of people seeking work with children should be urgently reviewed.

The terms of reference of the review, which was announced by means of a parliamentary written answer in March 1985, were: To devise a system under which information about the unsuitability by reason of criminal background of people seeking positions where they will have substantial opportunities for access to children can be communicated to those bodies which are responsible for engaging such people, whether in a paid or voluntary capacity, and to those who have responsibility for authorising or licensing such people to occupy such positions. Although the terms of reference were restricted to those with access to children, the review was undertaken on the basis that the system should be capable of extension to cover other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly and the handicapped. The review team included representatives of the local authorities and the police as well as central Departments, and produced its first report in July last year.

I think that my hon. Friend will concede that the review team examined in detail every aspect of disclosure and made several recommendations for a new system capable of being applied to children and other vulnerable groups. Specific recommendations were made about those working in the state sector with substantial access to children. The review team has been expanded to include representatives of the voluntary and private sectors, and I hope that the House will be interested to know that it is now considering what acceptable arrangements can be made to extend disclosure to them as well. Those who have read the report, a copy of which is in the Library, will understand that, far from being a simple matter, the issue is full of complexities. The principle of the complexity of the problem is at the heart of our present anxiety about the legislative proposals currently before the House.

The then Home Secretary welcomed the report when it was published on 23 July and said that consultations would be held with interested organisations before the recommendations were brought into effect. The report was widely circulated for comment and was in general well received. Draft circulars to give effect to the recommendations for paid and volunteer staff in the local authorities and the National Health Service have been prepared. Subject to any comments on the drafts, we hope to be able to bring the new arrangements into effect in the state sector with effect from 1 April this year. It is estimated that as a result of those arrangements about 100,000 extra checks may be made each year covering areas of particular concern, such as teaching and social work.

The recommendations in the report and the guidance in the circular have been worked out very carefully, keeping the protection of children as the paramount consideration but balancing the often conflicting views about how disclosure can most effectively be made. As a result, we have produced proposals that take account of the needs of children and also pay regard to the scope of checking, the confidentiality of records and the practicalities of running criminal record checks on potentially hundreds of thousands of staff and volunteers. I emphasis the sheer scale of the operation that is now to be set in train.

Because of the impracticability of checking on everyone who has any access to children or other vulnerable people, which must run into several millions, the arrangements that we propose are limited to those appointed to positions giving opportunity for substantial access to children. Checks will not necessarily be required for administrative staff or those with little or supervised access to children. Guidance is also to be given to the local authority services concerned and to the National Health Service about the main groups of people for whom checks should be considered and about the elements to be considered in deciding whether a person has substantial access.

In order to limit the volume of checking, we are proposing that checks should be made at the point when a person has been otherwise accepted for a job. Checks will not therefore be made on all candidates for jobs or all volunteers but only on those who, apart from a criminal records check, have been accepted for an appointment. That will greatly reduce the amount and cost of checking and avoid unnecessary exposure of criminal records, Because confidentiality is an extremely important part of public confidence in the system—

It being half past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

To be resumed upon Friday 7 February.—[Mr. Cormack.]