HL Deb 16 March 2001 vol 623 cc1119-23

12.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important order and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate it today. It covers three key areas of amendments to the existing 1975 exceptions order. It also represents an important milestone in the progress towards implementation of the Criminal Records Bureau.

First, I should place the order in the context of the policy on rehabilitation of offenders as a whole. It has long been accepted that it is important that those who offend should be able to reform, pick up their lives again after paying the penalty, and have a fresh start. The order does not seek to undermine the principle of punishment. However, if we are not to have an underclass of people who can never work again, some means must be put in place for rehabilitation.

However, it has also been accepted that the need for rehabilitation must be balanced against the risk from the ex-offender to society and, in particular, to its most vulnerable members. That is why, so long as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has been in place, there has also been a list of positions in relation to which the offender, even if his conviction under the Act is "spent", cannot escape his past. If asked an excepted question in respect of all past convictions by a person entitled to ask such a question, the offender must answer in respect of all past convictions and not merely in respect of those which are unspent.

It is crucial that that list of positions is compiled correctly. We must protect the vulnerable, and safeguards must be put in place for certain offices and certain aspects of life, such as national security. However, we must not make the list such that an offender who has put his past behind him is disadvantaged where that is not necessary due to the demands of the job.

I turn to the three areas of amendment covered by the present order. They are all amendments to categories which are included in the 1975 exceptions order but which need to be updated. The new provisions would replace those in the existing order in these areas.

The most complicated is that relating to working with children. The main effect of the order is to carry through the policy agreed on the definition of "working with children" contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. Such positions are regulated, as set out in Part II of the Act. We debated that definition in detail during the passage of the Bill last year.

The positions in question are those from which people who have been disqualified from working with children are banned. They include front-line carers, such as foster carers and teachers, those who supervise such workers, and, crucially, those with power to dismiss them. They also include all workers in certain areas of particular vulnerability, such as children's homes and schools. They include positions of influence, such as social services directors and the "great and the good" in organisations concerned with children, such as charitable trustees. All such positions need to be covered by the exceptions order so that full checks can be made.

This part of the Act came into force on 11th January. We need to bring the policy on the exceptions order into line with the new definition as soon as possible.

I now turn to the subject of healthcare workers—the second group covered by the order. The existing exception applies to all those who provide health services. That, of course, includes newly qualified general practitioners. Each health authority area maintains a list of GPs who are available for work. However, currently there is no provision for further criminal checks to take place when GPs move to a new health authority area and are put on a list for that area. The new order will allow such checks to take place.

The final group is justices' chief executives. Section 87 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 removed the requirement for justices' chief executives to be eligible as justices' clerks—a profession included in the order. Effectively, it removed the requirement for justices' chief executives to be legally qualified as barristers or solicitors—again, professions included in the exceptions order.

There is no reason why JCEs should not be subject to the same provisions as JCs—justices' clerks—and their assistants, who are required to disclose spent convictions. The amendment will ensure that all new appointees, some of whom will not be lawyers, are covered by the exceptions order.

Finally, I make a more general point relating to the order. Noble Lords will notice that for the amendment order we have adopted the wider definition of "work" used in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. That includes all work, whether paid or unpaid, in all sectors, including voluntary or volunteering work. I am sure that that is right. Where the nature of the work justifies it, we can no longer properly limit exceptions to areas of formal employment. The risks presented by certain positions are not affected by employment status; nor, therefore, should the exceptions order be so affected.

In conclusion, this is an important order and it represents an important milestone in our work to protect the vulnerable. Therefore, I commend it to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st March. be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

12.17 p.m.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, we are entirely happy with the order as it is set out.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, I want to raise one or two questions in connection with the order. Obviously, we, too, are entirely happy with the principles involved. However, as I see it, one or two issues need to be clarified.

First, it is plainly of the highest importance that full protection should be provided to prevent unsuitable people working with children. Article 4.2 of the order provides that there is an exemption for, any question asked by or on behalf of any person. in the course of the duties of his work, in order to assess the suitability of a person to work with children, where … the question relates to the person whose suitability is being assessed". On that basis, it appears that the exemption from asking a question would apply to someone who was on the staff of an employment agency which was responsible for placing nannies with private families. However, the exemption 'would apply so that such a person could ask the question of a nanny, or a prospective nanny, who wanted to use the services of that agency.

On the other hand, it would not be possible for parents, when interviewing a nanny, to claim the benefit of any exemption from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and the nanny would not be required to disclose to the parents any spent convictions. That appears to be an irrational distinction. I wonder what the rationale behind it is and whether it has been considered. I also wonder whether, in those special circumstances, it would be appropriate to allow parents to ask for an exemption in order to enable them to ask questions of someone who is a prospective carer for their children in their own home. The problem is that, as matters now stand, the parents would not be acting in the course of their work in asking such questions.

The other issue relates to questions asked for the purpose of assessing the suitability of any person to adopt children in general or a child in particular where the question relates to a person aged over 18 living in the same household as the person whose suitability is being assessed. As I understand it, it would be possible for someone under the age of 18—a juvenile—to have a spent conviction. In such circumstances, it appears illogical not to allow questions to be asked relating to such convictions, especially as if that person were over 18 there would be an exemption.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for his unequivocal support for the order, and I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the careful way in which he read the order and the close attention that he gave to it. I am not sure that I can give him precise answers today, but I shall certainly inquire into the points that he raised.

I am advised that there is a real difficulty in allowing parents to ask excepted questions, as there is no means to control sensitive information in such circumstances. As a parent, I can understand why that may be the case; that is a real area of difficulty. It should. be understood that a parent can make other checks, such as the taking up of references, or may approach art agency to make such checks, so other safeguards may be in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about adoption, and set out circumstances in which he felt that a juvenile might somehow escape the effect of the provision because the conviction had occurred before they reached the age of 18. 'That is simply because they are the only people that adoption agencies are required to check under the relevant legislation. However, the noble Lord makes an interesting point, on which I shall reflect and write to him, copying it to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham.

I am grateful for the general support that has been given to the order, and I commend it to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.