Protection of Children Bill

HC Deb 26 February 1999 vol 326 cc672-702

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

11.50 am

Mr. Hammond

I was alluding to the fact that the Bill, as drafted, appears to provide that someone who is provisionally suspended from their employment—but whose dismissal is not confirmed—shall be included within the list. Is that what the hon. Member for Stourbridge intended, as it seems to go against the grain of natural justice? If that is the intention, their inclusion on the list pending confirmation of dismissal must be time-limited, and the employer must be placed under an obligation to make the dismissal fully binding within a certain period.

Does the hon. Member for Stourbridge, or the Minister, feel that there is a need for an offence to be created of applying for or accepting employment when on the list? Should a person who knowingly applies for or accepts employment be guilty of an offence?

Mr. Hutton

It may help if I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the working group is looking at that area.

Mr. Hammond

The interdepartmental working group has looked at it, and recommended that such an offence be created. Is it intended to introduce such a measure?

Mr. Hutton

We will not be doing so during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Hammond

I thank the Minister for clarifying the point. I still suggest that there may be a need for such an offence, and I wonder at what stage the Minister plans to introduce one. He will, no doubt, clarify that in due course.

I am concerned because there will be situations—particularly in relation to volunteers—where there are multiple employments. Someone who is placed on the list because they have been dismissed from one employment may still have other employments where they have access to vulnerable children. Should there be a duty on an individual to notify any other employer when he is placed on the list? That is particularly relevant to paedophiles, as past cases show us that they often manage to get themselves into positions of multiple access to children. Does the Minister think that there might be a need to develop a system similar to the "alert letter" system that the Department of Health operates, so that a person placed on the list is the subject of an alert letter to warn other employers?

That takes us to the question of the rights of other employers to dismiss someone, on which the Bill is silent. Would it be a lawful ground for dismissal that a person already in one's employment is placed on the list as a result of dismissal from another coincidental employment?

If someone gives employment to a person because the checks have failed—it is in the nature of all bureaucratic procedures that there are occasional failures, as we have seen this morning—and a person is appointed to a position that they should not hold, will it be lawful for the employer to dismiss that person when the information comes to light?

I hope that the hon. Member for Stourbridge will take these points in the spirit in which they are made. I support the principle of the Bill, but clarification is required. Many issues will have to be discussed in more detail if the Bill is to form an acceptable basis for legislation. We strongly support the principle of placing the list on a statutory basis. I was pleased to hear the hon. Lady's commitment to proper safeguards and to having balanced legislation, because only if it is fair and balanced will it be durable.

The hon. Member for Taunton said that we must not allow people to fall into a sense of false security—that, because they have consulted the list, that is all they need to do. There is a danger that that problem may arise, and there will still be a need for detailed checks into the backgrounds of people seeking to work with children. The Bill has our strong support in so far as it addresses paedophiles and abusers, but there are areas of concern where it goes beyond that, as I have outlined.

The hon. Member for Stourbridge will recognise that there are many detailed issues to be addressed in Committee. I give her an undertaking that we will approach the issues positively and constructively in Committee if, as I hope, the Bill receives its Second Reading today.

11.56 am

Mrs. Joan Humble (Blackpool, North and Fleetwood)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on coming first in the ballot, and on choosing such an important issue. I also applaud the other hon. Members who have spoken in a measured and reasonable debate. I was pleased by the response of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), and the Opposition clearly are taking this serious issue seriously. We all want to do what is in the best interests of young people at risk.

There has been much talk about balance, and our responsibility is to make sure that the scales come down on the side of those who are vulnerable—the ones whom we need to protect. Reports such as Sir William Utting's report "People Like Us" have warned us of the dangers facing children, and there have been enough horrid scandals over the years to shock us all.

Many members of the public would be surprised by how weak the existing system of checking is and how many loopholes it has. It is appalling, for example, that even when employers are aware that an individual is named on the Department of Health's consultancy index, he or she may still be employed in child care. People out there and in the Gallery may have had genuine hope and expectation that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

Order. Hon. Members do not normally refer to people who are in the Strangers Gallery.

Mrs. Humble

I accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am sure that many would have thought that the existing rules and regulations were there to protect children. Clearly, they were not. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge is right to draw the matter to our attention and to seek to do something about it.

I fully support the Bill's attempt to close loopholes and to strengthen the process of vetting staff. It will also require employers to consult the new index. I should like to address some of the issues in the Bill in more detail.

I hope that putting the consultancy index on a statutory basis will ensure that the operation of the scheme is safe from legal challenge. We have had some discussion about how many people may be affected. The Utting report said that there were 750 names on the index. We are all aware that many more people could be abusers. The current status and operation of the index are unclear because of its informal nature. It will be important to alert employers to the need to report cases to the new register—not just those who have been dismissed from their job, but those who have been disciplined for offences affecting children.

I particularly welcome the clauses that provide for the names of those who have resigned before they can be disciplined to be included on the register. I accept the need for clarification in Committee of the meaning of the provisions that refer to people who have been guilty of a variety of disciplinary offences or potential disciplinary offences, but it must be right to include on the register someone who resigns from their employment rather than being disciplined. Leaving them free to seek employment elsewhere could put children at risk.

Voluntary organisations are not directly covered by the Bill. Adults who have been withdrawn from fostering or from voluntary activities such as being a scout leader should be included. There are separate mechanisms to monitor foster carers, but we should consider how such monitoring takes place elsewhere and link it to the proposals in the Bill. Voluntary organisations will clearly be encouraged to consult the list. I assume that they will also be encouraged to report people to it, because that would ensure that it covered a wider range of people working with children.

Reforms to the index, changes to the operation of List 99 and the amendment to the Police Act 1997 will enable the proposed Criminal Records Bureau to act as a one-stop shop for checks. That will be an enormous improvement on the current system of checking three separate sources. The social services departments in Blackpool and in Lancashire county council welcome the proposals, but they have pointed out that there are delays with the present system which can cause serious problems in the appointment of staff. I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that it is easier for statutory agencies to access the current system before the new bureau is up and running, as well as the proposed one-stop shop. Employers need speedy responses to their inquiries.

I applaud the aim of making it unlawful for any person included on the index to be employed in a child care capacity. I should like clarification now or in Committee on whether it will be an offence for the employer, the employee or both. We need to consider the legal status of that aspect of the Bill. The Department of Health's 1997 regulations on the protection of children, which prohibited anyone with a schedule 1 conviction from being a foster carer, are under review. In a few cases, they have worked against the best interests of children. Perhaps some discretion should be introduced, but I applaud the general principle of prohibiting employment with children in such circumstances.

I am particularly pleased that the Bill contains an appeal mechanism for those who believe that their name has been wrongly included on the register. As a former chair of governors of a primary school, I am well aware of the potential for malicious false accusations against teachers. I know from my previous role as chair of Lancashire social services that such malicious allegations can be made against social work staff, residential care workers and nursery staff.

People working with children are in a difficult position. Any contact that they engage in to reassure children can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. There are rules governing their behaviour, but we should remember that not all accusations are accurate or well founded. I applaud the appeals mechanism, which will make it possible for those who feel that they have been placed on a register unjustly to have their name removed.

Clause 10 has not yet been discussed in detail. The Bill is aimed primarily at protecting children, but I welcome the recognition that many adults also need protection from those with a caring role who may abuse them. Adults with learning disabilities deserve as much protection as children because they are often as vulnerable and, in some cases, even more vulnerable. More and more children with profound learning disabilities are living through to adulthood because of modern medical advances. They often live in the community in supported homes and attend day centres. Social services organisations and private and voluntary organisations that employ staff to support those people need to vet their employees in the same way as those who look after children are vetted.

We have had some horrific instances in which child abuse cases have collapsed in court because children have not been seen as credible witness, but in just as many adults have been abused. However, because of their mental impairment, the courts have not accepted them as credible witnesses and the cases have collapsed. Preventing some of those instances of abuse by properly vetting and monitoring the staff who work with adults with learning disabilities will be an enormous benefit to everyone. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will present an order under clause 10 as soon as possible to reassure adults with learning disabilities and their families, who want to believe in care in the community, but have serious doubts about it.

Everybody who cares about vulnerable children or adults in our community must welcome the Bill. In my previous role as chair of Lancashire social services, I met many children who had been abused by their parents and I visited children's homes where they were usually looked after by caring staff, who had a difficult role to perform. Those children had suffered enough in the past without facing the additional fear that people who were employed to care for them in their new setting would also be potential abusers. If the Bill can reassure those children, and the wider community, it will do an immense service.

More recently, I met parents whose children were abused by their local primary schoolteacher, in a very difficult case in my constituency. Those parents went through the worst nightmare that any parent can: they sent their young children to primary school to be taught, but the teacher abused them. That is not an experience that any of us who are parents would wish to have. I want to be able to reassure those parents that we are doing something to prevent such abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge said earlier that the Bill would not catch every abuser, but at least we can say that we are doing what we can. That should be our role in this House.

12.8 pm

Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on her success in the ballot and on selecting this excellent measure with which to proceed. I shall make a short contribution, which will concentrate on some worries provoked by the Bill. That is not because I am opposed to the measure—I welcome it—but because the length of the statement and number of hon. Members who wish speak mean that it would be unfair of me to cover all the issues that I wish to talk about. I shall concentrate on the few issues of concern that I have, but that does not mean that I am generally critical of the Bill. I am condensing my remarks for the sake of time.

The concerns on which I want to concentrate are those flagged up by the organisation Liberty. As an avid supporter of that organisation, at least since 1 May 1997—[Interruption.] I hold up my hands, which is more than my successor at the Home Office did earlier. I hope that, when he replies to the debate, the Minister, who is an honourable colleague and a decent man, will deal with the concerns expressed by Liberty.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Will the right hon. Gentleman stress that the brief from Liberty makes it clear that that organisation "welcomes the overall aim" of the Bill?

Mr. Maclean

I am delighted to do so. I have the full text of that brief in my notes, but I will not need to refer to it as I also have an excellent short summary.

The process for initial inclusion in the list is administrative, rather than judicial. Liberty argues that that could contravene the European convention on human rights, which the Government have incorporated in our domestic law. The convention provides for fair and impartial hearings by an independent and impartial tribunal, for the purpose of the determination of civil rights and obligations. Article 6 of the convention states that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It could be argued that the inclusion in the list of unsubstantiated information is in breach of the convention. That is a small point and not an especially strong argument, but I should welcome some reassurance on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made an excellent speech, in which he said that the threshold for a person's initial inclusion in the list could be too low, as information that has not been tested by any formal disciplinary procedures will be allowed to be included. It is possible that people will have little or no protection against employers or, colleagues who refer them on malicious or inaccurate grounds. It is not too far-fetched to believe that a malicious member of staff—in, say, a social services department or some other organisation—with a grudge against a colleague could use the list as a way to destroy or severely disadvantage that colleague's career. I do not know the solution to that problem. Perhaps the judicial process should be put before the administrative process, although I appreciate the enormous difficulties and extra costs that could be created.

My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge also noted that the basis for inclusion in the list is not confined to sexual or other intentional abuse; individuals will also be referred for incompetence or misconduct that places a child at risk. However, the Bill contains no criteria on the seriousness of that incompetence or misconduct. I believe that in one of the pieces of legislation that I have studied there is a definition of what is to be considered as harm that places a child at risk. In the absence of guidelines, if the Minister proposes to make regulations about incompetence and misconduct, there is a danger that different definitions will appear in different parts of the country.

The example has been given of a person who takes a child for a walk and who does not guard that child properly, so the child is placed at risk when he or she runs on to the road. Does that amount to incompetence or misconduct? If so, every parent—unwittingly and accidentally—faces the risk every day, and such accidents can happen to everyone. Of course, no one condones such accidents when they happen under the supervision of a social worker or in an organisation charged with child care, but we must be careful to ensure that well-meaning people who love children and want to protect them are not included, because of a slip-up, in the list of dangerous paedophiles, which the press will no doubt call the perverts list.

To a large extent, it will be such a list. The list will include dangerous people who are child abusers and paedophiles. I urge the Minister, and the hon. Member for Stourbridge, to think about dividing the list so that that it may contain, of course, the names of child abusers and paedophiles, but does not allow those who love children properly and who are not paedophiles or abusers, but have made a mistake, to be branded by the press and by potential employers as child abusers.

Ms Moran

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point about definitions, but does he accept that part of the problem could be dealt with in the code of conduct for implementation of the Bill? It is important that bad practices, such as persistently shaking a child or inappropriate restraint, should be defined as misconduct, and should fall within the remit of the Bill.

Mr. Maclean

The hon. Lady refers to child abuse that is almost as bad as paedophilia and other sexual abuse. Shaking a child or being violent is definite abuse, but it is not incompetence. It does not compare with the incompetence of which we heard in the example of a person who takes a child for a walk. That could happen to any schoolteacher at any time. All the time in London, one sees teachers taking a crocodile of a dozen children for a walk. How those teachers manage to guard those children every minute of the day is beyond me. I certainly could not cope.

If someone makes a small mistake which puts a child at risk, that person surely should not be on the same list and under the same heading as child abusers, paedophiles and those who shake, beat or hit children. Such people should not be perceived by every potential employer as falling into that category.

I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) that a code of practice could deal with my concern. A code could help authorities and other child care organisations to determine what is incompetence, or what the levels of incompetence are. If, however, the person involved is placed on a single list—it will be regarded as the paedophile list—we may do an injustice to people who, it should be admitted, are not totally competent to look after children, but should not be considered to be as vile as paedophiles and others who sexually abuse children.

I had intended to raise a few more points brought up by my friends at Liberty. However, I have taken slightly longer than I intended, and I do not want to delay an important Bill. I may write to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Stourbridge with those concerns. I may even be forced to serve on the Committee.

Although some of my hon. Friends have lamented the fact that they have been in the House for many years without ever coming high in the private Members' ballot, I am pleased to have been here for many years without having done so.

12.18 pm

Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on introducing an important Bill. Like the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I am happy never to have come anywhere near the top of the list during the past two years.

The Bill is extremely worthy, and I am privileged to be one of its co-sponsors. Apart from the ugly interregnum between 11 am and noon, on which I shall not dwell, I commend the Conservative Members who have spoken today for seeking constructively to help the Bill become a good law.

The House will know that the Bill is rooted in the Utting report. It may be less well known, however, that there was considerable debate on the subject during the Standing Committee's discussion of the General Teaching Council introduced by the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. Both sides of the Committee then highlighted the need for the long overdue consolidation of lists.

Consolidation makes perfect sense and is entirely logical. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge has been honest in saying that the Bill does not provide the one-stop list which we all want, and which is essential. As a former councillor, I well remember the inordinate length of time—rightly in one regard—that it took to carry out police checks. Vital posts in child care were not filled, which caused its own problems because of the time that it took to pursue all the assorted lists and track down all the police authorities involved to check up people's records. The fact that we are moving a step closer towards overcoming that problem must be very welcome.

Strangely, as a co-sponsor of the Bill, I want to dwell on some aspects that we must explore further in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge will be the first to admit that the Bill is not perfect in many ways. Second Reading should be, and is, about the principles of the Bill. Happily, I have heard no one dispute the principle behind it and the fact that it should and must get on the statute book. The concerns that will be raised, which I will mention now for the record and with which we will deal in Committee, are not many in one sense, but they are of importance. What has been said about the low threshold for inclusion on the list is fair and I hope that we can tackle it. Taking the administrative rather than the judicial route has been mentioned, and that is a fair point, but, if the appropriate safeguards are in place when the Bill becomes law, it is not one on which we need dwell.

I see that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—the new-found friend of Liberty—has left the Chamber. I am sure that he would have even more to say on its behalf if we were talking about a judicial list—one that an individual would get on or off with extreme difficulty and only through the judicial process. There is a fear that, if we went solely down the judicial route, there would be a grey area—many people who would rightly be on the list proposed in the Bill would not find themselves on a judicial list.

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border made a point about incompetence. Although he did so rather clumsily and laboriously, it was a fair point. If we are serious about a consolidated list being effective and preventive in tenor, as well as simply prescriptive—so that people will fear being put on it and will keep away from work with children in which they should not be involved—the criteria of incompetence and putting children at risk must be tightly defined. Being on the list must reflect the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge in promoting the Bill.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who has now left the Chamber, made an elegant speech about the voluntary sector. He spoke of how we could widen the Bill so that we get what we all want and include that sector, but not restrictively.

In Committee, we must also explore the notion that there will be no legal aid for the appellant. The notion, which is a real advance in terms of human or civil rights, of a statutory tribunal and appeals process for those who were on the Department of Health list or List 99 of the Department for Education and Employment will be further served if the Bill or the code of practice contains a much sharper and clearer definition of the rights of appellants and whether they can have legal aid.

We must also consider the notion of malicious or vexatious referrals by informants. It is not covered to any extent in the Bill and needs to be considered far more readily—I am sure that it will be dealt with in Committee.

I was pleased that hon. Members mentioned extending the provisions to those over 18 who have mental incapacities or learning disabilities. It would not be over-broadening the scope of the legislation if, as some have suggested, we explored in Committee whether it could go as far as covering the elderly and mentally infirm at the very least, if not more general abuse of the elderly in the care sector.

I promised to be brief and, unusually when I am on my feet in this place, I mean it today. None of those concerns, which are all genuine and raised in a constructive spirit, detracts from the Bill's validity. In choosing this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge wanted to explore those and other matters in Committee. I hope that no one will block it.

As Jim Harden, director of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said in the foreword to a recent book: one of the most challenging child protection issues of our time has been the realisation that children can be more vulnerable to abuse in the places where they ought to be safest". That is sad, and one might add, "Among the people with whom they should feel the safest."

None of the positive criticism made by hon. Members detracts from the strength of the Bill, which goes far to start to plug the gap suggested by that quotation. I have great pleasure in being a co-sponsor of the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge again on coming No. 1 in the ballot; her ordeal is almost over. I commend the Bill and all who spoke for their productive approach.

12.26 pm

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

Like the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), I will be uncharacteristically brief. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on her success in the ballot. I came much further down, and one of my reasons for brevity is that I hope to have an opportunity to discuss my Bill. I did not want the moment to pass without making some general comments and offering a further suggestion for consideration in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that it was right not to use emotive language, but it is also right that we have had the right balance of emotional response to the issue in this constructive debate. None of us would want to proceed down a rational path, carefully balancing probabilities, to find later that, by dint of failure to act now, some abuse of or harm to children had occurred that we could reasonably have prevented. I thoroughly support the Bill in that sense.

In the inquiry by the Select Committee on Health on children looked after by local authorities, I was given an opportunity to appreciate that, when parents cannot protect their children, we as a society have a particular responsibility. It is important that we take the range of measures that is offered to try to ensure that we deal with that. As a parent, I know that we strive to protect our children in a range of circumstances, but many avenues for achieving the absolute protection that we seek are frustrated in various ways. We should try to minimise the frustrations and maximise the protection.

Our debates often seek to balance rights. In this case, we must discriminate carefully. Working with children is not a right, but a privilege. We are balancing the privilege extended to people who work with children with the right of children to protection. In that context, it is proper to weight, to a great extent, the balance in favour of the rights of children to protection.

The right to privacy raised by Liberty, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) mentioned, is indeed a right for individuals, but it is balanced under the human rights convention—and now, by extension, in our legislation—by the protections that are necessary in a democratic society. If for this purpose we can equate democracy with civilisation, it is clear that the protection that is necessary in a democratic society extends to the necessary protection of children as proposed in the Bill.

In expressing my general support for the Bill, let me add one more point—not a reservation, but a suggestion. My constituency contains several English language schools, and representatives of the Association of Recognised English Language Services have raised with me two issues which I wish to offer for consideration in Committee: first, the extent to which those organisations that are not required to undertake the necessary checks do so; and, secondly, whether their efforts to carry out those checks should extend only to those who are in their employment, or also to those with whom they may contract for the purposes of acting as host families. My reading of the Bill is that the definition of employment is wide, and so might embrace host families; but it is important to make sure that it does so extend. The regular, often frequent, employment of host families by English language schools and by other organisations in several different contexts should be properly covered by the legislation.

The other point relates to the fact that, although certain organisations are not required to undertake checks, they have a discretion to do so. It is in our interests to arrange the structure of the process so that their ability to do so is maximised and they are not inhibited from choosing to do so. The level of resources is a question for the Minister, who should recognise that the administrative processes required to secure the checks must be swift and effective; otherwise, commercial organisations in a competitive market such as English language schools may be deterred from undertaking the necessary checks, not least in respect of host families, where there is rapid turnover. To echo the fair point made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), I should add that the processes of decision making on the part of the Secretary of State and the appeal processes must also be equally swift.

Mr. Hammond

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his understanding, as it is mine, that, while the transitory provisions of the Bill are in force, the list can be consulted free of charge at the Department of Health, but that, once the criminal records bureau has been established, there probably will be a charge? Might that not have a deterrent effect on those who are considering consulting the list voluntarily, for example, organisations such as those that he has mentioned?

Mr. Lansley

Yes, that is my understanding. It is important to recognise that, although a large number of organisations—including child minders organisations, voluntary organisations and commercial organisations—may want to take the opportunity to undertake checks, some of them may find it difficult to do so if the costs are high. I would never present that argument in respect of commercial organisations, because such a charge is a proper one which should be included in their running costs, and they should not hide from it. However, such costs might be a significant factor to voluntary organisations; we should be aware of that and try to minimise them.

I promised to be brief, so I shall conclude by offering my support for the Bill. I am extremely glad that the results of the ballot—with the hon. Member for Stourbridge appearing before me—reflected the view expressed by the hon. Lady that the protection of children should be our No. 1 priority.

12.34 pm

Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East)

In introducing her Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), whom I congratulate on having won pole position in the ballot for private Members' Bills, emphasised two issues: first, the confusion in current vetting procedures and, secondly, the loopholes that the Bill would attempt to plug.

Let us imagine a member of the public who is trying to launch an organisation such as a nursery or youth club, but is completely unfamiliar with vetting procedures. That person's first thought would be to turn to the criminal records vetting procedures that are run by the police. However, few people would have heard of the other vetting procedures, such as List 99, which refers to the educational sector. Even fewer would be aware of the Department of Health consultancy index, on which this Bill is based.

My contact with the voluntary sector has revealed that it is totally confused about the current vetting arrangements, which are laborious to operate. I welcome the Bill, and I shall vote for it because it attempts to link the various vetting procedures in a one-shop mechanism. All concerned will appreciate that. However, I believe that we will need some kind of consolidation Bill in future that draws together all vetting procedures and contains clear guidelines that may be readily interpreted by the public and by professionals in the statutory and voluntary sectors who need to vet potential employees.

I hope that we shall witness an explosion in child care as a result of the Government's child care strategy and the provision of nursery classes and after-school clubs. There is no doubt that that will put immense pressure on the current vetting procedures. The new deal will also put pressure on existing facilities. Councillors in my constituency have drawn attention to the fact that the Bill will not plug some loopholes. For example, staff at local leisure facilities, such as swimming pools do not have to be vetted. It is pretty obvious that children use swimming pools and that abuse may occur. The Government must plug such loopholes in the future.

An organisation in my constituency, the Bolton Lads and Girls Club, has experienced difficulties with the police vetting procedures. I have received figures from the Greater Manchester police regarding child access checks. In the year ending 31 March 1998, the police dealt with 44,851 applications. In the year ending 31 March 1999, they expect to have dealt with 33,130 applications. That is a considerable decrease in the number of applications submitted to the police, which means that some voluntary organisations that do not have to be covered by police vetting procedures are being left out.

The Bolton Lads and Girls Club used to receive fairly speedy vetting information via the Greater Manchester police procedures, but it has now been excluded from the process. In Bolton, the club has started what I believe to be a brilliant project. It is a mentoring project for young people, which encourages them to use their leisure time responsibly. It points young people towards education, training and employment and away from undesirable life styles. The project entails a one-to-one mentoring arrangement involving scores, if not hundreds, of volunteers.

The club is hoping to extend the project shortly to Bury, and would like to vet all the people involved. However, its inability to access vetting procedures is hindering the development of that project, as I am sure it is impeding the development of similar projects around the country. The club has approached the Voluntary Organisations Consultancy Service but, unfortunately, the membership of that organisation is full and it does not have the capacity to vet any more organisations, whether existing or soon to be established.

In conclusion, I welcome the Bill because it plugs some existing loopholes and tries to remove some of the confusion and point the way forward.

12.39 pm

Mr. Robert Syms (Poole)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on winning the ballot and introducing the Bill, which deals with a complex subject. It is to her credit that she picked a Bill that will require a degree of parliamentary skill to pass. No doubt the general tenor of today's debate, which has revealed support from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber and from the Government, means that the Bill will go on to the statute book and stand as a testament to the hon. Lady's contribution.

In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), I pointed out that the lead item on Ceefax suggested that this was a Government Bill. Whether that is due to the poor quality of the BBC's reporting or a misunderstanding of a Government spin doctor, the hon. Member for Stourbridge ought to make a phone call to the BBC because Ceefax did not even mention her, which is a disgrace.

The Bill may be item No. 2 on Ceefax, but it is important and the fact that the BBC has flagged it up is a sign of the public consciousness about this issue. As the years go by, people have become far more aware of the importance of the protection of children.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) made a valid point. We must balance the rights of individuals with those of children, but we should always lean towards the protection of children.

Mr. Maclean

On the point about the Government taking credit for private Members' Bills, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must pay particular attention to that tendency? Many of my hon. Friends and I are here to support this private Member's Bill on a Friday that is devoted to such Bills, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on her Bill. If, on this occasion or any other, the Government try to take the credit for private Members' Bills, they will have to suffer the risk of those Bills being defeated because they tried to bounce them through the House on a private Members' Friday.

Mr. Syms

My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure that the Minister will make the same point in his speech. The issue is too important for us to lose sight of it in a party political spat, although we are all, as politicians, sensitive to the situation.

To some extent, the Bill picks up on part V of the Police Act 1997, which was passed by the previous Government to set up the Criminal Records Bureau. The central point of having a one-stop shop is very sensible. I was a councillor for 14 years, and it is important to have one body that can deal relatively quickly with inquiries, because many of the agencies that will have to make inquiries of it will want to take on people. They may have people within their care and duties that they must discharge. In many cases, it is not easy to recruit people to important jobs caring for children.

I am a member of the Select Committee on Health and, until recently, I had very little knowledge of this subject. Last year, the Committee went on an inquiry visit to Australia to consider the welfare of child migrants who had been widely abused in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. We interviewed between 50 and 70 people who had suffered abuse and what struck us was the collateral damage that it caused to those individuals up to 40 years later.

I remember Sitting next to a gentlemen at a dinner at the high commission in New Zealand who turned to me and said, "I was abused as a child. I have been married for 40 years and I have never been able to tell my wife that." He could tell a politician from Great Britain, but not his wife. The suppressed angst suffered by many of those people and the wreckage in their lives are due to how they were treated when they were young.

I shall not go into detail about the Bill's proposals because the hon. Member for Stourbridge has already done so; rather, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) did, I shall focus on a few concerns. Liberty, which no doubt will be mentioned again and again, expressed the concern that the Bill would set up an administrative rather than a judicial system. It could not be judicial, or we could not protect people. However, there is a duty within an administrative system at least to try to be fair and open. The appeal mechanism is good and sensible, although the provision of legal aid is also an important consideration as people without resources could well have to spend considerable time and money attempting to have their names removed from a list.

The thresholds for initial inclusion on lists are also important. If a list is too wide and encompasses too many spurious factors, it may become devalued. Although it must include paedophiles, there are people who could be described as eccentric. If a list includes people with eccentric characteristics as well as those who are dangerous, it will become devalued.

The Bill represents a great step forward and in my opinion it conforms to the European convention on human rights. In a recent case, the judge upheld the Secretary of State's right to include on such lists care workers about whom there were suspicions, even when there had been no criminal conviction, so long as the proof was on the basis of being beyond all reasonable doubt. Mr. Justice Richards said: It must be open to the Secretary of State, when acting to protect the welfare of children, to take into account the difficulty of proving allegations of sexual abuse to the criminal standard—and indeed the difficulty of establishing a real likelihood of harm. He has to strike a balance between the interests of the individual involved and the interests of the children whom the index is designed to protect. That is a key point.

We must also consider the issue of people moving across boundaries and borders within Europe. It is vital that there is some exchange of information between countries. People come here from France and Germany, and indeed people from this country who are not permitted to work with children may decide to go abroad to pursue their particular interests. It is important for the Bill to be considered in a European and worldwide context in respect of the exchange of information.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire mentioned the problem of language schools. There are many such schools in Bournemouth and Poole and the students often stay with host families. That issue will certainly have to be addressed.

Another matter that received attention in all the briefing was the treatment of the clergy. I know that it is difficult to establish where the clergy impact on voluntary organisations in this respect, but perhaps those definitions will be determined in Committee.

Mr. Forth

I am not quite clear whether my hon. Friend feels that such is the sensitivity of the matter that the clergy should not be included or whether he feels that they definitely should. I do not share my hon. Friend's sensitivities and feel that the clergy have a sufficient track record in these matters that they should definitely be included and we should find a way to make sure that they are.

Mr. Syms

I assume that the Bill impacts on the clergy when they work with voluntary organisations, not simply because they are members of the clergy. As we heard earlier, many other issues are not covered by the Bill. We have to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect Bill, so we have to ask whether it improves the protection of children and whether it provides an efficient and workable system. There are many ways in which we could attempt to make the Bill perfect, but that would actually make it unwieldy and unworkable. The matter will have to be examined closely in Committee to establish the proper boundaries.

The Bill may be the first stage in a process and when it becomes law we may be able to make progress on other related issues. I welcome the Bill and the principles behind it and I hope that it becomes law. I am sure that it represents progress in the protection of children, but one or two issues will have to be examined closely in Committee.

12.49 pm

Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East)

I know that we are short of time, so I shall not take too long. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on introducing the Bill and on the balanced and reasoned way in which she spoke to it. I am sure that her constituency party and her constituents are grateful to be represented by an hon. Member who is not only driven by compassion but able to put her case reasonably and in a balanced manner.

I speak in this debate because there is a Scottish dimension to the Bill: there is no mention of Scotland in it. In fact, there is no mention of Wales. There are no borders to paedophiles. The problem of people coming from other parts of the world has been mentioned, but, just within the United Kingdom, there are obviously people who will travel. Paedophiles, because of their predatory nature, will go to great lengths to be near people who then become victims of their abuse.

I was quite concerned when the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that a survey revealed that one in 60 people said that they had been involved in an offence or incident of sexual abuse. I calculated that, if the results of that survey are genuine, that would mean 416,000 people in the English population. I was therefore shocked to find only 950 names on the consultancy service index. That shows the gap between the potential danger and our knowledge of where it lies.

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow)

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should take care with the one in 60 figure because of the range of offences that it covers? Obviously, it refers not just to abuse but to any sexual offence, including some that are now legal following a change in the law on the age of consent.

Mr. Connarty

I take that point, although we should still acknowledge the scale of the problem and the clear information deficit.

Mention has been made of the Australian experience. I, too, spoke to people out in Australia about some of their experiences. There has also been the recent Belgian scandal, and some nearer to home. The internet is polluted with people who use it to transfer paedophiliac information, and to consort with others, in a sense, to gather strength and protect themselves.

I should like to take up the negative comment about the concept of a big brother. Big brother is also often the person who protects smaller children from bullies and abusers. We must strike a balance in the use of the term. I would rather have a big brother who cared for me, than not have one to protect me when I was being attacked.

Mr. Forth

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Connarty

No, we are short of time. Expanding on such a philosophical point would not necessarily add to our discussion.

We need a very close concordat with the new Scottish Parliament on how information from lists can be transferred quickly. Everyone who works for a public authority—all authorities named in the Bill are public authorities—in Scotland must already agree to undergo a Scottish Criminal Records Office check. The SCRO has become part of the public sector. Unfortunately, the check is not applied to many parts of the voluntary and private sectors. I noted the clear definition of an United Kingdom-wide working relationship in legislation that set up the Scottish serious crime squad, passed in the previous Parliament. We must establish such a relationship in this Bill as quickly as possible.

I have personal experience of the deficit of information in this area. On the second anniversary of the disappearance of Vicky Hamilton, a constituent of mine, I raised in an Adjournment debate the problem that, at that time—and probably not even now—there was not a United Kingdom missing persons register. From speaking to Mrs. Lamplugh, the mother of Suzy, I know that it is one of her concerns that information does not transfer. Someone can go missing in Scotland, but information to enable a search will not readily appear on any other register. We must do something about that.

Lists that are compiled nationally must be operated locally. I take the point of my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on the problem of the length of time that it takes to find those who may have some record that would exclude them from having contact with children. They can easily be allowed to escape from the net. Following the Cullen report, most authorities in Scotland seem to be taking a one-door approach, with child and family units, the police, social workers, education services and the voluntary sector working together very closely. I hear that that approach has much improved their responses.

In considering this Bill, and this whole area—I found the same when considering the Children (Scotland) Act 1995—and as an ex-teacher and a father of a 20-plus son and a 20-year-old daughter, I find the concept of breach of trust and abuse of power difficult to comprehend. I agree with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that it is a privilege to be given a position from which one can help, nurture, support, protect, defend and reconstruct the lives of children in one's care in education or, after a negative experience, through social work. However, the evidence tells us that that abuse of power goes on. We must deal with it firmly.

Questions still remain in my mind. First, at what age does someone cease to be a child? The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 answers that by saying, at 18 years of age in some circumstances—which is quite old. Secondly, what are the scope and range of the risk situations, and do we cover all of them? Obviously, the Bill does not do so. Does it do enough?

The potential exists to extend the terms of the legislation to those with mental impairment. For a long time before I came to this place, I taught in a secondary school for children with learning difficulties, and I believe that they need to be protected in many ways when they leave that environment. I often told the children, "You are not special when you leave here; you are special only when you are here." Sadly, in society that is the case.

Should the protection of the Bill be extended to other vulnerable persons? The elderly were mentioned and perhaps we should consider other categories.

Will what was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) as bad practice be covered by the concept of incompetence, when that incompetence is an act of commission, not omission?

In Committee, we should consider how to cover all those questions—or whether we can cover them, and whether instead we want to cut the remit of the Bill at a certain point and make it a useful addition, but not comprehensive.

Some deficiencies sprang to my mind from situations with which I am familiar. The name of a foster carer may not be on a list, but he or she may have a relative who has a record that makes that carer unsuitable. For example, if a foster care home has a parent or a former parent who is an abuser who may have contact with that family, that becomes an unsuitable environment. The person with the criminal record is not necessarily the foster carer, and his or her name may not appear on any list. Should it appear on the list? I would err on the side of saying that it should; it is an unsuitable environment when someone in the family at the same address, or likely to have contact with the family, has an unsuitable record.

I am concerned about two groups of people who work for contract companies who have contact with children through those contracts: taxi drivers and bus drivers. I know of a situation in central Scotland where a bus driver keeps popping up on contracted-out bus routes that take children to and from school—in one case, the school where I used to teach. He can be dismissed by a company when he is found out, only to turn up, a few months later, on another bus company's contract, doing the same thing. The exclusion of voluntary organisations also causes me great concern.

I urge members of the Committee to study the Cullen report and the situations involving Thomas Hamilton in central Scotland. He ran his own scout group of which he was the leader. He saw himself as an alternative to Baden-Powell. In all that he did, he had obviously been grooming children for years. As a council leader in Stirling, I refused him the right to hire halls from the council. He then tried to hire halls from the education authority and was turned down. He took the education authority to the ombudsman, who found in his favour and criticised the local authority for not giving him halls in which to run his youth club.

Photographs that emerged later showed that Thomas Hamilton had all the children in little black shorts which he supplied, and he took photographs of them constantly. He was never proven to have done anything that was child abuse, but obviously that, connected with his other behaviour, should have caused the police to list him as an unsuitable person—and yet they did not do so. That shows that paedophilia and child abuse can quickly spread in voluntary organisations. We should consider that closely.

I was also amazed to find that, if I interpret clause 12 correctly, subsection (3)(b) basically says that anyone working at an independent school cannot be considered to be offering child care unless it is a private school that is a children's home. Are we therefore saying that private schools are excluded from the protection offered by the Bill? That is such a glaring omission that surely we must consider a way of bringing those schools within the Bill's ambit.

I wish to illustrate some of the dangers. Sir William Utting referred to "soft information". He referred to the scheme of the Department of Health and stated: It is the only system available for dealing with soft information cases which is valuable. He went on to express the hope that its future operation will preserve the balance of probabilities as the standard of proof. That shows that, in dealing with soft information, we are in a dangerous area. For example, false accusations are sometimes made against teachers where there is malicious intent. Having been the president of a teachers' union in central Scotland, I have seen teachers break down as a result of the pressure that results from a false accusation. They have then to retire because their health has genuinely broken down. They will be on a provisional list. It is—[Interruption.] I see the signals that are being sent by some of my hon. Friends, but I did not make the mistake of printing the names at the end of the Lawrence report, an issue which took up about an hour of our time this morning. I must get on with what I wish to say. I must return to Scotland almost immediately for a surgery, which I hold every Friday night. However, I hope that my remarks will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended because they are designed to be helpful.

The problem is that there is no appeal against false provisional inclusion. If that inclusion turns out to be incorrect there is no guarantee, given the bureaucratic powers that are to be found in certain systems, that it will ever be removed. A person may go into retirement with a false accusation having been made against him and be branded for the rest of his life. We should examine seriously how we should deal with that.

The question is whether there should be an act of commission—with incompetence we are dealing with acts of omission. There must be massive safeguards to ensure that people are not labelled along with others who by acts of commission cause a child to be put in danger by their incompetence and not by failing to do something because of forgetfulness.

We should proceed carefully, but we should make firm progress because children deserve no less. We should not see the Bill killed because it cannot cover all my concerns and those of other hon. Members.

1.1 pm

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)

I am conscious of the time. Like my hon. Friends and Labour Members, I want to see the Bill proceed. Consequently, I shall not dilate for as long as I would like. Indeed, I shall be as brief as I can.

I am in favour of the principle of the Bill, but I want to take up a point that was made briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and taken up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). Although it is a matter of profound significance, it has not been exposed in anything like the light that it deserves.

Oddly enough, the Bill makes an improvement. It starts with the situation that there is a purely administrative act for including people on lists. In addition, it would provide for a tribunal, which would allow an appeal. To my mind, that is an advance, so my comments are not intended to suggest that the Bill is retrograde. However, as it stands, it is a missed opportunity. I hope that, in Committee, we shall improve it, by reversing the order and ensuring that the tribunal becomes the basis for inclusion, with the Secretary of State's role much diminished.

I have two reasons for expressing that view. One is particular to the case and the other is general in its scope. The one that is particular to the case arises because, as all of us who are parents know, for good reasons, strong emotions are raised when somebody has been accused of abuse. I take the points that have been made about the difference between incompetence, abuse and paedophilia. I am talking not of where mere incompetence is involved, but of abuse. Unfortunately, in contrast to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), those emotions are raised to the level of hysteria by the popular press. However, I do not speak of that. I discount that. Of course the Secretary of State will pay no attention to such hysteria. However, he will be conscious of the strong emotions.

Mr. Hammond

The point is that the Secretary of State will not have any discretion. If a name is referred to him, he will be required to include it provisionally on the list.

Mr. Letwin

That is true, but I am speaking not of provisional inclusion but of final inclusion. I accept the points that have been made about provisional inclusion and I think that there is a problem there. However, when it comes to final inclusion, the Bill properly provides that the Secretary of State shall take certain considerations into account. That is right. He will be guided by an attempt to arrive at the truth, and not by the popular press and its hysteria. However, he will recognise that strong emotions are raised in such cases. He will be acutely conscious of the fact that, if he refuses to include someone on a list—and if, at a later date, that person transpires to be an abuser—then that Home Secretary and the Government whom he represents will suffer the grossest abuse, not only from the Opposition, alas, but from the popular press and others.

We have witnessed a realm of those problems in dealing with social services; the luckless director of social services who makes a slight slip and fails to pick something up is later categorised as a vile villain. The Secretary of State will not want that to happen, and the great thrust of his investigations will be to find a way of ensuring that somebody who has been referred for inclusion is on the list. There is in that a grave danger for civil liberties, and that particular point leads me to suggest that the Committee ought to find a way of reversing the order, so that the tribunal is the basis for getting on to the list.

There is a more general point. In the current state of affairs, and in the Bill—that is why I call the Bill a missed opportunity—there is a presumption of guilt. The appeals procedure allows that presumption of guilt to be overturned. Hon. Members on both sides have maintained that there is no presumption of guilt because the ability to engage in child care is not a right, but a privilege. I doubt whether those hon. Members were thinking as carefully as they should have about what they were saying.

Every hon. Member would agree that one of the fundamental freedoms of our society is that people should not be prevented by the state from engaging in the kind of work in which they wish to engage. Were there to be a Bill suggesting some blanket provisions preventing certain classes of persons from working in a certain field, hon Members on both sides would rise with one voice to oppose that, as a gross abuse of freedom.

It is important that people should not be prevented from doing something, unless it is shown that there is good reason to do so. The Bill acknowledges that logic by providing for an appeals process. If the Bill is enacted as drafted, we may be implicitly accepting the idea that—at least in relation to things where great emotion is attached—it is somehow reasonable to start with a presumption of guilt. If that principle were adopted generally, it would wreak havoc with civil liberties.

There is a particular reason—and a more general one—why it would be extraordinarily helpful if the Bill's supporters were willing to accept in Committee a change, so that the tribunal became the gateway to the list. With that profound amendment, the spirit of the Bill would be entirely preserved and the risk to civil liberties virtually eliminated.

1.8 pm

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow)

I join those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on the Bill, the intentions of which are welcomed by everyone. It is clearly wrong that there is no systematic method to stop people who have been guilty of abuse and have demonstrated their unfitness to work with children from continuing to work with children—and to wreck lives. That was brought home to me vividly when a young man in his late 20s in my constituency committed suicide as a result of abuse that he suffered 15 years ago. Lives are wrecked permanently.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge said, we understand that the Bill in itself cannot prevent all abuse. We need good working practices. Children and other vulnerable people must be listened to when making complaints, or when exhibiting evidence suggesting abuse—such as self-harm. We need procedures to ensure that staff, if possible, are not put in positions where problems can develop; that is for the protection of the staff, as well as the child. We need speedy responses from management to problems. That may mean that people are sometimes suspended during investigations, but it is better to err on the side of caution.

However, we need to provide safeguards. It worries me to agree with the Tory right on the need for further consideration of such issues, but at least that may give me some protection from the tabloids. Innocent people should not end up on lists if that would mean wrecking their careers, their relationships and their lives. The tests in clause 2 are widely drawn. The problem of malicious accusations has been mentioned. What happens if an employer sets out to victimise someone? There is no guarantee that an employer is not capable of that just because it is a child care organisation.

Several aspects of clause 2 need to be considered in detail in Committee. Subsection (2)(b) covers an individual who has resigned or retired in circumstances such that the organisation would have dismissed him, or would have considered dismissing him". That opens up broad areas into which people might be drawn.

Subsection (4) provides for convoluted mechanisms for information and observations to go backwards and forwards between the Secretary of State and the individual or organisation. Subsection (5) says that the Secretary of State will consider the information, observations and any other information which he considers relevant". We have to examine the disclosure of such information in the appeals procedure.

If we are to have provisional lists because people are suspended, I strongly support the introduction of a time limit on how long someone can remain on such a list. I know of examples of people being suspended from their employment on the basis that disciplinary action may be taken for all sorts of reasons and the employer—sometimes a local authority—taking months or even years to make a decision. That should not happen, particularly in such cases.

We should consider strengthening clause 2, because it is written entirely in terms of employment and dismissal. How does one employ a volunteer? That applies not just to voluntary organisations, but to the many statutory organisations that use volunteers.

If entry to the system is to be widely drawn, a robust appeal process is vital. There is a powerful case for legal aid being available. It is difficult to know what the rules for appeals will be, because all the procedures are covered by clause 9, which gives the Secretary of State the power to make provisions. It would be helpful to know what the rules will be, particularly on disclosure.

I should like clarification on how people get off the list. I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge to say that, if a criminal conviction were quashed on appeal, that person would come off the list. One could assume the same of someone who was acquitted of a criminal charge, but I am not sure that that is the case. If the test for being on the list is a civil one—a balance of probabilities test—it is possible that someone acquitted in a criminal court could end up on the list on the civil test.

We need to be clear on that point, because, if I am right, we need to acknowledge that that is the position. If I am not right, we could end up with the odd situation in which somebody against whom suspicions were felt strong enough to bring a criminal charge, but who was acquitted, would not go on the list, but somebody against whom there were lesser suspicions that were not felt to be strong enough to bring a criminal charge would end up on the list. That would be a perverse situation.

I welcome the Bill. It will be a major step forward and will improve the position. I hope that the issues that I have raised will be addressed in Committee and we will end up with a Bill that cannot be challenged under the human rights legislation. It would be a tragedy if the Bill were to be caught under that legislation.

1.16 pm

Dr. Ashok Kumar (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)

I join my colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on introducing the Bill. I shall be brief, but I wish to declare my strong support for the Bill. I have always argued strongly that children have rights, and I presented a Bill last year that called for children to be given further rights to be consulted on issues that affect their daily lives at school and in the community. However, children also deserve greater levels of protection.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House are horrified by the seemingly endless stream of abuse cases that have been exposed in institutions and organisations that have, as their first principle, the care of children. We have had far too many cases in my region. In Newcastle, Durham and Stockton, there have been cases of abuse perpetrated by both men and women put in a position of trust and responsibility. We have to put in place structures to stop that hideous abuse.

On the face of it, the man or woman in the street would think that the present database registers should be a strong check on offenders or people considered unsuitable being put into positions of trust, but the system does not seem to be working very well. The police national computer database of people with criminal records should be an adequate safeguard, but people still seem to evade police checks. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children tells us that there is a problem in the voluntary sector, with no comprehensive representation of voluntary bodies on the voluntary organisations consultancy service, membership of which is needed to be able to access police records. The Department for Education and Employment also has a comprehensive list of people considered unsuitable, by virtue of a criminal conviction or other misconduct, to be put in a position of trust with children. However, that list is updated only twice a year and it is sent only to local education authorities.

The register that needs root-and-branch revision, and is the subject of the Bill, is the Department of Health consultancy index. It has no legal footing or weight in law. It relies heavily on an employer determining that the name of a former employee should be placed on the list because of dismissal or resignation for behaviour that could be seen to pose a future risk to a young child. Many hon. Members have mentioned the 1997 Utting report, "People Like Us", which reveals that there were only 750 names on the index that had been referred by employers, when the report was drafted. That is incredible, given the many hundreds of thousands of people employed in schools, children's homes, social services departments and the voluntary sector. The suspicion must be that names are not being referred, for whatever reason, and that must be investigated by the relevant Departments.

At the very least, local authorities and local education authorities must have a legal duty to refer names to the list routinely when employees are dismissed. According to Utting, some 4,800 other names have been referred to the index by the police, following the conviction or cautioning of people employed in child care. Again, that figure seems very low. I understand that Utting noted that not all police forces send the information to the Department of Health. That is astonishing. It is easy for people to move from one part of the country to another, and from one police force area to another. There must be protocols and procedures to ensure that that information can be collated nationally and updated continually.

It also appears that the Department of Health does not routinely monitor its own index, and that, too, is astonishing. The Department cannot even say how many local authorities and voluntary bodies use the index, or whether some authorities do not access it at all. Once again, that is astonishing.

The fact is, unfortunately, that sexual crime is common in our society. The NSPCC briefing about the Bill states that Home Office research has established that one man in 60 born in one particular year this century had a conviction for sexual offences. Even more worryingly, that statistic records only those who have been convicted. Some instances of abuse have lasted many years and involved many children, which leads me to believe that the figure is only the tip of the iceberg.

In today's society, people are more mobile. Sadly, family patterns are also more fluid. Utting states that, of the 12 million British children under the age of 18, 200,000 are away from their family home for more than 28 days. That figure alone gives us some idea of the potential for risk.

The Bill fulfils the valuable function of creating a legal footing for the Department of Health index, but much more needs to be done. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) spoke of fears of an authoritarian, big brother computer watching over us, but I believe that many people recognise that the loss of privacy has to be balanced against the need to protect the most vulnerable.

The Department of Health index has to be put on a stronger footing, and the Bill will achieve that. However, that is only the first step. There should be a comprehensive review involving the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment, the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the national voluntary bodies so that a fully comprehensive, constantly updated and easily accessible central register can be made available to authorities and organisations working with children. There must also be a stronger duty placed on local authorities and on voluntary bodies to update and use such registers, with a defined failure to do so punishable by law.

As so many hon. Members have said, our children deserve better, especially those who are vulnerable and confused, and those who are put by society in a place of safety. We must be vigilant in stamping out abuse when it occurs, but the prime duty must be to prevent abuse from happening in the first place.

I believe that the Bill will go a long way towards achieving that aim. I hope that it gets a speedy journey through this House and the other place. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge on the Bill, and warmly recommend it to the House.

1.23 pm

Ms Helen Southworth (Warrington, South)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) for giving us this opportunity to take action to deal with the terror inflicted on many children, and to protect them from adults who are predatory and destructive. My hon. Friend is doing a great job, and I thank her very much.

Like many hon. Members who have spoken, I have had to deal with cases that are an outrage in a society that lays claim to civilisation. Children are abused by adults in a position of trust; when those adults are prosecuted, they somehow get back into positions of trust. In one case that I dealt with, allegations were made against a child care employee and police investigations uncovered a previous conviction for a very similar assault. Why had no checks been made on the person before he was appointed? The answer is because they were not compulsory.

I surveyed investigations and prosecutions of employees of child care organisations, and discovered again and again people with previous convictions for abuse or violence in positions of power over vulnerable children. Discussions with the NSPCC and the Cheshire police paedophile unit, with professionals in social work and education and with survivors of abuse have made it clear that the current systems and procedures for recruiting and selecting staff have failed. They are not capable of identifying and rejecting known abusers.

Criminal record checks are currently available only to statutory bodies and a small number of major voluntary child care organisations that are members of the voluntary organisations consultancy service. The vast majority of voluntary and private child care organisations are unable to check the criminal backgrounds of people to whom they will offer a job, paid or voluntary, which involves working with children.

The Bill will make access to records available to regulated child care organisations regardless of whether they are statutory, voluntary or private sector, and that is very welcome. I hope that the key issue of extending protection to other voluntary bodies that work with children will be addressed quickly. It is even more welcome that the Bill requires child care organisations that propose to employ someone, paid or voluntary, in a child care post to ensure that records are checked, and requires them not to employ anyone identified for specified reasons on either the consultancy index or List 99.

That is a radical change, and it is crucial. A shocking number of abusers who gain employment working with children turn out, after they have damaged children in their care, to have previous criminal records. The decision on whether a criminal record check is necessary should not be a matter for the employing bodies. Previous practice has been so inconsistent—and, often, downright poor—that a clear and enforceable position must be taken on what checks must be carried out, when and by whom.

The vast majority of people who work with children want to be part of a profession that is trusted by children and that empowers them. Those people want public respect for their work, and they are let down by the few who abuse trust.

The Bill makes sense of what is currently an administrative nightmare. The case for bringing together the three different national sources of information, for ensuring that information is of high quality and for requiring that it be used in appropriate circumstances has been powerfully made here, but most strongly made by the appalling list of the failures of the system actually to care for people.

The system of safety checks for staff recruitment and selection for paid and voluntary workers with children must be sufficiently robust to deter committed abusers. It is appalling to realise that devious and determined criminals have in the past been free to abuse and molest children because Departments of Government have not worked together to root them out. Change is happening, and it is about time.

I shall turn briefly to a matter that I hope will be addressed in Committee—support for frail and vulnerable older people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge has supported that concept, and I hope that it can be brought into practice for a group of citizens who are much at risk and whose needs should be considered. I hope that our debate will generate speedy action to include those people in the remit of the law.

It is not possible to make vetting completely offender proof, but better and more comprehensive systems, with clear national guidelines determining usage, will make it more difficult for potential abusers to get around procedures for protecting children. Most importantly, the statement made by such Government investment would be clear: children are valuable, adults have responsibilities to protect them and our society will police and enforce their protection.

1.28 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton)

The whole House has benefited from an extremely well-informed debate, and we have heard distinguished speeches, including one from a former Minister, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and several from Labour Members. Those speeches reflect the strong feelings of hon. Members about child protection. The debate has also tapped into the direct experience of Members in coming to terms with the problem.

I understand entirely some of the concerns raised on both sides of the House during the debate, and I hope to dispel some of them. If any outstanding issues of concern remain after I have spoken, I hope to deal with them further in the Standing Committee. The hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) welcomed the Bill, but expressed some concerns for civil liberties. It would not be appropriate to go into detail during a Second Reading debate, but I shall address those concerns in the Standing Committee. If the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is fortunate enough to be a member of that Committee, I look forward to discussing those matters with him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), in another good speech, emphasised the importance of getting this legislation through and getting it right. She has played a huge role in developing better safeguards for vulnerable children, and I am pleased to pay tribute to the work that she has done in the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) spoke strongly and powerfully about her experiences and made a moving contribution to our proceedings.

I am pleased to welcome the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who strongly supported the Bill and made some constructive suggestions. I am afraid to say that he got one thing wrong—I hope that he will not mind if I try to put him right. He felt that the Bill was inconsistent with the recommendations and work of the interdepartmental working group to which he referred, which is not the case. If he looks a little more closely at paragraph 5(12) of its recommendations—in particular, the second bullet point—I hope that he will be reassured that the Bill is entirely consistent with what that group says.

Mr. Hammond

I apologise if I have misinterpreted the group's views. I have relied on the Library research paper on the Bill, which states, in paragraph 6 on page 12, that the group said: The new system should be voluntary; there should be no requirements on employers to make the checks or submit information to the lists.

Mr. Hutton

I am grateful for that correction. I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the report of the interdepartmental working group, the position will be clear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who is experienced in these matters and a distinguished former chair of social services in Lancashire, asked whether foster carers would be included in the provisions of the Bill. I understand that, as drafted, it would include them. Private and voluntary foster carers would be covered by the permissive provisions, but the local authority would be covered by the mandatory aspects.

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border showed himself in his new and rather surprising colours as a defender of civil liberties. I do not want to disappoint him, but that is not how we have come to see him during our proceedings; but I am happy to see him in that new incarnation and all Labour Members look forward to more contributions in a similar vein. Together with a number of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who is never here when I respond to his speeches, which is a shame, he expressed concerns about the basis on which the Bill is proceeding. The right hon. Gentleman described his concerns about the administrative nature of the list and how it is administered and asked whether it would be better to put it on a purely judicial footing, with a tribunal deciding whether someone should be on the list.

The right hon. Gentleman needs to look carefully at the structure of the Bill. One key aspect is that we are putting the list into a proper statutory framework. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will exercise his functions under the clear wording of the Bill. The appeal tribunal will exercise an appellate function and, on points of law, appeals can ultimately be made to the High Court and beyond. The system will be more transparent. It will be open and, as a result, significantly improved.

Mr. Forth

rose—

Mr. Hutton

Does the right hon. Gentleman want to intervene about the appeals system?

Mr. Forth

indicated dissent.

Mr. Hutton

In that case, I will not give way.

This is a stronger and better system. We are opening up the decision-making process and putting it on a proper legal basis. Therefore, I hope that Conservative Members will be assured that the appellate system and the structure of the Bill will support proper, independent decision making.

Mr. Paice

Am I not right in thinking that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make the final decision, over and above whatever conclusions the tribunal reaches? I understand that few Secretaries of State are likely to overrule the tribunal; nevertheless, the Bill as drafted could allow that to happen.

Mr. Hutton

My understanding of the Bill is that that cannot happen. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced former Minister and knows the arrangements for reaching such decisions in Departments. The Bill's purpose is to put the framework on to a proper, open basis, with a proper appeal system and points of law going ultimately to the High Court. That is a significant improvement on existing arrangements. I know that the hon. Gentleman concerned about the quality and independence of decision making. Taken together, the Bill's provisions would significantly enhance the quality of the decision making that will underpin the list that we maintain. I hope that that somewhat reassures him about that fundamental piece of the Bill's architecture.

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border was concerned about the concept of harm and its definition in the Bill, particularly in the context of misconduct or incompetence. He probably realises that the concept of harm for the purpose of this Bill will have the same meaning as in section 31 of the Children Act 1989. That will confine and define the way in which the term can be interpreted in any future cases. Ultimately, the Secretary of State himself has to he satisfied in the case of misconduct or incompetence that the person involved is unsuitable to work with children. There is a safeguard in the system, and I hope that he is reassured.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a characteristically good speech. He correctly noted the need to strike the right balance between civil liberties and child protection. The Government strongly believe that the Bill strikes the right balance. The hon. Gentleman made the good point that employers should receive a prompt response from the Department when someone is referred for consideration against the list. We try to do that by striving to turn round responses to inquiries in five days. We want to ensure that our systems fully reflect the needs of employers. We will certainly continue to do that.

I am glad that the hon. Member for West Dorset is back. Egged on by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, he expressed anxiety about provisional inclusions on the list. It was partly that prompting that led him to conclude that people will go on to the list automatically, and that there will be no discretion and no independent judgment by the Secretary of State. That is not the case. He should examine clause 2(3) in more detail.

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)

In my constituency, a convicted paedophile continues to profess an interest in the welfare of young people. He organises weekends for young people at his home and exhibitions outside. He does not do it for profit and is not part of any organisation. I am advised that nothing in existing law, or in this otherwise admirable Bill, can prevent that sort of thing. Can the Minister confirm that? Can anything be done under the Bill?

Mr. Hutton

I have no details of the case to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. Social services departments have clear responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 in respect of children and vulnerable children. It is their legal obligation to discharge them. Has he considered raising this with social services locally? If he has, and is not satisfied with the response, I would be willing to receive representations.

Mr. Forth

The provisional list has troubled several hon. Members. Has the Minister considered whether a problem might arise in respect of someone who remained on the provisional list for a long time? The Bill contains a provision that precludes people on the provisional list from appealing to the tribunal. There could be a serious problem of possible injustice arising from perhaps malicious claims accepted in good faith by the Secretary of State. Once on the provisional list, someone could get stuck there because there is no way out.

Mr. Hutton

I agree absolutely. If there are concerns about how the scheme applies as it appears on the face of the Bill, we shall be keen to explore those issues in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman tables specific amendments, we shall give them careful consideration.

Mr. Letwin

On re-reading, I accept entirely that the provision is not automatic, but does the Minister accept that the test for inclusion on the provisional list is merely one of appearance, which is extremely weak; and that we might properly examine in Committee whether that test ought to be strengthened?

Mr. Hutton

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge will have her own thoughts and opinions on that, which is perfectly proper as she is the Bill's promoter. However, in general terms, the Government believe that it is extremely important that the new statutory framework includes provision for a provisional inclusion on the list. We do not want people to slip through the net simply by changing their employment or moving from one job to another. If we are to protect children properly, it is important that there is a provision that answers the need for provisional or temporary inclusion on the list until a fuller determination of events can be resolved. I hope that I have now dealt with most of the points raised in the debate. If I have failed to do that in any respect, I shall be happy to write to hon. Members.

Let me now join with other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, not only on her good fortune in coming first in the ballot, but on choosing this topic for her Bill. We in this House have a special responsibility to ensure that children, especially the most vulnerable children in our society, are properly protected from harm and abuse at the hands of adults. The Government take that responsibility extremely seriously, and I am delighted that that view is shared by every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate.

That is why the Government have already introduced several measures to improve the safety and protection of innocent children; I shall speak briefly about those initiatives later. It is also why the Government strongly support the Bill and why we are grateful to my hon. Friend for giving the House this important opportunity to improve the safety and well-being of children. I am delighted that the Bill has received such strong support from child care organisations and from hon. Members who have spoken today. However, the Bill should be seen in the wider context of the Government's strategy to strengthen both the quality of care that vulnerable children receive and their protection from the activities of dangerous adults.

We have to start with a frank assessment of the extent to which we have discharged our responsibilities toward those children in the past. The evidence is clear: we, as a society, have let those children down badly. We have not acted strongly enough to ensure that vulnerable children receive the love, care and protection that all of us would demand and expect for our own children. For too long, we have failed to take the necessary action that would have helped those young people to develop their talents to the full. The price of that failure has been high in both human and social terms.

The Government are determined to learn the lessons of those past failures and to act decisively to improve children's services across the board. We are taking action now to improve the quality of care that those children receive, but we also need to strengthen the protection against abuse and criminal behaviour. That is why the Government welcome this private Member's Bill. The Bill will make a significant contribution to improving that protection and will thus be a fundamental part of our new approach to caring for vulnerable children. We are tackling the problem in a joined-up and concerted fashion, by addressing both quality and safeguards.

That is why we launched the quality protects initiative, to which several hon. Members have referred. It is a three-year programme to modernise social services for children which will be backed up by a new special grant of £375 million over the next three years. Quality protects is about delivering better outcomes for children in need by setting new national objectives for children's services, promoting an important role for local councillors, and requiring all local authorities to submit new quality protects management action plans to the Department of Health by the end of January. I am pleased to say that all the action plans were submitted on time and evaluation work is now well under way.

Before addressing the Bill, I should deal with the important issue of compliance with the European convention on human rights. Because the Bill is a private Member's Bill, section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not strictly apply; however, it will be helpful if I make the Government's view on ECHR compliance absolutely clear. I can confirm that, in the Government's view, the Bill is fully compatible with the European convention.

I shall comment specifically about several important aspects of the Bill. They are the scope of the Bill, the appeal arrangements and the timetable for bringing the provisions into force should the Bill achieve—as I very much hope it will—Royal Assent. As the scope of the Bill, it is clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge has said that the Bill will lay the foundations necessary for a more complete system of protection.

However, it is clear that further action will need to be taken as we continue to develop our thinking in this area. The Bill does not, for example, make it a criminal offence to offer employment or fail to check against the lists. As I said to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, those questions are being looked at within Government at present. They will, as necessary, be the subject of further Government legislation, taking into account all the relevant considerations. Even though that means that the most direct criminal sanctions are absent from the face of the Bill, we think that, in practice, all responsible organisations will act fully in accordance with its provisions.

Mr. Maclean

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way on this point. I shall be brief. I raised this issue with the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) because I am worried about the lack of criminal sanctions. Like the Minister, I believe that most organisations will try to do their duty. However, some of the worst child abuse cases in this country have arisen because of failings on the part of social services departments. Does the Minister accept that, unless there is a threat of severe criminal sanctions—similar to those that apply to other departmental inspectors, such as members of the Health and Safety Executive—there is a danger of a lacuna in this legislation?

Mr. Hutton

As I tried to imply a moment ago, the Government are examining the whole issue of criminal sanctions: what they should be and when and how we can bring those proposals forward. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border mentioned specifically his concerns about social services departments. So far as child care is concerned—and regulated organisations in particular—existing powers may be used to overcome any failures to comply with the terms of the Bill.

For example, there are powers of ministerial direction to local authorities and to NHS trusts, which will be covered by the Bill. Registered homes would risk putting their registration in jeopardy if they failed to comply with their clear and unambiguous statutory obligations not to employ people who were on the list. The public will demand this—as will we—from all those organisations covered by the Bill. We will not hesitate to use those powers, if that becomes necessary, to ensure that children are protected from dangerous and unsuitable people.

Mr. Hammond

The Minister said that he would consider introducing criminal sanctions for organisations that did not comply with their obligations. Will that review extend to the creation of a criminal offence of applying for a position that one is not allowed to hold as a result of the Bill?

Mr. Hutton

We are considering that proposal, but the hon. Gentleman will have to await the results of our deliberations.

Clauses 4 and 9 deal with appeals. Most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have expressed concern about that issue, and the new provisions will significantly improve the protection against unfair or unreasonable inclusion on the list. They represent an enormous improvement on the existing scheme and strike the right balance between increasing protection from abuse—which is what the Bill clearly does—and respecting individual civil liberties. The Secretary of State will in future be required to exercise his functions within the clear framework of the Bill, subject to proper review in the tribunal and, ultimately, in the courts.

I understand the concerns that hon. Members have expressed about those aspects of the Bill. The Government's view is that the provisions will both improve protection and defend the civil liberties of the British people. We do not need to trade off one against the other. That is one of the many strengths of the Bill. However, the Government are persuaded that the provisions are necessary: strong powers must be accompanied by strong protections. Although we are all concerned about protecting children, we must also have regard to the position of individuals who face being placed on the lists and the serious consequences that they will face if listed. There is always a danger of false or malicious allegations, and people must be given every reasonable opportunity to clear their names. I believe that the Bill will provide those opportunities.

The tribunal will act entirely independently in making its decisions on individual appeals. The Secretary of State's responsibilities will be to provide staff and accommodation and pay expenses. The tribunal will also have the power to review completely afresh the full circumstances that led to listing. That will include a factual review of the allegations made and a review of whether the individual is unsuitable to work with children. The tribunal will not, however, be able to review any finding of fact on which a criminal conviction was based.

The Secretary of State will, quite rightly, be consulted in the appointment of lay panel members to ensure that the individuals have suitable education or social service experience. The regulations for the tribunal's proceedings will be made by the Secretary of State. The independent Council on Tribunals will, however, be fully informed and consulted about any proposed regulations.

Finally, I should say something about bringing the measure into force. The relevant powers are in the final clause of the Bill and give considerable flexibility over timing. That is sensible and appropriate, and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept our intended approach.

We intend to be open and inclusive in consulting fully about all aspects of the Bill's implementation, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge would want. There is also the point that the Criminal Records Bureau has not yet been set up and it will not, therefore, be possible to introduce the one-stop shop—the central point of reference—until it has been.

If the Bill is passed, the Government will have to think hard about enforcing the provisions in clauses 1 to 3 before the tribunal is set up. Parallel regulations were made under the Education Reform Act 1988, and there would be subsidiary regulations under, for example, clauses 4(1)(b) and 12. In addition, careful and extensive administrative guidance would have to be prepared and issued simultaneously with the implementation of the necessary statutory instruments to make sure that everyone in the regulated and unregulated sectors understood what was expected.

Hon. Members will, I am sure, recognise the difficulties involved. There will be no unnecessary delay in implementing the Bill, but we shall make absolutely sure that all the preparatory work has been done thoroughly and all the machinery is in place before that happens.

This is an important measure which will improve the safeguards protecting vulnerable children from abuse, strengthen the arrangements for maintaining accurate information about the abusers and fully address the proper concern for civil liberties.

For all those reasons, I strongly urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and, in doing so, help to discharge our clear responsibilities to some of the most vulnerable children in society.

Ms Shipley

With the leave of the House, I shall make a few more remarks.

The Bill is a serious attempt to ensure the protection of children, and I am greatly heartened by the fact that hon. Members on both sides of the House have accepted it as such. The comments today included serious propositions for areas of difficulty. I am grateful for the support of all colleagues for the Bill's intention.

Several times, the hope was expressed that some of the issues raised would be dealt with in Committee, and it is my firm belief that they should be. Serious points have been made. All hon. Members have carefully thought through the issues and received the backing of various organisations that also recognise the Bill's importance, the necessity for measures to protect children and the fact that there must also be a balance to protect individual rights.

I thank the House. I am pleased that there is so much support for this important Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).