| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12 noon
Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South): I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), and especially No. 21. In a sense, it epitomises all that was best about the way we worked when considering the Bill in Committee. Constructive criticism of parts of the Bill and cross-party co-operation were evident throughout our discussions. The amendment arises because of intensive discussion of various clauses, which revealed that there was a potential loophole that we had not foreseen and we needed to close. All members of the Committee are to be congratulated on the way in which they identified potential difficulties and potential risks to children. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated especially on the constructive way in which she introduced the amendment, which was revealed to be necessary at quite a late stage in Committee.
I beg your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be allowed to take this opportunity to thank a number of people who were extremely helpful when we were examining the Bill in Committee and thereafter. Many wiser, if not older, Members and Officers of the House have been extremely helpful in advising many of us who are novices when it comes to private Members' Bills. I hope that they feel that their reward is a much better Bill.
The Bill is very much a balance between civil liberties and the rights of children. If it is perceived sometimes to be on the side of the rights of children, we make no apologies for that. It is a difficult and delicate balance to strike. If we are in this place for anything as parliamentarians, it is to protect the most vulnerable. That is the balance that we must always strike.
The clause is crucial in ensuring that we block a loophole that could enable those seeking to abuse their position of power in respect of children to gain employment at a much later stage once further information has become available. The Bill is very much a building block. It will not provide the comprehensive protection for children that we all seek, but it will be one of a series of measures that I know will be introduced by the Government to try to ensure that there is the most comprehensive protection for children that we can provide.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Luton Herald and Post, which is campaigning in my constituency for the rights of children who have been abused. The newspaper has brought to me many examples that have been helpful in identifying possible loopholes in the Bill which need to be identified. I think that it deserves our congratulations. It has provided a fine example of sensitive and responsible journalism.
The amendment is the result of the serious work that was done in Committee. It was said in Committee that concern remained that there were instances where information could come to light at a much later stage
when the person concerned might have ceased to be employed in a child care role. The spirit of the Bill is that such cases should be within its ambit, but its drafting meant that that issue could not be addressed at that stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge has consulted widely on closing that loophole. and the amendment is the result.
We must ensure that the ability to refer names is not limited to the immediate time and circumstances of dismissal or resignation, when no information suggesting grounds to justify a referral would be available to the employer. Accordingly, the amendment permits a referral to be made when such information becomes available subsequently.
The amendment does not provide for a time limit. Some hon. Members may be concerned about that, but it is difficult to specify a time limit because information can come to light after many years, as the cases in north Wales, for example, have shown. There may be many years of investigation before the truth of the circumstances of child abuse comes into the public domain. It would therefore be unjust to specify an arbitrary time limit, which could allow those who had previously been involved in child abuse to slip through the net. None of us, in retrospect, could justify that happening.
As no time limit is provided for, the Secretary of State would have to deal with such cases with great sensitivity--the abuse may have taken place some time ago, there may be complications and the investigations may be lengthy. The Secretary of State would have to ensure that there was justice for the person who had been accused, but also, and more importantly, for the children, who may have grown up by the time a case is brought.
The terms under which the Secretary of State would be required to investigate such matters are very important, and we will expect particular care to be taken with the quality of the evidence, which may be quite old. However, the fact that abuse took place a considerable time ago does not lessen its seriousness. Indeed, in many cases it gives it greater import--if there is a chain of incidents that has been recognised only latterly, the passage of time does not lessen the impact of abuse on the children concerned.
As a former council leader, I am all too painfully aware that child abuse can be discovered long after it has occurred, perhaps after rafts of personnel changes in a children's home or because political leadership has changed. Matters that were not brought to light before either professional or--dare I say--political protection was put in place are sometimes revealed only after a long period, when there is a change of staff or of political personnel. It is sometimes hard for people to admit that, but, once such matters have been identified, it is incumbent on all those in positions of authority to ensure that further abuse is prevented and that a referral is made as swiftly as proper investigation allows. That is the essence of the amendment.
I asked the social services department of my local authority whether it had had similar experiences or had similar concerns. It drew to my attention an example from about three years ago. A man had gained employment with the former county council education department as a peripatetic teacher, which gave him access to children's
homes. By chance, the man was spotted outside a school by a former teacher, who remembered that, many years earlier, he had left a teaching post in the county, having been confronted with very serious concerns about his behaviour around young male pupils. That behaviour included hanging around showers, taking the children camping and making special friends with certain children.
When staff in the education department made inquiries outside the county, they found that the man had left his previous employment in similar circumstances and that there had been a repeat pattern. They had been tipped off that he might have held several jobs in schools outside the county and left them in similar circumstances, and their investigations proved that suspicion to be correct. Thus, many years after the original occurrences, it came to light that the man had a history of behaviour that would have made him subject to disciplinary proceedings had he remained in his job. However, he had left those jobs to avoid disciplinary action.
Such a pattern of behaviour is not unusual. It is what Luton's assistant director of social services referred to as a good example of the operation of a "smart" paedophile. That is what the Bill seeks to prevent. In this instance, Luton social services had the opportunity to take action and investigate the man's previous behaviour because he was still employed with them. However, what would have happened if that information had come to light only once the man had resigned from his post and moved elsewhere? That is precisely the problem that the amendment seeks to address.
Mr. Hammond:
The hon. Lady says that that is precisely the problem that the amendment seeks to address. What is her understanding of what happens to a person in that position once he is uncovered in his new post?
Ms Moran:
One would certainly expect that an employer who had taken on someone in good faith, believing him capable and entitled to work with children, but who subsequently discovered that he was not reliable would take disciplinary action under employment law. To do anything else would be deemed negligent. Like the hon. Gentleman, I take pride in the fact that I am not a lawyer, so I cannot give him a definitive answer. Having been an employer responsible for a large number of employees, I expect that serious questions would be asked of the employer who had that information to hand but who continued to allow such a person to work with children. Many such cases would be tested in court, but it would be unusual for an employer to be challenged for taking disciplinary and other action if previous evidence was substantial enough to justify the accusation that the person was not fit to work with children.
Mr. Maclean:
This is an important group of amendments. I want to speak briefly in support of the amendments of the hon. Member for Stourbridge(Ms Shipley). As I was putting together my notes before
Amendment No. 35 is in this group, but I want to say a few words about my other amendment, which is slightly different from the general thrust of the amendments that we have discussed so far. Amendment No. 37 would require the Secretary of State to allow an individual who has been referred to him to comment on the observations of the organisation that so referred him. The justification of the amendment is that an individual should have an automatic right to know what comments his organisation has made about him, given the seriousness of a referral to the Secretary of State for inclusion in the list.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |