| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I look forward, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, to the Minister’s response on those issues. However, I will ask about one more related point; I have not given the Minister notice of this, so he may wish to write to me. It is about the implementation of the consolidated safety recruitment guidance, and the follow-up to the Ofsted survey on vetting practice in schools. In a Written Ministerial Statement, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families stated:
“Ofsted inspectors evaluate schools’ compliance with Government requirements regarding vetting of staff during the course of inspections of maintained schools. Reports published since April 2007 indicate that compliance is very high, and Ofsted will continue to report on this aspect”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/08; col. 37WS.]
It is good news that schools’ compliance with the CRB checks, as they are currently called, is very high, and I am delighted to see that. However, I have received evidence from a schools inspector which gives me cause for concern. He says:
“Schools are expected to see positive evidence of identity, birth, address, qualifications ... Many seem to believe that they must retain evidence”,
so that they can prove that they have done this to, for example, a CRB monitor or an Ofsted inspector. The result is that this inspector is finding in many schools,
- “a growing plethora of personal information: photocopies of drivers’ licences, birth certificates, qualifications and passports. Schools know that they must destroy the actual CRB disclosure, because they have been told that they must”,
and many schools think that they should keep this background evidence. There is a chance that this is quite a widespread practice, although I have to admit that the person who informed me has obviously not inspected thousands of schools. But he is concerned that a lot of this confidential information may be vulnerable, although the majority of schools will do their best to keep that sort of information safe.
What is being done to make sure that schools understand that they do not need to keep that information once the CRB check has gone through, and that they have destroyed the CRB disclosure itself, simply in order to convince the inspectors that they are complying? Perhaps Ofsted or the Information Commissioner would be able to comment on this. I should be most grateful if the Minister would write if he is unable to answer the
19 Mar 2008 : Column GC60
Lord Adonis: I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for their welcome for the regulations and for their questions. Most of the questions range well outside the remit of the regulations that we are debating today, which have a very limited and precise intent; that is, to define a category of those who are already barred under existing barring arrangements and who will continue to be barred under the new arrangements with no rights to make representations. That may include people who have come by the route of being cautioned, but they are people who, whatever the route, have been barred and have been therefore held by the existing procedures to be a sufficient risk to the client groups with whom they were working to be barred.
The issue is defining that category of people who we do not think it is appropriate to allow to make representations as they migrate from the old system to the new. There are about 14,000 migration cases in total. My information is that only some hundreds of cases will be migrated to the new system without any right to make representations. The overwhelming majority of those who are migrated will have the right to make representations. We are dealing with a very small group who will not.
That very small group includes people who have been barred because of risks that they pose under legislation—which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, stated, are, on any reasonable assessment, very serious offences—or where there are concerns about activities relating to extremely serious offences. I could read them out, but I do not think that any of us in the Grand Committee would have any difficulty in thinking that these were appropriate cases. That is the precise area we are talking about. In the great majority of cases there will be the right to make representations.
5.15 pm
Having made that general introduction, I shall now seek to deal with individual points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked about the impact of the new arrangements for volunteers. With regard to the establishment of the new barring arrangements, it is not possible to say what impact there has been because they have still to be introduced, so they have not taken effect. However, I see that she is really getting at the time it takes to get CRB checks, which we all know was an issue a few years ago when there were delays in the system and a lack of clarity in some areas about which groups were and were not covered by the need for CRB checks, and there was a concern that this would put people off coming forward.
I am glad to be able to say that the CRB regime has significantly improved its efficiency; the latest data I have show that the CRB processes 90 per cent of enhanced checks within four weeks and its average performance this year exceeds that, so it is improving. In the data I have for 2007-08, the four-week target
19 Mar 2008 : Column GC61
We do not collect figures on the numbers of volunteers coming forward, but the evidence is that the CRB regime is operating well now; it is meeting its efficiency targets and has improved in the past few years. As a matter of anecdote—in many of these areas that is all we have to go on—I visit many schools and voluntary organisations, and no one in recent months has raised with me the difficulty in procuring CRB checks or any lack of clarity about when they should be procured as an obstacle to being able to recruit either full-time staff or volunteers. Having said that for the record in Hansard, I will now be flooded with such instances, which my officials will be glad to deal with. In so far as I can answer the noble Baroness, that is my response at present.
The noble Baroness asked me what, on the face of it, is a serious issue: whether having committed a serious offence more than 10 years ago should be a relevant consideration whether to bar someone. I think she misconstrued the regulation. The point is not whether a serious offence was committed more than 10 years ago. That would continue to be a relevant factor in whether someone should be barred. The issue is whether the individual in question is then allowed to make representations about their case. The regulations we are debating today are for that category of people who are barred who will not be allowed to make representations. Those who committed offences more than 10 years ago will be allowed to make representations. That does not mean that it therefore follows that their barring would be lifted; it is simply one of the criteria used to define that group who will not be allowed to make representations. I hope that answers the point. The noble Baroness is right that serious offences committed more than 10 years ago do not cease to be relevant. The question is simply whether people have the right to make representations.
We debated cautions during the passage of the Bill, and I know they are of concern. It is crucial that individuals understand the significance of accepting cautions. That issue is key. I am informed that ACPO has revised its guidance to ensure that police officers explain the significance of accepting cautions for the offences listed, and that that could—indeed, would—lead to individuals being barred. Realistically, we cannot do more than that to ensure that individuals, at the point of deciding whether to accept a caution, understand the consequences for their potential employment if it is a relevant factor. They do not have to accept a caution—if they wish, they can see the issue proceed through further legal channels—but it is important that they understand, at the point where they accept the caution, that there are consequences. That is now enshrined in the ACPO revised guidance. That is a specific response to concerns that were raised when the Bill was going through both Houses.
Why are there not more offences listed? As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, some of those
19 Mar 2008 : Column GC62
We debated at length workers from overseas and offences committed overseas when the Bill was going through. The regulations deal with those who are already barred. Future regulations will ensure that where we know an offence has been committed abroad, it will lead to barring. We have very good reciprocal arrangements with many countries for determining whether individuals have committed offences as this forms part of their application and assessment procedures when they apply for jobs which come within those categories for which CRB checks are necessary. I am told that we are making significant progress in enhancing the reciprocal arrangements for the exchange of information. For example, I am told that we are making very good progress with the eight states of Australia on much more robust mechanisms for exchanging information when workers apply for jobs. Australia is, of course, a big market for the recruitment of staff into the sectors with which we are dealing.
We are seeking to strengthen systems to receive foreign offender information from all countries, and this is a big task of the new ISA. But I must be frank with the Committee that this depends on the quality of information held by the domestic authorities. This will be ongoing work which we need to take forward to ensure that we procure the best quality information available and that it is transmitted to us in a timely fashion. But, of course, it is also the responsibility of employers to conduct the most thorough evaluation they can of individuals who apply for jobs, over and above them being cleared through a CRB process or a reciprocal arrangement for exchanging information with overseas. The fact that an individual comes from overseas and we do not have good quality information from their own vetting and barring services does not lessen the obligation on the employer to make all necessary checks and to monitor behaviour very carefully. I hope that I have dealt with the specific questions—
Baroness Walmsley: Before the noble Lord sits down, I have a further question. Will offences committed overseas for which somebody has accepted a caution also be included? The Minister may recall I was concerned that overseas police forces may not be as scrupulous as our own.
19 Mar 2008 : Column GC63
Lord Adonis: As regards the current regulations, they will be included only if they have already been barred. So they would be included only if they have already gone through a process that has led to barring. The precise terms on which people will be barred without representation in future will be subject to subsequent regulations.
The noble Baroness also asked me about a point that was raised with her as regards the practice of schools in retaining personal information about teachers and staff after the necessary checks have been made. Schools do not have to keep the documents to which she referred. They must make a record of the checks they have made, but that is all
19 Mar 2008 : Column GC64
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): That completes the business before the Grand Committee. The Committee stands adjourned.
- The Committee adjourned at 5.24 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |