Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Henley and Lord Bichard

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bichard]

I am seeking clarification in order to be helpful. Am I hearing from the Minister that in future the barring authorities will make available to the police the information on which they have made their decision, but not necessarily the decision, and the police can then decide whether that is relevant information to make available to employers who carry out a criminal record check? To be clear, is that what is now being said?

[Lord Henley]

That is what I want to make clear, but as long as the information is relevant. We do not want irrelevant information passed on because of the damage that could possibly cause to the individual concerned.

[Lord Bichard]

This dialogue cannot and will not go on for ever but, of course, under the current arrangements, the police make a decision about whether the information they have on convictions is relevant. Therefore the Minister is suggesting that they would make the same decision about information they receive from the barring authorities about individuals. Is that correct?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will again remind the noble Lord and the House that we are at Third Reading. I shall repeat the words I used. If the police judge it relevant to the post applied for they may disclose it on an enhanced certificate—no more and no less.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Henley and Lord Bichard

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not know whether it will be next Wednesday when we come back to this. I remind the House again that we are on Report not in Committee, and I think I have been interrupted and intervened upon more than one would expect. I will try to write to my noble friend before the next day on Report on this Bill. Whether it will be next week, I do not know.

[Lord Bichard]

My Lords, I very much welcome the tone of the Minister’s response. I respect his position entirely and we have known each other long enough for me to be able to say that. I particularly welcome his confirmation that schools, if I understand it right, and organisations that want to carry on with checks will be able to do so. I assume that that means that they will have access to the intelligence that those checks would normally disclose. That issue might well need to be looked at, but I very much welcome that assurance.

I welcome the sympathetic way in which the Minister has responded to the debate. However, let us be absolutely clear, this is not for me, or I think for other noble Lords who have spoken, a question of bureaucracy and whether we need less of it. We all agree that we need less of it. The report that I produced after Soham was not implemented in full. Checks, for example, are not routinely updated, which is why we have the bureaucracy that we have. I said specifically in the Soham report that I wanted a system that was proportionate, and I do not think that we have ever achieved that.

This is therefore not a question of whether we need to reduce bureaucracy or of supervision. The core of the argument and of my contention is that we should be concerned about risk and not allow people who are a risk to have privileged access to our children—and it is privileged access. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, we have to draw a distinction between access that someone has in a school or a club and a chance encounter. If people build up trust in a school, it is a much more powerful relationship than it would be through some serendipitous or irregular meeting and much more likely to lead to secondary access, and to secondary access being exploited. I do not think it fair to say that we should expect parents to be able to monitor those kinds of situations. Parents expect schools, clubs and centres to be places where they can leave their children with some confidence. That is why we need to make sure that in those places we do not have people who are a risk having access to our children.

I welcome the tone of the response, as I said, and the possibility of further discussions, but let us never underestimate the importance of this issue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it is unfortunate—it is no one’s fault—that we had this debate without a larger number of noble Lords present, because this is a really important issue. Had I not heard the Minister’s assurances at the end about further discussions and about schools and other organisations being able to carry on with the checks as they do now, I would have had to withdraw the amendment—I have no alternative but to do so—with a heavy heart and a great deal of apprehension. The reassurances that we have received enable me to withdraw the amendment with more optimism, and I look forward to those further discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Lord Henley and Lord Bichard

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

We can have a meeting if the noble Baroness wishes; my door is always open. I just think that “close and constant” goes far too far and more or less negates the point of what we are trying to do in this area. Obviously, we would also listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, has to say on these matters, and I will give way in a minute; we welcome his experience. I remind the noble Baroness, however, that he was not totally uncritical of what followed his report and what was done; if I can paraphrase the noble Lord, he said it was not quite as proportionate as it might be.

[Lord Bichard]

My problem, which is not yet being addressed, is this: we have checks to ensure that inappropriate people do not get access—particularly to young children because they are vulnerable. That is why we have the checks. The Government’s new proposals seem to be based on the belief that supervision—whether it is close, constant, day-to-day or whatever—can make an individual who is inappropriate appropriate to work with young people. That is an issue about which I have serious doubts, because I do not believe that supervision can ever deal with that issue conclusively, not least because you can supervise somebody on a day-to-day or constant basis in his work, but that does not stop him grooming the young person and meeting them at the weekend, outside of work or the activity. Therefore, I am worried that we seem to be accepting—on all sides of the House—that coming up with a definition for supervision deals with this problem. I am just not sure that it does. The Minister may want to comment on that; I certainly believe there is room for further discussion.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord seems to be suggesting that we get rid of the idea or the concept of supervision in its entirety. I simply do not accept that. I think there is a role here for making it easier for people to get involved, with the appropriate degree of supervision where necessary. I take it that the noble Lord does not agree with me on that and it might be that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, does not agree with me on that: in which case, we will have to differ. We on this side see a role—and so do many other bodies outside—for the appropriate supervision to allow people to take on such a role. For that reason, I am not sure that a meeting on this matter would necessarily be fruitful.