My Lords, with leave, I will repeat a Statement on arrangements on vetting and barring those who work with children, made in another place by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:

"Mr Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to make a statement about the arrangements for vetting and barring those who work with children. As the House knows, I laid a Written Ministerial Statement at 9.30 yesterday morning, and I am grateful for this opportunity to update Members of the House and answer questions.

"Child protection has been a top priority for this Government, as it was for the previous administration. Over the past 10 years the child protection system has improved fundamentally as a result of action taken first by the party opposite, which we have then built on with cross-party support in reforming our sex offences laws and setting up the Criminal Records Bureau. Given the scale of change over the past decade, it is helpful to set out briefly the systems currently in place before examining how the problems have arisen and what I propose to do about them.

"List 99 covers those barred for life from working in schools, and has been in place for decades. The decision-making process has remained substantially the same, with Ministers required under law to make sensitive child protection judgments on individuals who have come to the attention of the police. There will be Members on both sides of the House with experience of making such difficult judgments.

"We have significantly tightened List 99 in recent years. However, it does not act in isolation. The previous government paved the way for the introduction of the sex offenders register. We have established the Criminal Records Bureau. We have now committed to further strengthen the system through the implementation of a new vetting and barring scheme as recommended by Sir Michael Bichard. All these measures have significantly tightened the protection available to children and ensured that we have some of the toughest sex offender laws in Europe.

"The system currently works in the following way. Where a teacher is convicted of one of a number of specified offences they will automatically go on List 99 which bars them from working in schools. The vast majority of sex offenders are therefore automatically barred from working in schools.

"For other offences, or where the individual has received a caution, the law currently means that each case must be considered individually with a decision taken by Ministers, based on evidence and advice even though the individual will have been placed by the police on the sex offenders register. In my Statement yesterday I said that initial inquiries indicate that there have been a small number of such difficult cases. I fully understand the concern that this has caused and am determined to do something about it. I have therefore commissioned as a matter of urgency an exhaustive review of all such cases since the introduction of the sex offenders register in 1997 in order to confirm the precise number of these individuals, their whereabouts and whether their behaviour has been of concern to the authorities.

"However, I am sure that both sides of the House will agree that these cases raise questions about whether these long-standing arrangements need to be changed. I will therefore also review urgently the decision-making process surrounding such cases and the policy implications: in particular, how the closest possible alignment can be secured between List 99, the sex offenders register and other data sources; the role of Ministers in the decision-making process; and how police advice can be more fully considered prior to decisions being made. This review will take place with the greatest possible speed and I will report to the House as soon as the facts have been established and I have reached my conclusion.

"Finally, I should reiterate the Government's commitment to implement Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations to tighten the system for vetting and barring those who wish to work with children and vulnerable adults, and to bring forward legislation in this Session of Parliament. The Bichard system will also entail vetting in advance of entry into the children's workforce; the continuous updating of police information; and the ability for parents to check whether tutors, nannies and other individuals they employ are barred, and it will ensure that cautions and convictions are treated in exactly the same way.

"The House will remember that legislation to implement the Bichard report was in the Queen's Speech. I can announce today that the Government will be in a position to bring forward this legislation at the end of February. Assuming the full co-operation of the other parties, I am confident that parliamentary time could be found for the Bill this Session.

"I share and understand the concerns these cases have raised. That is why I made my Statement to this House at 9.30 yesterday morning and why I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House. As Secretary of State I am accountable for all decisions taken in my department and I am determined to keep the House and the public informed. That is why the review I announced yesterday will take place with the greatest possible speed and I will make a further statement to the House as soon as I have considered its conclusions".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place, and welcome the opportunity to discuss such an important and urgent matter in your Lordships' House.

Parents throughout the country need confidence and trust that the Government will provide a standard for all who work with children in our schools. The situation that has come to light this week will have distressed many and they rightly look to the Government for answers. Sadly, the Secretary of State's Statement has given us and parents precious few of those answers. We have still not had an answer to the crucial question of how many more cases there are where Ministers have approved registered sex offenders to work in our schools. In answer to questions in another place, the Secretary of State said that it would be wrong to give figures without the certainty of how many such individuals there are and where they are. That is quite right. But certainty is exactly what we expect from the Government. Why is it that, four days after this issue was raised, the Government still cannot give us this information with certainty?

These are not obscure routine decisions. Each case will have merited a huge amount of consideration. Surely, therefore, it would be right to assume that information of this gravity should be readily available. The same is true of the question of which Minister took the decision on Paul Reeve. Who signed it and when? Why can the department not answer that question?

The Secretary of State has announced legislation to implement the Bichard recommendations and that this will be published at the end of February. This vital legislation will therefore not be on the statute book until the summer, and the Secretary of State has indicated that it may not be fully operational until 2008—a full four years after the recommendations were first made. Why has this serious issue not been gripped sooner? Can the Minister also explain how this will tie in with the review that the Secretary of State announced today? If she is going to legislate to implement Bichard, why does she need a review? Why can the Government not simply say that those on the register of sex offenders must never be allowed to take up positions in our schools or to work with children and vulnerable adults?

The Minister has been a governor of a school. Would he have been comfortable in the knowledge that staff employed at that school could be given approval by the Department for Education and Skills despite being on the register of sex offenders?

This is not a party-political issue. All in your Lordships' House will agree on the importance of ensuring that procedures for protecting children and the most vulnerable in our society are as reliable and safe as they possibly can be. Sadly, today's Statement by the Secretary of State will have done little to reassure parents across the country.

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The whole House will have the same objective—that children should be properly safeguarded and that parents should have confidence in the system. But there are many questions to ask. How many cases are there where people on the sex offenders register have been ruled by the DfES as safe to work with children? Who makes these decisions, and, critically, on what criteria? Who drew up these criteria? Will the Secretary of State review them immediately and publish them so that they can be challenged if appropriate and the whole system made transparent? Why did no one in the DfES speak up about this discrepancy in the lists during the Bichard inquiry so that he could consider whether the discrepancy was justified? Until those questions are answered every parent is going to worry that there could be someone unsuitable working in their child's school. That is unacceptable. However, the last thing we want to see is panic and persecution of innocent staff, as, unfortunately, we have seen when there is media panic about paedophiles. What we need are rigorous systems to safeguard both children and staff.

In the case that sparked this debate the offence was accessing banned images of children. The person accused was cautioned and put on the sex offenders register. This means he must have admitted the offence, so this cannot be a case where someone accessed such images accidentally while surfing the Internet. Does the Minister agree that accessing child pornography is not a minor offence—it is child abuse? People who do this are adding to the profits of those who abuse children by making these photographs. They are complicit in that offence and are guilty of child abuse. In view of that, it is hard to understand a decision to allow a person who had admitted to such an offence only two years earlier to work with children.

However, that raises important questions about the relationship between the various lists in existence. There is no automatic updating of List 99 from any other databases. People who are on the sex offenders register do not automatically get put on List 99. The Secretary of State clearly knew that, because she, or people in her department, reviewed Paul Reeve's position. She saw that he was on the SOR, but decided that her adviser's opinion that he was not a danger to children was acceptable. However, I understand that the police had not been contacted by the DfES about Mr Reeve's case when the decision was made to allow him to work in schools. Why was that?

I do not favour automatic transfer of all people on the sex offenders register to List 99; it should be done on a case-by-case basis for the following reason. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, an 18 year-old boy who sleeps with his 15 year-old girlfriend can end up on the sex offenders register, even if that turns out to be a legitimate relationship that ends up in marriage and children. Noble Lords may recall that my noble friends and I and many other noble Lords on other Benches fought unsuccessfully against this at the time. However, it is now the law, so we cannot necessarily simply turn the sex offenders register into the list of people who should be barred from ever working with children. I was pleased to hear in another place a little earlier that the Secretary of State is not planning such an over-simplistic measure. However, one of her media statements suggested the opposite. In view of the contradictory nature of the two statements, can the Minster confirm that no such automatic read-across is planned?

That brings me to a number of issues related to a head teacher's ability to make the right decisions in these cases. First, I would really like to know whether head teachers were made aware that they were employing someone on the sex offenders register. I am quite aware that the fact that someone does not appear on List 99 does not mean that they are approved to work in schools. That means that we need rigorous systems to help schools to make safe decisions about who to employ. Michael Bichard, who recently published his report on the Soham case, made serious recommendations about that. For example, in paragraph 4.61 he said that LEAs and governing bodies have a responsibility to ensure that head teachers and others involved in interviews can develop the skills needed to draw out child safeguarding issues during interviews. He pointed out that the head of the Soham school could not recollect having had any such training. He recommended that all heads and governors should receive such training and all interview panels should contain at least one person who has had it. He also proposed that the safeguards should be included in the inspection regime. I welcome the Government's commitment to bringing the Bichard recommendations before Parliament in February, but I fear that it is the current crisis that has brought that forward.

In the mean time, Michael Bichard commented in paragraph 4.62 that there is a danger that too much emphasis will be placed on the CRB checks. We know that there are still problems with those; for example, cases can take up to five months. If there is to be a one-stop shop for background checks it has to be run efficiently. What plans do the Government have to improve that system? In view of the Soham case, Michael Bichard recommended that the enhanced disclosure regime should apply in all cases where the post would involve working with children and in schools. Do the Government accept that recommendation? How soon could it be implemented? In the same paragraph, he said that there is a concern that many abusers do not have convictions, and that no intelligence such as that which would come to light under the enhanced disclosure regime is held on them. Under those circumstances, it is all the more important that adequate training is given to school interview panels and head teachers. What plans do the Government have to address that issue?

Finally, is it not outrageous that after all that has happened we are having to have this discussion today? Let the Government prove the veracity of their claims that the safety of children is their top priority.

I am grateful to noble Baronesses for their responses. I assume that the warm welcome that they have given to the decision to bring forward the legislation this month means that we will have full co-operation from them when that legislation is brought forward, as we will need to ensure its speedy implementation.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that she takes full responsibility for all the decisions taken by Ministers in the department. We are not going to say which decision was taken by whom; she takes responsibility as Secretary of State for all decisions. A small number of cases are involved, and I stress that. It is right and in the public interest that we should gather together all the material on those cases, including the whereabouts and current employment of the individuals concerned, in a proper and systematic manner so that the information on the cases can be made available to Parliament, and the information on the whereabouts and other relevant details can be made available to the employers of those individuals where they are in employment and where that information is not known already.

Both noble Baronesses made points about the speed with which we have acted. The Government have acted expeditiously and entirely in keeping with the undertaking that we gave to Sir Michael Bichard. Indeed, Sir Michael said as much in his interview on "Newsnight" last night, where he said that he had been in regular conversations with the department about the proposals. He said:

"The department have been working hard since the inquiry on producing a single barring scheme and they've kept me in touch with what they were doing and I'm very impressed with the work actually that they've done".

I stress that Sir Michael did not criticise us on that score. On the contrary, the Government published a post-Bichard vetting scheme plan before the general election. I have a copy here, and I will happily make it available to your Lordships. The scheme set out in that consultation paper made it clear:

"The Government proposes to create a new vetting and barring scheme for people seeking work . . . with children or vulnerable adults. This is in response to recommendations made by Sir Michael Bichard . . . The proposed scheme will build on the existing barring list and Criminal Records Bureau services in order to provide a comprehensive, centralised, integrated and updated system to prevent unsuitable people from gaining access to vulnerable groups through their work and to ensure that those who become unsuitable do not continue in the workforce".

The drawing-up of the scheme was undertaken following extensive consultation with Sir Michael. To quote from the document in paragraph 2.23:

"Sir Michael looked closely at this proposal when he reconvened his Inquiry in January 2005", which he did specifically to review the Government's response to his original report. It continues:

"He states that it meets all the material requirements of his recommendation and that he is therefore happy to endorse it".

That is what Sir Michael said as set out in our proposal for the vetting scheme, which we set out in April. The Queen's Speech then made clear two months later the Government's intention to legislate. We are preparing the legislation at the moment, and we will introduce it soon. Our belief is that we have acted expeditiously in this mater. We have taken forward Sir Michael's recommendations in consultation with him, and the scheme that is put in place will be robust.

There is a difficult issue about borderline cases, and there will still be a difficult issue even when the new scheme comes into effect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, so rightly said, the fact that an individual does not appear on List 99 does not mean that they are necessarily a fit and proper person to be employed in a school. The whole reason for the system of CRB checks is to give the potential employer the additional information that is available to the public authorities, so that they themselves can make a judgment on whether it is appropriate to employ them. That includes all the information available to the police, including soft information that may not have led either to a conviction or a caution. In some cases soft information currently leads Ministers to decide to place an individual on List 99 even if they have received neither a conviction nor a caution. The two lists are not the same at the moment, and List 99 is not a subset of the sex offenders register. It includes individuals who, because of information available to her, the Secretary of State believes should not be validated for working in schools. Employers then, on the basis of the information that they have, need to make a judgment through their interview processes as to whether it is appropriate to offer a job to that person.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly said, employers need proper training and support in undertaking that work. We have made further material available to schools in recent months, specifically to help them in that process. But I agree with her that this is a proper role for local authorities and others to be assisting governors with, to ensure that this very difficult business of assessing evidence that they have secured from all sources, including CRB checks, is properly weighed in decisions about offering jobs.

The noble Baroness said that it was taking up to five months for CRB checks to be conducted. My information is that the average time to undertake a CRB check is 28 days. Those offering contracts of employment will, in the normal course of events, seek to secure references and other information that is relevant. The way that the system works enables them to conduct a CRB check alongside that process. If they get the information within 28 days, that in most cases would enable employers to decide whether to make a job offer after they have already secured the CRB information. So the CRB is working a good deal better than when there were problems three years ago, and it now offers a satisfactory and good service in the overwhelming majority of cases.

My Lords, my understanding is that the Government have accepted Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations and now intend to legislate to put them into effect. That will take some considerable time in some respects, as my noble friend indicated. Will the noble Lord give an undertaking, in so far as it lies within the power of Ministers by executive action to follow the spirit of Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations, to put them into effect immediately and not wait for legislation before proceeding?

My Lords, I can, indeed, give the noble Lord that undertaking. Part of the reason that we have asked for this urgent review is to allow the Secretary of State to make further changes in response to such a review in advance of the changes that will be brought about by legislation.

The reason that it is taking time to set up a new vetting system is that the IT systems involved are very complex. The systems will allow for continuous updating of the list of those who are barred by all police authorities in the country. That requires a very complex system and the proper procurement process for that will mean that it will not be available before 2007 and in full operation until 2008. That was agreed with Sir Michael.

Does my noble friend agree that of course there is a real problem here, but equally is it not right that that problem should be examined in depth? He has outlined that today. Rather than come to hasty decisions, there is a strong case for review. Would not the noble Baroness be among the first to complain if rash decisions were taken about this most important matter? Is there not only a duty for teachers to report on any aberrant behaviour, but a duty to avoid witch hunts at all costs?

My Lords, I agree fully with my noble friend, not only about the importance both of constant vigilance on the part of all those who work in schools about aberrant behaviour that could legitimately give rise to concern, but about the importance of avoiding witch hunts. I should stress that these issues are very complex. It is not a simple and straightforward matter, as some appear to believe—that one could easily duplicate the sex offenders register and put it on the updated Bichard register that will succeed List 99.

The decisions taken by the Department for Education and Skills at the moment on inclusion in List 99 include judgments that go beyond those factors which put individuals on the sex offenders register. That is appropriate, because the issue is not simply about an individual having a conviction or a caution for an offence which is relevant but whether there is other material information about their behaviour towards children that has come to the attention of the public authorities which could lead the Secretary of State to believe that they are not a fit and proper person to work in a school. It is absolutely correct that a Minister may have to make that judgment, but in many cases goes beyond the information that is available on the sex offenders register.

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having had the advantage of reading Sir Michael Bichard's report. Of course, I entirely agree with all previous speakers that it essential to have an effective and rigorous system of identifying teachers who may be a danger to children.

However, perhaps I may put the matter in perspective and make a point that is relevant to the desirability of having the best possible system for identifying offenders. Unless you can give non-offenders, particularly male teachers, more confidence that they are not going to be the object of false accusations, we are going to move from bad to worse, from the present position where I think I am right to say that less than a third of teachers are male. Many men are being discouraged from entering the profession because of the fear of losing their careers and their reputation as a result of an accusation of sexual abuse.

My Lords, we have made it clear to schools and governing bodies that where allegations are made of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, preliminary steps should be taken to ascertain their veracity very quickly so that false allegations can be rooted out without the effects that the noble Lord mentioned.