The Protection of Freedoms Bill was published today, revealing an array of sweeping reforms which will put an end to unwarranted local authority snooping and unnecessary scrutiny of individuals.
 

The Bill steps up the coalition government’s commitment to restore hard-won British liberties. It will see: • an end to the routine monitoring of 9.3 million people under the radically reformed vetting and barring scheme
• millions of householders protected from Councils checking their bins or school catchment area
• the scrapping of Section 44 powers, which have been used to stop and search hundreds of thousands of innocent people
• the permanent reduction of the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 14 days
• DNA samples and fingerprints of hundreds of thousands of innocent people deleted from police databases
• thousands of gay men able to clear their name with the removal of out-of-date convictions for consensual acts
• thousands of motorists protected from rogue wheel clamping firms.

Today’s news on Control Orders is good news. They have been watered down in many areas, and the conditions in which those held without trial are kept will be improved in many areas. The time during which the new orders apply has been fixed, and the amount of time people can be held without trial has also been reduced.

Other progressive measures on Civil Liberties were also announced by the government today. Stop and Search powers are reduced, and the responsibilities placed on government to detail the reasons for exercising their powers are greater. Powers that public authorities like Councils have to spy on residents are also greatly reduced.

It’s a good day for civil libertarians, and the direction of travel is good. The coalition is undoing some of what Labour did in this area which set the cause of liberty back.

But I would have loved to have seen the proposals go further. We will still see punishment without trial, which is bad for the innocent and the guilty, and makes Britain look disrespectful towards natural justice.

I worry about Nick Clegg’s reaction though. He has trumpeted the reforms as a great victory, claiming that we have delivered on a manifesto commitment to end Control Orders. I think his tone is wrong. We may have ended them in their current form, but what replaces them is more of a watered-down version of what existed before than something wholly new and different.

We’ve punched above our weight on this, that’s for sure. It’s a victory, but I think what we should be doing is acknowledging necessary compromises rather than pretending to have achieved more than we have.

We make up a sixth of a government, the other five sixths of which are Conservatives who made no mention of Control Orders in their manifesto, and are traditionally not known for favouring civil liberties over cracking down on crime. But we’ve not got everything we wanted, which is what Nick Clegg is claiming.

Claiming to have delivered on a promise when actually that delivery is debateable is asking for trouble. It makes people trust politicians less, and gives people perfect ammunition to prove us wrong.

Why couldn’t Nick Clegg have told the full truth on this, which is that the Lib Dems in government have used their influence to change the law in the direction we promised, but that because the government is largely not Lib Dem, we couldn’t do any more? We’ve traded being in opposition and getting nothing with being in government and getting something? We continue to believe in getting everything but we need more of people’s votes for that?

Isn’t that what the party’s message should be when it comes to selling our achievements in government, rather than pretending that they’re bigger than they are and conveniently ignoring the bad stuff that everyone else can see?

Rick

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg yesterday announced that child detention for immigration purposes is to end.

He said the practice will end completely by May 2011, and confirmed that the family wing of Yarl’s Wood immigration centre in Bedfordshire is to close immediately. No child will be held in detention over Christmas.

Mr Clegg said:

“The coalition government has always been clear that the detention of children for immigration purposes is unacceptable.

“We are placing the welfare of children and families at the centre of a fairer and more compassionate system.

“In recent years we have seen hundreds of children, who have committed no crime, locked up in detention centres. Today we show how we will ensure it never happens again.”

Rick

Some great news tonight as Liberal Democrat Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone announced that there will be a full review of the way the Criminal Records check system works.

A criminal records regime review will take place, led by Sunita Mason, the Government’s Independent Advisor for Criminality Information Management. Mrs Mason will consider whether the disclosure of minor offences and police intelligence to prospective employers within the criminal recorders check should still form part of this process.

This is exciting news, and exactly what I and othrs have been writing about frequently for some time. I know that the most read articles ever on this site have been about CRB checks and particularly about minor offences, police intelligence and malicious allegations. They have generated more comment than anything else I’ve ever written, and have produced some very affecting contributions from readers. I hope that this review brings some comfort to them tonight.

When Lynne Featherstone became Minister with responsibility for the CRB system I had hopes that there would be a review. In fact I wrote to her urging action more than once. And now it’s happened, which is marvellous. The government, and a Lib Dem Minister at that, are looking into this system at last, and will hopefully respond to the clear injustices that it is producing at the moment.

The Criminal Records Review will examine whether the criminal records regime strikes the right balance between respecting civil liberties and protecting the public. It is expected to make proposals to scale back the use of systems involving criminal records to common sense levels. The review will be in two phases, and will include consideration of the following issues:

In phase 1: 

(i) Could the balance between civil liberties and public protection be improved by scaling back the employment vetting systems which involve the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB)?

(ii) Where Ministers decide such systems are necessary, could they be made more proportionate and less burdensome?

(iii) Should police intelligence form part of CRB disclosures?

In phase 2: 

1. How should the content of a ‘criminal record’ be defined?

2. Where should criminal records be kept and who should be responsible for managing them?

3. Who should have access to criminal records databases, for what purposes and subject to what controls and checks? To what extent should police intelligence be disclosed?

4. What capacity should individuals have to access, challenge and correct their own criminal records?

5. Could the administration of criminal records be made more straightforward, efficient and cost-effective?

6. Could guidance and information on the operation of the criminal records regime be improved?

7. How effective is the integration of overseas data into the criminal records regime?

The review is part of a wider review announced today into the controversial Vetting and Barring system which will re-examine whether the scheme is the most appropriate mechanism to protect children and vulnerable people and, if so, how many roles should be covered by it.

The review is set to present recommendations to government in the new year.

Rick

There’s a great scene in an episode of “The West Wing” where Sam Seaborne, the idealistic young speechwriter, tells a colleague that if the big issues of recent decades were human rights and the role of government, the big issues of the next couple of decades will be privacy.

I think he has a point. Yesterday I wrote about how the government’s Criminal Records Bureau is releasing health records to would-be employers. Last week, the Foreign Secretary William Hague was forced to publicly deny rumours about his sexuality. And today, the Prime Minister’s Head of Communications is again facing questions about whether he knew about phone-tapping journalists working for him when he was editing the News of the World.

People with more time on their hands than I have, and with significantly more erudite ways of putting things are having their say on this today, and if it’s analysis you want I suggest you read them. But I do a fine line in personal angst, and can tell you that the whole thing makes me feel uneasy and angry in equal measure.

How did we come to a place where it is acceptable to behave as journalists have done, tapping phones and making lurid allegations seemingly on the flimsiest of foundations? What is the end game for these journalists? Are they just the grown-up equivalents of sneering playground bullies, motivated by easy money? Or is it something else?

There seems nowhere for anyone in public life to go now which they can consider truly private, even if they have done nothing wrong. And, more worrying still, as this routine invasion of the privacy of public figures becomes accepted, its effects on the lives of ordinary citizens is felt as well. Prying, snooping cameras, and organisations playing fast and loose with personal data for money are commonplace and need tackling now.

I think it’s something that the coalition agree on, and I suspect the public do too. Let’s make some progress on it and make clear where the boundaries are between what is and is not acceptable. At the moment they are too blurred, and there is too little responsibility borne by those who clearly cross them

Rick

For a while now I have been writing occasionally on here about Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosures, and the sometimes questionable information included on them. My posts about the inclusion of allegations subsequently proved false, and of decades old minor convictions and cautions has generated more comment on this site than anything else I’ve written about.

CRBs have also prompted dozens and dozens of people from all over the country to write to me with their own stories, some of them truly heartbreaking. Teachers, social workers, nurses, all effectively barred from gaining employment or waiting in fear for an employer to ask to see a CRB disclosure they know will make public some false allegation or half-truth from years ago.

Of course we need a system which stops people convicted of certain crimes from having access to vulnerable people. But CRBs in their present form are not that system. They disclose far too much, going way beyond what is relevant and recent. 

Legislation has given the police the task of revealing to the CRB all information that they hold which they consider relevant, and for the CRB to reveal that to potential employers. That police judgement of “relevance” goes way beyond what most people would consider fair, and it can have far-reaching consequences.

In these risk averse times, I don’t blame the police for including everything. I doubt they have the time to make an objective judgement on the millions of people who now need CRBs. The way the law stands means that far too many people need vetting, and it gives them no option but to reveal far too much. The number of CRB checks almost trebled to 3.8m per year in the six years 2003-9. With that many taking place, it’s no wonder the police include everything but the kitchen sink.

And of course, once information about convictions, allegations, cautions or rumours is in the hands of a potential employer, human nature will make an ex-offender or even someone victim to a smear campaign that much less likely to get a job. Research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that over a third of employers would automatically exclude all ex-offenders from their recruitment process. Not very fair if you stole some sweets in 1964 and have been clean living ever since.

Tonight though I have heard from someone exposing a new type of information being disclosed on CRBs which is perhaps even more unfair and inappropriate, and my sympathy for the police is significantly reduced.

I have seen evidence that some CRB disclosures now contain health information, particularly prior mental health problems, or in the case of young people prior contact with social services even where this contact was because the young person was suspected of being a victim not a perpetrator.

This cannot be right. A person’s health history is a matter for potential employers of course, but it is absolutely not a matter for the CRB. If I had three months off sick last year, my future employer has a right to know. If I was under the care of a psychatrist for some reason many years ago, he absolutely does not, and especially not on a form supposedly about criminal convictions. The linking of criminality to mental ill health is abhorrent, and whoever is disclosing historic mental illness on CRB forms is guilty of the type of discrimination against the mentally unwell that has no place in society. People with mental health prolems already face discrimination and stigma, and this is a public body which makes the situation worse.

I don’t know how commonplace this type of disclosure is, but it is yet another sign that the legislation around CRB disclosures is unfair and not working. I thought that some Lib Dems in government would improve things, and perhaps they will given time, but so far my attempts to let them know about this issue have fallen on deaf ears. Our Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone has failed to respond to both of my letters about this issue, instead passing them on to the CRB itself claiming that it’s an operational issue.

Lynne, it really isn’t – It’s a policy issue which you have the power to change through legislation and official government guidance. I don’t want to be a mad stalker (it’ll probably end up on my CRB…) so I won’t be writing to you again, but in the unlikely event of you reading this, I urge you to use your influence to order a review of CRB disclosures, because if fairness is hardwired through this government I can think of few better things to maker fairer.

Rick

Nick Clegg made his debut answering questions at Prime Minister’s Questions today, whilst David Cameron is at Disneyworld (or something). I thought he did pretty well, certainly better than I imagine I’d muster at the dispatch box. It was certainly an odd experience to see him there, and a happy one if tainted by the slightly sick feeling I get knowing that he’s only there leading the good sixth of a majority-Tory government.

Sadly, he didn’t distinguish himself when it came to answering the set-piece big questions from the Leader of the Opposition’s stand-in. Jack Straw was standing in for Harriet Harman, and asked about the loan to Forgemasters. Sadly Nick Clegg started talking about Iraq which, whilst interesting in context, is completely irrelevant. I don’t know the back story or the rationale for the Forgemasters decision, but I can hazard a guess that Jack Straw’s voting record on Iraq didn’t come into it. So why did Nick Clegg start talking about it? Sadly typical of everyone from every party I’ve ever seen answering questions there.

On a slightly more positive note, there is an interesting article in today’s Guardian about CRBs. Its author Mark Johnson, a charity-founder and former prisoner, highlights the injustices of the current CRB system and calls for a re-think on the concept of criminal records and calls for large employers to do more to employ rehabilitated ex-offenders. The comments under the article are also interesting, particularly the ones giving real life stories about the difficulties people have with CRB disclosures and the information given to would-be employers which is sometimes questionable at best.

I have been banging on about this issue for ages and have been in discussions recently with both the CRB and Lynne Featherstone MP, the Lib Dem Home Office Minister. Hopefully the law will soon change to make it fairer for those who suffer unduly under the current system.

Rick

Today’s Guardia

I am hobbling around work today, doing my best Herr Flick impersonation and relying on the kindness of others to get me places. The public transport options from Prestwich (where I live) to Ashton (where I work) are deeply unappealing and would require several buses and several hours. In my limping state this is pretty impractical.

Another thing that was limping along until today was the proposed Vetting and Barring database which would have meant that lots more people working with vulnerable people had to submit details to the government. I hope the same fate that has befallen the database doesn’t befall me, because today it was put out of its misery and suspended pending a review which will hopefully see it substantially slimmed down.

The government’s plans for the database were always overly bureaucratic and demanding, in my view. Whilst protection of the vulnerable is obviously vital, this costly and gigantic scheme would have given benefits significantly outweighed by costs, and would have put off many people whose hugely beneficial work with children and vulnerable adults was done voluntarily or unofficially.

The desire to keep people safe is obviously laudable, and it’s one I share. But it’s impossible to keep everyone safe all the time. Awful crimes like the Soham murders can be made somewhat less likely by administrative and bureaucratic interventions like this, but they can never be totally prevented. Sad though it is, there will always be people who harm others. For me, the vast amounts of cash spent on systems like this could be better used in more productive ways, on education, rehabilitation, policing and enhancing community relations. Creating giant databases may make us feel better, but won’t ever achieve their promise of preventing every harmful incident. They also damage so much good will and engender a climate of suspicion and fear which casts adults as aggressive when they are overwhelmingly not.

This suspension and review of the database is a good thing from the coalition, and hopefully the start of a number of suspensions and repeals in this area, including of the CRB system which as I’ve mentioned on here many times can also be grossly unfair.

Rick

Nick Clegg’s first major speech as Deputy Prime Minister took place today (for tie colour conspiracists, I believe he was wearing a red one. Whatever could that mean…?). In it he outlined the government’s vision for a massive shift in the relationship between the state and the people. Specifically, he re-affirmed our commitment to:

- Abolishing Labour’s ID Card Scheme

- Abolishing Labour’s Contactpoint database

- Restrictions on DNA retention

- Removal of limits on peaceful protest

Mr Clegg also outlined plans to make good manifesto promises about recalling MPs found guilty of serious misdemeanours, ad about repealing unpopular laws which Labour introduced since 1997 and which restricted freedom without making a positive difference.

This is all part of the “new politics” espoused by the government, and although there’s not going to be much to smile about once the inevitable cuts start (because remember, as Labour’s Liam Byrne shouted back at us on the way out, “there’s no money left!”), there’s certainly a lot to smile about here.

One thing sadly missing though, from this and previous statements like it from the new government, is anything about Criminal Records Bureau checks. The glaring injustice of “soft” evidence, unproven allegations and acquittals being disclosed in perpetuity at the whim of the police is something which needs addressing quickly. I hope that the new government continues its liberal run of form and sorts this out.

Rick

On their first day in office, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have agreed to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:

Sadly for me there’s no mention of the Criminal Records Bureau. Only last night, as Gordon Brown was leaving Downing Street, a man rang me to say how his life is ruined by a false allegation appearing time and again on his CRB form, preventing him from getting a job.

What this list of pledges does do though is indicate the new government’s commitment to civil liberties, and our freedoms as citizens of this country. I hope it’s the first of many positive moves that the government can make to improve our nation.

Rick