Independent review of the criminal records regime: government response - WMS

This written ministerial statement was laid in the House of Commons on 6 December 2011 by Lynne Featherstone, and in the House of Lords by Lord Henley.

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Equalities and Criminal Information (Lynne Featherstone): I have today placed in the library of the House the report by Mrs Sunita Mason, the independent advisor for criminality information management, of phase 2 of her review of the criminal records regime, as well as the government's formal response to both phases of that review.

I published Mrs Mason's phase 1 report on 11 February, alongside the Protection of Freedoms Bill. The bill includes a number of proposals which reflect recommendations from that first report and which will improve the proportionality and efficiency of the employment vetting systems centring on the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). I am pleased to publish today Mrs Mason's phase 2 report, which addresses wider criminal records issues such as definition, management and international exchange. I am grateful to Mrs Mason for her contribution to this important agenda, which encompasses two central objectives for the government – rebalancing civil liberties where necessary and maintaining effective, efficient and affordable public protection arrangements.

The government accepts the large majority of Mrs Mason's recommendations, either unconditionally or in principle. Full details are in the response document.
The significant improvements to the Criminal Record Bureau's processes which the government has brought forward in the Protection of Freedoms Bill will, I believe, substantially reduce the cost and administrative burdens involved in pursuing necessary employment checks. And as such, they are also supportive of other key government priorities such as the growth agenda and the Employment Law Review. They will also ensure greater protection of applicants' rights as only relevant and accurate personal information will ever be disclosed by the police. For example, we are giving the applicant the opportunity under these revised CRB processes to review and, if appropriate, dispute any information held about them by the police prior to it being disclosed to an employer. We have also included a provision to make the CRB process less burdensome on all concerned by introducing a new, online status checking capability that will in effect mean individuals can re-use their certificates for different employers across the same workforce and so will no longer need to apply for a new certificate every time they want to take up a new role. This will have a positive impact on business, making it significantly easier for employers to take on staff in relevant sectors.

We do not accept Mrs Masons recommendation to significantly scale back eligibility for criminal records checks. The Protection of Freedoms Bill is already being used to very substantially reduce the scope of 'regulated activity' from which people can be barred. Against that background we think it is important to retain the capacity to apply for criminal records checks in relation to a broader set of sensitive roles.

We accept in principle Mrs Mason's recommendation that there should be a clear timescale for the police to make decisions on whether there is relevant information that should be disclosed on an enhanced criminal record certificate. However, we do not accept that the certificate should be issued at the end of a defined period where information is still being considered by the police, as that could pose significant risks to public protection.

In response to Mrs Mason's phase 2 recommendations, for now we intend to maintain the current arrangements for holding criminal records on the Police National Computer, whilst ensuring the controls on accessing those records are sufficiently strong. At the same time, we will take her steer in terms of providing a clearer definition of what constitutes a criminal record and reviewing precisely which convictions and other disposals should be recorded on national systems. Looking further forward and following establishment of the long term arrangements for the management and delivery of the PNC services after the NPIA has been closed, we will consider the need for alternative options for sharing and managing criminal records. Similarly, we will review and update the strategy for international exchange of criminal records.

I am clear that, taken as a package, the implementation of Mrs Mason's recommendations will make a key contribution to our commitment to scale back the Criminal Records Regime to common sense levels.

Tuesday, 6 December 2011

Date: Tue Dec 06 09:43:13 GMT 2011