| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Syms: I read Ceefax this morning while I was preparing my speech. I was intrigued to see that the lead story stated:
- "Government plans to extend paedophile curbs",
Mr. Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I approach the matter in a spirit of
co-operation across the House and I sincerely hope that that Ceefax announcement is a result of a misunderstanding by the BBC, not of an attempt by Government spin doctors to claim credit for a private Member's Bill.
Ms Shipley: It is a small point, but the BBC got it wrong a couple of times yesterday: at one point, I was billed as the Health Minister.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady can live in hope, and I am sure that her performance this morning will have done nothing to diminish her prospects.
It is a shame that the long title of the Bill clearly constrains its scope, but, in a constructive spirit, I wonder whether the hon. Lady has considered the possibility of extending clause 10 so that the definition of mental impairment includes at least a significant number of vulnerable elderly people, for example, those suffering with Alzheimer's disease. I suggest that we explore that possibility in Committee: perhaps, by broadening that definition, we can ensure that, in practice, large numbers of vulnerable elderly people can be covered by the legislation without going outside the scope of the long title.
In view of the Government's announced intention to introduce tighter controls of their own, we have to ask the Government how they envisage the Bill interfacing with their programme. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the Government, who back the Bill, regard it as complementary to their agenda, or as an interim measure which will be overtaken by, or subsumed within, the Government's more comprehensive proposals for registering and vetting all those who are employed in the social care sector.
Will the Minister also explain the Government's thinking in supporting the Bill? My remarks are not intended as a criticism of the Bill, but I note that the interdepartmental working group on preventing unsuitable people from working with children recommended that there should be no compulsion, either on employers to report dismissals or on potential employers to run checks on potential employees. The explanatory notes prepared by the Department of Health refer to that interdepartmental working group, but not to the fact that the group's recommendation was that there should be a non-compulsory system. Similarly, the regulatory impact assessment prepared by the same Department states:
I have several questions to ask and concerns to express, but I hope that the hon. Member for Stourbridge will accept them as constructive comments and criticism and regard them as issues on which we shall work together in Committee in an attempt to improve the Bill. They are in no way meant as criticism of or objections to the principles underlying the Bill, which I certainly support.
However, I am concerned about the inclusion in clause 2(2)(a) of the reference to "incompetence". In her opening speech, the hon. Lady referred to paedophiles and abusers, and the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) said--wrongly, I am afraid--that the Bill addresses only known abusers; unfortunately, the inclusion of the reference to "incompetence" means that the scope of the Bill is far wider than that.
There is no doubt in my mind that those who through their incompetence put children at risk of harm need to be dealt with effectively. However, someone who is merely incompetent is in a quite different category from someone who has actively or aggressively physically or sexually abused a child. When we take into account the relatively low standard of proof required before a person can be included on the list, the breadth of the concept of incompetence is such that for people to be included on a list with paedophiles and abusers merely for being incompetent might be considered to be the basis of considerable potential injustice.
Ms Shipley:
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's constructive approach to what he sees as the problems with my Bill; I am sure that that is the right way to produce the best possible Bill to protect children. However, I should like to clarify the specific point which he raises. He refers to that part of clause 2(2)(a) that states:
Mr. Hammond:
I hear what the hon. Lady is saying. I have already said that I recognise the case for action against someone who puts a child at risk through incompetence. Let us take the example of someone who fails to supervise a child adequately when taking him or her for a walk and the child runs on to a road. Such a person must clearly be dealt with and is obviously not suitable to look after children. However, I question whether it is reasonable to include that person's name on a list with the names of known paedophiles and sex offenders.
The public will view this list as a list of paedophiles and child abusers. The hon. Member for Stockton, South shakes her head, but she said that the Bill deals with known abusers of children only. That will be the widespread perception. We must examine this matter later to see whether there is some way of distinguishing between names on the list. Perhaps sub-lists could be created.
Ms Shipley:
I fully understand where you are coming from and I agree with you. We must work on it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. The hon. Lady must not agree with me about these matters. Although I do not wish to constrain debate in any way,
Mr. Hammond:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene--it may mean that I do not need to speak later.
Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East):
Hear, hear.
My hon. Friend drew attention to an issue that has concerned me: we shall need to consider the "momentary inattention" point. It also strikes me that a strict reading of the paragraph could give rise to the inclusion on the list of the name of a social worker, for example, who could be perceived to have caused harm to a child by failing to protect it. That individual could be caught by the provision and included on the list. We will have to examine that point in detail to ensure that the Bill does not move in a completely different direction from that obviously intended.
Mr. Hammond:
I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. Mindful of your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall move on.
We have said that, although we support the principle of dealing with abusers and paedophiles, we must be careful about how far we extend the scope of the list. We shall no doubt discuss the issue at greater length in Committee.
"Extension of a 'voluntary' scheme would be likely to increase costs to Government without delivering significant benefits in terms of increased protection for children; it would not, therefore, represent value for money."
I do not necessarily disagree with that conclusion, but it contrasts sharply with the conclusions of the Government's own interdepartmental working group, so it may be useful and illuminating for the House to be told by what process the Government arrived at the decision to support the Bill in its entirety and so to abandon the conclusions of the interdepartmental working group.
"that the organisation has dismissed the individual on the grounds of misconduct or incompetence",
but the paragraph continues:
"(whether or not in the course of his employment)"--
that should read "his or her", but apparently I am not allowed to do that--
"which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm".
The reference to "incompetence" is not to any old incompetence, but is specifically targeted on cases where there is harm or risk of harm to a child.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |