| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.26 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): Like the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), I will be uncharacteristically brief. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on her success in the ballot. I came much further down, and one of my reasons for brevity is that I hope to have an opportunity to discuss my Bill. I did not want the moment to pass without making some general comments and offering a further suggestion for consideration in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that it was right not to use emotive language, but it is also right that we have had the right balance of emotional response to the issue in this constructive debate. None of us would want to proceed down a rational path, carefully balancing probabilities, to find later that, by dint of failure to act now, some abuse of or harm to children had occurred that we could reasonably have prevented. I thoroughly support the Bill in that sense.
In the inquiry by the Select Committee on Health on children looked after by local authorities, I was given an opportunity to appreciate that, when parents cannot protect their children, we as a society have a particular responsibility. It is important that we take the range of measures that is offered to try to ensure that we deal with that. As a parent, I know that we strive to protect our children in a range of circumstances, but many avenues for achieving the absolute protection that we seek are frustrated in various ways. We should try to minimise the frustrations and maximise the protection.
Our debates often seek to balance rights. In this case, we must discriminate carefully. Working with children is not a right, but a privilege. We are balancing the privilege extended to people who work with children with the right of children to protection. In that context, it is proper to weight, to a great extent, the balance in favour of the rights of children to protection.
The right to privacy raised by Liberty, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) mentioned, is indeed a right for individuals, but it is balanced under the human rights convention--and now, by extension, in our legislation--by the protections that are necessary in a democratic society. If for this purpose we can equate democracy with civilisation, it is clear that the protection that is necessary in a democratic society extends to the necessary protection of children as proposed in the Bill.
In expressing my general support for the Bill, let me add one more point--not a reservation, but a suggestion. My constituency contains several English language schools, and representatives of the Association of Recognised English Language Services have raised with me two issues which I wish to offer for consideration in Committee: first, the extent to which those organisations that are not required to undertake the necessary checks do so; and, secondly, whether their efforts to carry out those checks should extend only to those who are in their employment, or also to those with whom they may contract for the purposes of acting as host families. My reading of the Bill is that the definition of employment is wide, and so might embrace host families; but it is important to make sure that it does so extend. The regular, often frequent, employment of host families by English language schools and by other organisations in several different contexts should be properly covered by the legislation.
The other point relates to the fact that, although certain organisations are not required to undertake checks, they have a discretion to do so. It is in our interests to arrange the structure of the process so that their ability to do so is maximised and they are not inhibited from choosing to do so. The level of resources is a question for the Minister, who should recognise that the administrative processes required to secure the checks must be swift and effective; otherwise, commercial organisations in a competitive market such as English language schools may be deterred from undertaking the necessary checks, not least in respect of host families, where there is rapid turnover. To echo the fair point made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), I should add that the processes of decision making on the part of the Secretary of State and the appeal processes must also be equally swift.
Mr. Hammond:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is his understanding, as it is mine, that, while the transitory provisions of the Bill are in force, the list can be consulted free of charge at the Department of Health, but that, once the criminal records bureau has been established, there probably will be a charge? Might that not have a deterrent effect on those who are considering consulting the list voluntarily, for example, organisations such as those that he has mentioned?
Mr. Lansley:
Yes, that is my understanding. It is important to recognise that, although a large number of organisations--including child minders organisations, voluntary organisations and commercial organisations--may want to take the opportunity to undertake checks, some of them may find it difficult to do so if the costs are high. I would never present that argument in respect of commercial organisations, because such a charge is a proper one which should be included in their running costs, and they should not hide from it. However, such costs might be a significant factor to voluntary organisations; we should be aware of that and try to minimise them.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East):
In introducing her Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), whom I congratulate on having won pole position in the ballot for private Members' Bills, emphasised two issues: first, the confusion in current vetting procedures and, secondly, the loopholes that the Bill would attempt to plug.
Let us imagine a member of the public who is trying to launch an organisation such as a nursery or youth club, but is completely unfamiliar with vetting procedures. That person's first thought would be to turn to the criminal records vetting procedures that are run by the police. However, few people would have heard of the other vetting procedures, such as List 99, which refers to the educational sector. Even fewer would be aware of the Department of Health consultancy index, on which this Bill is based.
My contact with the voluntary sector has revealed that it is totally confused about the current vetting arrangements, which are laborious to operate. I welcome the Bill, and I shall vote for it because it attempts to link the various vetting procedures in a one-shop mechanism. All concerned will appreciate that. However, I believe that we will need some kind of consolidation Bill in future that draws together all vetting procedures and contains clear guidelines that may be readily interpreted by the public and by professionals in the statutory and voluntary sectors who need to vet potential employees.
I hope that we shall witness an explosion in child care as a result of the Government's child care strategy and the provision of nursery classes and after-school clubs. There is no doubt that that will put immense pressure on the current vetting procedures. The new deal will also put pressure on existing facilities. Councillors in my constituency have drawn attention to the fact that the Bill will not plug some loopholes. For example, staff at local leisure facilities, such as swimming pools do not have to be vetted. It is pretty obvious that children use swimming pools and that abuse may occur. The Government must plug such loopholes in the future.
An organisation in my constituency, the Bolton Lads and Girls Club, has experienced difficulties with the police vetting procedures. I have received figures from the Greater Manchester police regarding child access checks. In the year ending 31 March 1998, the police dealt with 44,851 applications. In the year ending 31 March 1999, they expect to have dealt with 33,130 applications. That is a considerable decrease in the number of applications submitted to the police, which means that some voluntary organisations that do not have to be covered by police vetting procedures are being left out.
The Bolton Lads and Girls Club used to receive fairly speedy vetting information via the Greater Manchester police procedures, but it has now been excluded from the process. In Bolton, the club has started what I believe to be a brilliant project. It is a mentoring project for young people, which encourages them to use their leisure time responsibly. It points young people towards education, training and employment and away from undesirable life styles. The project entails a one-to-one mentoring arrangement involving scores, if not hundreds, of volunteers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |