| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, and I note the terms in which he makes the case. He suggests that local probation boards operate within a relatively closed environment and that there is no significant opportunity for local residents or the media to voice their concerns about their policies. Does he accept that if centralisation is to take place there must be
a clear, publicised mechanism whereby local disapproval of national intentions is formally taken into account and respected in the decision-making process?
Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44 disagreed to.
Amendments (a) and (b) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 45 and 46 disagreed to.
Lords amendment No. 47 agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 48 to 50 disagreed to.
Amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.
Lords amendment No. 51 agreed to.
After Clause 23
Lords amendment: No. 52, to insert the following new clause--Provision for the protection of children--
".--(1) The Protection of Children Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act") shall have effect as if the Service were a child care organisation within the meaning of that Act.
(2) Arrangements which the Service makes with an organisation under section 13(1) must provide that, before selecting an individual to be employed under the arrangements in a child care position the organisation--
(a) must ascertain whether the individual is included in any of the lists mentioned in section 7(1) of the 1999 Act, and
(b) if he is included in any of those lists, must not select him for that employment.
(3) Such arrangements must provide that, if at any time the organisation has power to refer a relevant individual to the Secretary of State under section 2 of the 1999 Act (inclusion in list on reference following disciplinary action etc.), the organisation must so refer him.
In this subsection "relevant individual" means an individual who is or has been employed in a child care position under the arrangements.
(4) In this section "child care position" and "employment" have the same meanings as in the 1999 Act."
Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 57 to 66, 71 and 72.
Mr. Boateng: I add my voice to those congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. It is a pleasure to serve under you in this first debate on a topic of and in which, having visited with your local magistrates court, I know that you have a profound knowledge and interest.
Amendment No. 52 makes the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, its officers and organisations performing functions on behalf of CAFCASS, subject to the Protection of Children Act 1999. The others are more minor amendments, most of which add to or tidy up the definition of working with children in part II. Exceptions are amendments Nos. 57 and 58, which ensure that the definition of a qualifying sentence is accurate, and amendment No. 60, which closes
a loophole in the offences created by ensuring that it is an offence to fail to remove a disqualified individual from working with children--for example, by holding open a relevant post for someone.Amendment No. 59 provides for the restoration of disqualification orders through application by a chief officer of police or director of social services to the High Court. The other amendments add appropriate positions to the list of regulated positions--members of the youth justice board and the Children's Commissioner for Wales--or clarify the definition by taking into account the changes currently taking place as a result of the Local Government Act 2000.
The Protection of Children Act gives greater protection to children who may be put at risk of harm. The Act places a duty on child-care organisations to refer to the Secretary of State individuals who have been employed in a child-care position where they have been dismissed on grounds of misconduct which harmed a child or placed a child at risk. Individuals are covered even if they retire or resign before they are dismissed. Child-care organisations which intend to employ someone are placed under a duty to ensure that that person is not on the list held by the Secretary of State. If that person is found to be on the list, the child-care organisation must not employ them.
As officers of CAFCASS, and those performing functions on behalf of CAFCASS, will have unsupervised contact with children, it is essential that the measures apply to the new service. We have considered carefully the principle of allowing for reinstatement of the disqualification order introduced in part II. Having had the opportunity to consider the issue, we have come to the conclusion that it would be right in principle to make some provision to cover the matter, even if, as we believe, there should be a need for it only in rare cases, if at all. The amendment allows for the restoration of the disqualification order without in any way jeopardising the strength of the original order or the consideration of the tribunal for lifting it in the first place.
I trust that the other amendments to part II will not prove contentious. They serve only to ensure that disqualified persons do not remain in posts which would grant them access to children and enhance the range of, and properly define where necessary, those posts from which disqualified people are barred. In both cases the reasoning is clear and, I hope that the House will agree, valid.
Mr. Hawkins: I associate the official Opposition with the Minister's welcome to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your new capacity.
On the third group of amendments, I said that we would return to the sensitive issues concerning the protection of children. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have noticed that with this group of amendments we have now reached that point. Perhaps even more significant are the next two groups of amendments, which deal with some of the most sensitive issues.
The Minister is right to talk about the importance of strengthening the Bill, but I want to take a little time to make the point that it might have been more appropriate had he paid tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Blatch for her initiative on behalf of the official Opposition with
regard to the reinstatement of disqualification order, which the Minister mentioned in relation to amendment No. 59.Before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, took the Chair, but as other hon. Members will recall, those on the Treasury Bench suggested that we were being unjust to their noble Friend Lord Bassam of Brighton in criticising the number of climbdowns that he has been forced to make, but amendment No. 59 is the clearest possible illustration of what we were talking about. Because these matters are important to disqualification orders in relation to those who are a threat to children, I want to set out the exact sequence of events.
On the second day in Committee in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness Blatch described in some detail the need for what was then amendment No. 97, headed "Reinstatement of Disqualification Order". She set out all the good reasons that the Government have now belatedly accepted as to why that was necessary. She was then faced with a lengthy attack on her reasoning and the amendment from none other than Lord Bassam. In attacking the Opposition's amendments, he said:
- I suggest that the way in which the noble Baroness seeks to reintroduce a disqualification order is not workable. We want to see a workable scheme. I believe that the scheme we have offered is workable. I believe that the explanation I have given for ways in which a ban could be reintroduced is coherent. We do not think that it is necessary to do what the noble Baroness seeks.--[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 October 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1538.]
8.30 pm
My noble Friend Baroness Blatch said:
- My Lords, I shall be very brief. As noble Lords will have noticed, another amendment has been tabled covering the same area of concern--
- I have had throughout the passage of the Bill. I am deeply grateful to the Government for their Amendment No. 30. I shall now sit down and wait for the noble Lord to introduce that amendment.
- The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is quite right. I listened to the way in which she deployed her argument on the point of--I believe that I paraphrase it accurately--the restoration of a disqualification to a previously disqualified individual, and, if I may say so, I believe that her argument had substantial merit.--[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1536-37.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |