| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.3 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North) (Lab): I am delighted to follow my good hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce). I echo many of his remarks.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on introducing the Bill. Volunteering is vital to every constituency represented in the House. I am sure that all Members would wish to pay tribute to the work of the voluntary sector in their constituencies. Earlier this week, I met Miss Anju Bhatt, the director of Brent Association for Voluntary Action. We discussed some of the tremendous work that it is doing in my constituency. It is the central facilitator of the voluntary sector in Brent. It develops support for new and existing organisations, provides library and internet access for organisations, gives free training to voluntary organisations and helps with joint working and volunteering in general. I pay tribute to its work and to the work that Sally Kirkwood did when she set it up three years ago. I attended the event at which the whole voluntary sector in Brent came together for the first time to set up the central organisation, and its wonderful effect is a tribute to her work.
Many aspects of the Bill are to be sincerely and enormously welcomed. Clause 5 is entitled "Persons assisting those injured or suffering not to be liable at common law", and says:
- "Any person who . . . without payment or the expectation of payment, assists any other person, and . . . has reasonable grounds for believing that the other person is suffering or injured or faces imminent serious injury, shall not as a consequence of any action performed by him in good faith be liable at common law for any harm caused to that person unless he intended to cause harm."
There is a real problem of people passing by and not wanting to get involved because they have read of cases in the newspapers in which people have become liable for their actions because despite going in to help for the best of motives, they have compounded matters and suffered legal repercussions. The House should address that important matter, so I am delighted that such a measure is in the Bill. However, can the hon. Gentleman envisage a way in which the clause could be amended? People sometimes go into situations for the best of motives, but then act recklessly. There is a need to examine reckless behaviour in our system of law and the law of tort.
Mr. Brazier: May I take that as an offer by the hon. Gentleman to serve on the Bill's Committee if it is fortunate enough to receive its Second Reading? The matter should of course be addressed.
Mr. Gardiner: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that I would be pleased to serve on the Committee because the Bill is important and addresses many of the voluntary sector's concerns. I am grateful for his indication that there might be a problem with the clause, despite the fact that we all appreciate that it addresses a real concern that should not stand in the way of people giving voluntary assistance to those in distress.
I focus the House's attention on clause 3, which would amend the Financial Services Act 1986. Although it is difficult to understand from reading the Bill what the provision would achieve, it would stop organisations such as the national governing bodies of sports—the
Rugby Football Union, the Football Association or whatever—being held accountable for the implicit advice that they are deemed to give when making provision for any club associated with them to receive blanket comprehensive insurance cover. Such things must of course be done properly. There is a question not only of people acting in good faith, but of people perhaps making provision recklessly, although no one suggests that that would be true of the RFU or any of the major organisations that the Bill is intended to address.It is possible, however, to conceive of a situation in which smaller associations that have satellite groups might do something for which they should be properly regulated. No doubt the House will be entirely sympathetic to the thrust of many of the things that the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve. The virtue of taking the Bill into Committee is that we can iron out the possible difficulties and achieve the overall objective while ensuring that proper regulation is in place.
Clause 4 is too widely drafted, especially in relation to the impunity that it gives for the release of information relating to criminal records. People would not be guilty of an offence if the disclosure was
- "in the opinion of the volunteer, voluntary organisation or voluntary body, necessary for, or desirable in, the public interest".
Let me adumbrate with an example. I am associated with the local scouts group. My son is a keen boy scout. As a parent who sometimes takes other children home from scouts, I quite properly had to submit to a criminal records test so that the scouts group knows that all the people who occasionally ferry other people's children to and from events are cleared of having committed an offence. If another parent of the group has a criminal record, however minor the offence may have been, it would be disclosed to the scouts group. The troop's leader could decide that, in his opinion, it was in the public interest to tell other parents or members of the community of that person's previous conviction. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that that disclosure should not be dependent on the whim of the troop leader.
Mr. Brazier: I accept the hon. Gentleman's contention that the clause needs tidying up for the sort of reason that he outlines.
Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. As I said, such problems can and should be dealt with in Committee.
Clause 4 raises other problems. It refers to the use of the
- "volunteer, voluntary organisation or volunteering body"
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman is not the only person to pick up the point. The few objections that have been made have raised the issue. There is a reason for the proposed provision. Teaching unions are concerned—it is reflected by the Secretary of State—that we do not define teachers as volunteers. Teachers are employees who may undertake volunteering by working out of hours with the school. A similar point has been raised by those who work for the community arms of businesses. They are employees, but what they are doing at the time—for example, when members of the McDonald's health squad are out wearing their tee-shirts—is volunteering. However, they remain employees and not volunteers.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman has tried to reflect a real concern that exists in the community about fine descriptions.
The preamble later refers to a volunteer who provides "services, under an arrangement". That is a dangerous statement to make. Even where financial remuneration is excluded, it could be viewed as contributing to creating a contract of employment. I hope that by considering the compact and the associated codes that are espoused by the volunteer bureaux and other organisations, the Committee can arrive at a tighter use of terminology. I hope that that is something that the hon. Gentleman will see his way to accepting. Confusion over employment, and anything that could be construed as creating a contract of employment, would be against all that we are trying to achieve in attracting more volunteers. That can be ironed out in Committee, but it is one of the flaws in the Bill.
A couple of disappointments relate to matters that the Bill does not address and also concern the voluntary sector. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could have taken the opportunity to focus on them in the Bill. First, there is the issue of age discrimination in volunteering, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar. Secondly, the payment of out-of-pocket expenses is a live issue when it comes to encouraging volunteers. We should not have legislation that stops people from engaging in volunteering activity.
Despite the fact that the Bill deals with data protection, there is the issue of access to criminal record checks for volunteers and volunteer groups. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that the costs of that—
Mr. Brazier: That matter was included in our first draft, but, as it became clear that the issue is deeply contentious, I regrettably had to remove it. The hon. Gentleman knows that private Members' Bills can be got through only by consensus.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |