 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords] |
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Geoffrey Farrar, Committee
Clerk † attended
the Committee Standing Committee BThursday 13 July 2006(Morning) [Derek Conway in the Chair]Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]9
am
Schedule 3Regulated
Activity Question
proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to
the
Bill. Judy
Mallaber (Amber Valley) (Lab): I want briefly to explore
paragraph 2(1)(e), on regulated activities, with the Minister. It is
aimed primarily at regulating those who moderate chat rooms or online
discussions forums and is very welcome. However, it refers to
“moderating a public electronic
interactive communication service which is likely to be used...by
children.” Before
amendments have to be tabled on Report, will the Minister consider
whether that provision could apply to electronic interactive
communication services that are used to locate children and thus
interact with them? I
raised this issue on Second Reading, because an increasing and
frightening range of electronic services are being used to track
children. Allegedly, such services are meant to promote safety, but
there are huge dangers of potential abuse, despite the current
voluntary code on who should have access to services and other items.
The code is inadequate, and there are too many examples of it not
having been followed. I have called for a licensing system for the
industry in a Bill that happens to have been sponsored by three members
of the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley
(Kali Mountford), the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole
(Annette Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary
Creagh). I have also had support from within the industry.
Under the code, someone who is
being tracked is meant to give their consent. In that sense, the system
is interactive, as set out in paragraph 2(1)(e). Often, however, the
electronic interaction is with the child and it might occur with or
without their knowledge. That might be in a situation in which they can
be put in danger, but it is extremely odd to think of a four-year-old,
for example, giving informed consent. That raises the issue of how we
can be sure who is doing the tracking and how it is done. We therefore
need a regulatory system.
Under paragraph 2(1)(e), chat
room moderators will rightly be regulated because of their access to
sensitive information and communication channels with children, as well
as the need to regulate who operates
such services and how. However, we need to control location services
that provide electronic access to children. Some services include
information about children’s phone numbers and homes, and the
tasks performed by providers of such services are very similar to those
performed by chat room moderators.
Will the Minister consider
whether the issue can be covered by paragraph 2(1)(e)? If not, can we
table an amendment to secure at least one element of the regulatory
system and the protection that we need from a mushrooming, scary
industry that is using the latest electronic communications technology
and which falls right within the scope of our efforts in the Bill to
protect vulnerable children? I am happy to talk further to the Minister
about this issue before Report, but I ask him now to see whether it
could be covered. If not, perhaps we could discuss whether an amendment
might be appropriate.
Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I support the
comments of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), but I
wonder whether I could take a few points a bit further by writing to
the Minister over the recess. I am a member of the Home
Secretary’s task force on child protection on the internet, and
various concerns were raised at our meeting about 10 days ago. However,
it was far too difficult to table amendments on the issue, so I should
just like to ask the Minister whether he will be receptive and provide
me with some reassurance that the protection that we need is in the
Bill.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills
(Mr. Parmjit Dhanda): It is good to have you
back in the Chair, Mr. Conway. I appreciate the comments of
my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, who raised this issue on
Second Reading, and I thank her for giving me advance notice of this
debate and a copy of her ten-minute Bill, which made for interesting
reading. I should be
happy to read the letter from the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole. I should also be happy to meet my hon. Friend, who rightly
suggests that this area has seen a great deal of change over a short
time. Before making any changes to the Bill, I would like to satisfy
myself on the level of interaction. The Bill tackles situations in
which there is activity, correspondence and a strong level of
interaction between a child and another child or someone who could be
posing as one. I would want to take a closer look at the issue, but I
should be happy to meet her and have that discussion between now and
the Report stage, and even to read correspondence over the
recess. We have had a
thorough debate on schedule 3, so I hope that it can be
accepted. Question
put and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended,
agreed to.
Clause 6Regulated
activity
providers
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in
clause 6, page 3, line 23, after
‘services’, insert
‘or through provision of direct payment or
individual budgets.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 106, in
clause 11, page 7, line 3, after
‘check’, insert ‘,
or (b) he makes arrangements through
direct payments or individual budgets for another person (P) to permit
an individual (B) to engage in a regulated activity and does
not— (i) notify the
individual (P) of the existence of the barred lists,
and (ii) offer to undertake an
appropriate check on behalf of
(P).’. No.
107, in
clause 16, page 10, line 34, after
‘body’,
insert— ‘(4) If an offence
under sections 9, 10 or 11 is committed by an individual acting on
behalf of a body administering the provision of direct payments or
individual budgets and is proved to have been committed with the
consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to, neglect on the part
of a designated responsible officer of the body, he (as well as the
body) commits an
offence.’.
Annette
Brooke: I appreciate that the Minister might find some
technical fault with the amendments, so I shall concentrate on the
sentiment behind them, which is all-important. The core amendment is
amendment No. 106, which has the support of the Parkinson’s
Disease Society. It would require a regulated activity provider to
inform direct payment recipients about the vetting and barring system,
to increase awareness and to offer to undertake an appropriate check on
the individual’s
behalf. I shall
backtrack and explain how the issue was dealt with in debates in the
other place, where I understand it was one of the most controversial
issues. My noble Friends argued that people who arranged services for
vulnerable recipients of direct payments should be classed as regulated
activity providers and wanted everybody involved to be vetted and
barred. Probably quite rightly, the Government did not accept that
argument taken to its extreme, because it would have placed a huge
burden on some 2 million carers in the UK, many of whom are family or
friends, perhaps in informal
arrangements. The
introduction of the direct payments scheme has brought additional
bureaucracy, which has destabilised some long-term caring arrangements
with extra requirements. The last thing that amendment No. 106 is
attempting to do is destabilise arrangements or make already difficult
situations even more difficult; rather, it says that the local
authority, which is likely to be the instigator of the direct payments,
should tell the recipient that the vetting and barring scheme
exists. We have all
acknowledged how complicated the system is, and the recipients of
direct payments will not have much time or inclination to work their
way through the complexities of the legislation. Amendment No. 106 is
intended to say that the local authority should say to the recipient of
the direct payments, “This system exists—would like
assistance to do any checking on the carers you’re going to use?
If you’re quite satisfied, because you’ve known them for
20-odd years, we needn’t take it any further.” In other
words, amendment No. 106 is permissive. However, taken together, the
amendments would place a duty on the local authority or whomever to
alert the recipient to the fact that the new system exists and to give
assistance.
If the Minister cannot accept
the wording, I hope that he will accept the idea as a compromise that
would meet the many concerns that have been raised. The direct payments
scheme is becoming a bigger and bigger way to provide care. It is a
good way to give people choice, but we want a bit of a safety net when
that choice is
exercised. Tim
Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): Welcome back
to the Chair, Mr. Conway. I shall say a few words in support
of the amendments. They are sensible. As she has said, it is an area of
care for vulnerable people that will grow. The Government rightly
support direct payments, and many authorities throughout the country
have pushed them. The
amendments also fit in with the Government policy, which we share, of
encouraging as many people as possible to stay at home for as long as
possible, but only where due and appropriate support is available. It
should not be done by continually raising the threshold qualifying them
for residential care without providing sufficient support to ensure
that they, particularly elderly people, can stay at home without harm
or injury. An
increasing number of people will use the direct payments scheme to
engage the services of complete strangers to help clean their homes, do
their shopping and provide other health-related and personal services.
Such people will be put into a strong position of trust and will be
able to take advantage of vulnerable people should they be so minded. I
am sure that a few people will get into the system in order to take
advantage of vulnerable people. Although the vast majority of people
offering services through direct payments will not, the Bill is about
weeding out bad
apples. It would be an
excessive obligation to require every person offering such services to
be vetted. It could cause enormous delay for people trying to exercise
direct payments, and could lead to a diminution of choice for those
trying to engage the services of somebody about whom they might know
very little. It is eminently sensible and not too onerous a new
obligation on local authorities simply to inform a vulnerable person or
their carer—if there is a part-time carer, somebody with a power
of attorney or an appropriate person—about the availability of
the vetting system, and that they might like to avail themselves of it
before taking a firm decision about whom their direct payments will go
to. The amendments
would enhance the Bill by providing an extra safeguard for the growing
part of the population that belongs to one of the vulnerable groups
that we are discussing. The amendments would achieve that without being
unduly onerous on local authorities, which after all will be
responsible for organising direct payments. A reminder of the
service’s availability would therefore not be too great an
additional
requirement.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 14 July 2006 |