Mrs.
Miller: A great deal of the Bill is complex and technical.
Indeed, that was one of the first things the Minister said when we
began our discussions. Nowhere is that more true than in the
introduction of the concept of controlled activity. Employers are
required to check the barred status of an employee, but with the
discretion to employ barred individuals if appropriate safeguards are
in place. The provision covers many health, further education and
social care
settings. The clause
is pivotal in as much as it provides for statutory guidance on the
steps that employers should take when employing individuals in
controlled activities. The amendments in my name and the names of my
hon. Friends are intended to do three things: tighten the language to
ensure that guidance is issued, which is not how the Bill is currently
worded, ensure that there is a full and open debate on what should be
included in the guidance, and ensure that that guidance is acted on.
Those are three simple objectives, and they are vital because guidance
on the matter cannot be viewed as an optional extra. It must be issued,
and that is not how the Bill is currently
worded. The guidance
needs to be debated in full using the affirmative procedure. It is an
important element and I would have preferred to see it in the Bill. The
Government have chosen to do it in another way, but we need to ensure
that we do not lose the opportunity to debate the issues in full. We
also need to know how the guidance is being acted on. It is important
that employers do not just need to have regard to it.
The Government do not always
have a good record in this area. The Minister will no doubt remember
the recent Ofsted report on employment practices in schools. It showed
a considerable amount of confusion and inconsistency among employers as
to their duties and obligations under the various laws and regulations
that have been issued. I am sure that the Minister and other members of
the Committee will remember that we were unable to discuss the report
in detail on Second Reading because, for some reason that still remains
rather vague, it was not fully available to all hon. Members. I wish
therefore to take this opportunity to go through one or two of its
findings, which are pertinent to the
debate. 2.30
pm In terms of
confusion, hon. Members who have read the report will have
read: “Schools
and LAs are confused about what action they need to take about existing
staff members. The messages from the CRB, via the DfES, are not making
the situation clear.” It
is clear that regulations and rules can often be misleading and are not
helping employers in such
situations. That underlines the point made in the amendments, which is
that the regulations need better and fuller debate than they have
received in recent
years. The Ofsted
report also found many instances of inconsistency, including poor
record keeping by schools and local authorities on employment checks,
and a widespread belief in schools that somebody else was checking
staff, with the result that nobody carried out those essential checks.
On page two of the report, Ofsted
says: “Such
practice lacks rigour and
thoroughness”. The report
also says that the letter from the then Secretary of State on 19
January 2006, which was intended to clarify the rules following the
problems over list 99 and paedophiles in schools, added to the
confusion. Many schools thought that the rules had suddenly changed,
with the result that a further letter had to be sent out on 25 January
to clarify the position. Again, that adds weight to the argument that
these issues have not been dealt with well under current practices.
That is why the amendments are
important. As with so
much in the Bill, a lot of the important detail has been left to
regulations. Without adequate scrutiny, the risk is that processes will
not be subject to thorough debate and discussion. We could continue to
make the mistakes that the Government have been making if we do not
change the way we do things. Amendments Nos. 115, 118 and amendment No.
131, tabled by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), work towards
guarding against such a situation and would ensure that regulations on
employers’ duties receive full debate and approval in
Parliament. They would also ensure that employers acted in accordance
with such regulations and did not just have to take regard to them,
thereby preventing some of the confusion and inconsistency that Ofsted
so graphically outlined in its
report. It is
essential that we set out the framework clearly and unequivocally.
Otherwise, how can we expect schools and other employers to follow
through? If we fail to do so, we are just creating a future problem for
ourselves. The loose language, which has been a theme within the
debate, does not help us communicate and does little to ensure
consistency in
future. The amendments
would also address a significant hole in the Bill, whereby employers
may employ a barred individual in situations where they might not
normally directly come into unsupervised contact with children and
vulnerable adults—for example, a receptionist in a
dentist’s surgery. Although that would add an extra layer of
complication, the amendments generally attempt to prevent the current
confusion. The amendments will, hopefully, guard against the
inconsistency that Ofsted says is currently occurring and improve the
Bill.
Mr.
Dhanda: I am disappointed with some of the comments from
Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, who must either have got out of bed
on the wrong side or have a short memory about safeguarding when they
were in power. The hon. Lady has a short memory, too, in respect of the
debate on Second Reading, when she was prevented from reading from a
report because it had been leaked to her. She was selective then and
she
is selective now about what that report said. It actually said that a
lot of good work was taking place in schools and that they are far
safer places than they used to be. However, a lot of work needs to be
done on checking records. If the hon. Lady wants to play political
games on an issue that I felt had some level of all-party support, that
is a matter for
her.
Mrs.
Miller: Will the Minister give
way?
Mr.
Dhanda: No, I will not. Labour Members have shown great
restraint in listening to Opposition Members going on and on about a
system that they claim to support, yet never mentioning their own
record. However, I shall speak to the amendments and try to take some
of the heat out of the debate.
The intention behind amendments
Nos. 115 and 108 is, in different ways, to strengthen the provision in
the Bill for ensuring that controlled activity providers take the
necessary steps when employing individuals in controlled activities. As
my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families said on
Second Reading, we are doing further work on the sanctions that might
apply in relation to controlled activity. That work is considering
whether the current provision is sufficient, albeit not only in the
ways suggested by the wording of the amendments. Before that work is
completed, I would not want to rule out any option, including the
wording of the amendments. For that reason, it would be premature to
accept either of them at this stage. However, I intend to return with a
final position on Report. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon.
Lady will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 131
stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend. First, we
would certainly expect employers undertaking controlled activity to
conduct a full risk assessment before employing an individual who was
on a barred list. That would be critical to determining the appropriate
safeguards that needed to be put in place. Secondly, we intend to
consult stakeholders on the specific safeguards that need to be put in
place when engaging a barred individual. Providing that detail in the
Bill at this stage would pre-empt critical consultation with key
stakeholders on what is an important issue, as I am sure my hon. Friend
will understand. Lastly, it is essential to retain flexibility. It
would be very difficult, for example, to change the steps that
employers need to take as new best practice emerges if the risk
assessment is set out in the Bill.
Given those points and the fact
that I will take on board the wording of amendment No. 131 when we
consider the issue before Report, I hope that the hon. Member for
Basingstoke will withdraw the amendment. Before she does so, however,
if she has such concerns about a receptionist working in a dental
service, perhaps she could explain whether it is her view that such a
person who has been on a barred list should not be employed in
controlled activity with safeguards in place, because we would be
delighted to hear the Opposition’s policy on
that.
Mrs.
Miller: I am not sure that anyone is implying that we
should not have safeguards in place. The
Minister should perhaps remember that we are here to listen to what the
Government’s policy is, not to debate the Opposition. However,
if he would like to swap places, we would be more than happy to try to
improve the Bill and make it much better not only for those of us on
the Committee, but those who have to try to put it into practice. We
have heard constructive ways of trying to improve the Bill from my hon.
Friends and Liberal Democrat Members, so it is somewhat disappointing
that at the first sign of identifying the problem, the
Minister’s reaction is defensive.
My comments about the Ofsted
report related to the Government’s communication failures. They
gave the report to the press in advance of Second Reading, but not to
Opposition spokespeople, which put us in a difficult position. However,
that is in the past and I do not want to dwell on it. We are talking
about the safety of children and vulnerable adults, not the
sensibilities of the Government and the way in which they choose to
leak their information.
It is clearly disappointing to
my hon. Friends and I that the Government are not willing to learn from
their mistakes. Amendments Nos. 115 and 108 are constructive, and try
to solve the problems that the Government have experienced in
communicating to the many people who will be affected by the Bill.
However, they are not willing to learn from the communication problems
of the past. We should ensure that it is clear to employers that the
guidance is not merely something to take heed of and simply
“have regard to”, but that it should be put in place and
acted in accordance with. That is a different form of words. The
amendment would fundamentally change the way in which employers would
consider the guidance, and it is disappointing that the Minister does
not seem to understand or appreciate that difference.
We all share the objective of
improving the Bill, and we are scrutinisers in that matter. We have an
obligation to put forward what we feel would constitute an improvement.
Clearly, the Minister has heard the issues and perhaps he will have
time to reflect in a more measured manner outside the Committee. I hope
that he will have time to reflect on the amendments before Report, and
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 20 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
21monitoring
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joan
Ryan): I beg to move amendment No. 162, in clause 21, page
13, line 36, leave out
‘identification’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 163 and
164.
Joan
Ryan: The amendments modify clause 21 to allow the
Secretary of State to prescribe additional requirements that must be
fulfilled before a person is regarded as being subject to monitoring
within the
meaning of clause 21. The current criteria are that the individual is
not barred and has satisfied the prescribed identification and
application requirements. Only a person who is subject to monitoring
may engage in regulated activity for a regulated activity provider.
Amendment No. 162 widens clause 21(1)(c) so that the prescribed
requirements do not relate merely to identification. Amendments Nos.
163 and 164 make consequential changes to the other parts of the clause
that relate to identification.
The amendments would allow
requirements to be added to the identification requirements that must
be satisfied before a person is subject to monitoring and may therefore
engage in regulated activity. That will ensure that the scheme can
continue to build on wider developments, such as the development of new
police systems. I therefore ask that hon. Members accept the
amendments.
Amendment agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 163, in clause 21, page 14, line 26, leave out ‘If
the prescribed identification’ and insert
‘The prescribed
requirements may include requirements as to the manner in which the
applicant must prove his identity (identification requirements); and if
such’. No. 164,
in
clause 21, page 14, line 31, leave
out ‘prescribed’.—[Joan
Ryan.] Clause
21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 22 to 25 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
4vetting
information
Mr.
Dhanda: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in
schedule 4, page 49, line 32, after
‘information’ insert
‘relating to children and relevant
information’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take
Government amendments Nos. 188 to 193 and 165 to
170. 2.45
pm
| 
