Clause
43Family
and personal
relationships
Mr.
Dhanda: I beg to move amendment No. 172, in
clause 43, page 26, line 40, at
end insert— ‘( ) This
section does not apply to—
(a) the appointment of a person as a deputy under
section 16(2)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act
2005; (b) the appointment of a
person to any position mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (f) of
section 44(10) or to exercise any function mentioned in that
paragraph; (c) anything done by
a person appointed as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)
above.’. The
amendment makes clear our intentions about family members who act as
deputies on behalf of children or adults, and family members or friends
who act on behalf of adults under lasting or enduring powers of
attorney or who are DWP appointees charged with managing
someone’s benefits or pension. Those who require such assistance
are potentially at an increased risk of abuse, and it is therefore
right that the individuals who provide those types of support should
carry on regulated activity. People on the barred list
should therefore be barred from such activities. That seems to be common
sense. Amendment
agreed
to. Clause 43,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
44Vulnerable
adults
Mr.
Lewis: I beg to move amendment No. 173, in
clause 44, page 28, line 16, at
end insert ‘in receipt of
residential accommodation pursuant to arrangements made under section
21(1)(aa) of the National Assistance Act 1948 or care pursuant to
paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the National Health Service Act
1977’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 57, in
clause 44, page 28, line 16, leave
out paragraph
(d). Government
amendment No.
174
Mr.
Lewis: Amendment No. 173 is designed to narrow the
circumstances in which a pregnant woman or a nursing mother may be
considered vulnerable. I think that the Opposition share our concern
that, as drafted, the clause is far too wide. For example, the teacher
of an antenatal yoga class would at present be regarded as undertaking
a regulated activity.
The amendment would tighten
that definition and limit it to those groups that receive community
care services. As a result, only those staff who work closely with
pregnant women or nursing mothers in the provision of community care
services will be subject to monitoring, and barred people will not be
able to undertake such work. For example, the tighter definition would
include some health visitors that deliver community care services to
new mums. We want to ensure that women in those circumstances have the
same reassurances about the staff working with them as others using
community care services. I hope that the Opposition accept that
including a tighter a definition of the receipt of community care
services for pregnant women is sensible.
Amendment No.
174 is a minor, technical and consequential amendment to adjust
references to national health service legislation, to ensure that those
references are consistent with those in the NHS Consolidation Bill. I
hope that the hon. Members for Basingstoke and for East Worthing and
Shoreham accept what I have said about the definition and that they
will not feel it necessary to press amendment No.
57.
Mrs.
Miller: I am pleased with the Minister’s reply. I
was rather surprised when I first read the clause to find that all
expectant and nursing mothers were classified as vulnerable adults. It
struck me as a retrograde, sexist and insulting way of categorising
women who are pregnant or nursing.
Having been pregnant three
times—perhaps other female Members have been pregnant—I
was surprised that the Minister should allow the Bill to include such a
provision. Times have moved on since the days when it was thought that
women were fragile and in need of
special attention purely because they were pregnant. I hope that I can
draw on the support of other women in the room on that
matter. I was unaware
that the Government had noticed that rather large mistake, so I raised
the issue with the National Childbirth Trust, which does much excellent
work in that area. It was rather shocked; it clearly had not been
consulted. I understand that, at that point, it contacted the
Department, which may have led to the Government amendments. I
acknowledge the fact that it was clearly a drafting error, but given
that the Bill has been so long in the drafting, it is concerning that
such a sizeable mistake could have been make. I am glad that the
Government have seen the error of their ways. I am glad not to have to
move the Opposition amendment.
Amendment agreed
to. Amendment
made: No. 174, in clause 44, page 28, line 35, leave out from
‘section’ to the first ‘are’ in line 36 and
insert ‘248 of the
National Health Service Act 2006 or section 187 of the National Health
Service (Wales) Act 2006)’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.] Clause
44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
46Orders
and
regulations Amendments
made: No. 175, in clause 46, page 29, line 30, at end
insert— ‘( ) by order under
section
14(3B)(b),’. No.
176, in
clause 46, page 29, line 30, at
end insert— ‘( ) by order
under section 18(8), ( ) in
regulations under section 19(4)(f),’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.] Clause
46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Schedules 5 and 6 agreed
to. Clauses 48
to 50 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
51Short
title
Mr.
Dhanda: I beg to move amendment No. 177, in
clause 51, page 30, line 29, leave
out subsection
(2). Subsection (2),
which deals with charges, was inserted in the Bill in the other place.
It preserves the constitutional convention that the other place does
not pass legislation that authorises the imposition of charges or the
levying of taxation. We now need to go through the technicality of
removing it.
Amendment agreed
to. Clause 51,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
New Clause
1Information
sharing protocol The Secretary of
State shall issue guidance on information sharing arrangements between
police forces and local authorities
for the purposes of the protection of children and vulnerable adults
under this Act.’.— [Annette
Brooke.]Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. I am pleased
that we have reached the new clauses. In many ways they make probing
points. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to develop
guidance on creating a national information sharing protocol between
police forces and local authorities. Although the Bichard inquiry has
the higher profile, two other influential reports were produced
following the Soham tragedy. One was by Sir Ronnie Flanagan; the other
was the serious case review by Sir Chris Kelly. It is the latter to
which I shall
refer. In his report,
Sir Chris Kelly recommended formal information-sharing protocols
between the police and child protection agencies. That recommendation
is important relative to the flow of information under the
Bill. There will clearly be situations in which information does not
meet the criteria for referral under clause 31, so it will still be
important to share information with the police to feed possible future
disclosures to the IBB under part 1 of the Police Act 1997.
Sharing information and
building up a picture may be relevant in connection with individuals
who later seek work with children. We want a proper protocol from the
word go. Some of it will be soft information, and it is difficult to
know how that is to be handled. We know from the Soham tragedy that
there were many bits of information about Huntley but that they were
never pulled together.
I hope that the Minister will
give a full response, as what the new clause seeks is comparable with
the approach taken in “Every Child
Matters”.
Mr.
Dhanda: I shall try to give the full response that the
hon. Lady seeks. New clause 1 would impose a duty on the Secretary of
State to issue guidance to police forces and local authorities on
sharing information for the purposes of safeguarding children and
vulnerable adults. It is an important area of practice, but it is
covered in existing guidance.
“Working Together to
Safeguard Children” explains the circumstances in which
information needs to be shared in the course of action being taken to
safeguard children. “Information sharing: practitioner’s
guide” provides practitioners across all children’s
services with clear guidance on when and how they can share information
legally and professionally. The two guidance documents were published
in April 2006, and together they provide an effective framework for
sharing information between local authorities, police forces, health
organisations and
others.
3.30
pm Significant
progress has also been made on implementing the recommendations aimed
at improving police management of information contained in the Bichard
report. Regular progress reports have been provided to Parliament.
Guidance to the police on information management and sharing was issued
in March under the code of practice on
police information management. Police and local authorities will also
have regard to the guidance in “Working Together to Safeguard
Children”. Under the circumstances, we do
not believe that further guidance is required at present. I therefore
ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion.
Annette
Brooke: I can quite see the point of existing guidance. My
one concern is what will trigger further changes. Perhaps lacking at
the moment is the trigger for work to be done on such protocols. The
advantage of having something in the Bill is that it would focus the
mind on the need for continual monitoring and revising in this
important area. I am happy to withdraw motion.
Motion and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New Clause
2Power
of other organisations to refer to
IBB ‘(1) Any organisation may
provide IBB with any prescribed information they hold relating to a
person if the first and second conditions are
satisfied. (2) The first
condition is that the organisation
thinks— (a) that
paragraph (1), (2), (6) or (7) of Schedule 2 applies to the
person, (b) that the person has
engaged in relevant conduct (within the meaning of paragraph (4) or (9)
of Schedule 2) occurring after the commencement of this section,
or (c) that the harm test is
satisfied. (3) The harm test is
that the person may— (a)
harm a child or vulnerable
adult, (b) cause a child or
vulnerable adult to be
harmed, (c) put a child or
vulnerable adult at risk of
harm, (d) attempt to harm a
child or vulnerable adult,
or (e) incite another to harm a
child or vulnerable adult. (4)
The second condition is that the organisation
thinks— (a) that the
person is engaged or may engage in regulated activity or controlled
activity, and (b) (except in a
case where paragraph (1), (2), (6) or (7) of Schedule 2 applies) that
IBB may consider it appropriate for the person to be included in a
barred list. (5) For the
purposes of paragraphs (2)(b) or (c), it is immaterial whether there is
a finding of fact in any
proceedings. (6) An
organisation may provide IBB with any prescribed information they hold
relating to a person
if— (a) an organisation
thinks that a person has engaged in relevant conduct (within the
meaning of paragraph 4 or 9 of Schedule 2) occurring before the
commencement of this section,
and (b) the condition in
subsection (4) is satisfied.’.—[Annette
Brooke.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
| 
