The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
Mrs.
Joan Humble
†
Allen,
Mr. Graham (Nottingham, North)
(Lab)
†
Bain,
Mr. William (Glasgow, North-East)
(Lab)
†
Bottomley,
Peter (Worthing, West)
(Con)
Brooke,
Annette (Mid-Dorset and North Poole)
(LD)
†
Buck,
Ms Karen (Regent's Park and Kensington, North)
(Lab)
†
Cryer,
Mrs. Ann (Keighley)
(Lab)
†
Efford,
Clive (Eltham) (Lab)
†
Field,
Mr. Mark (Cities of London and Westminster)
(Con)
Laws,
Mr. David (Yeovil)
(LD)
†
McCarthy,
Kerry (Bristol, East)
(Lab)
†
McNulty,
Mr. Tony (Harrow, East)
(Lab)
†
Miller,
Mrs. Maria (Basingstoke)
(Con)
†
Primarolo,
Dawn (Minister for Children, Young People and
Families)
†
Redwood,
Mr. John (Wokingham)
(Con)
†
Smith,
Jacqui (Redditch)
(Lab)
†
Wiggin,
Bill (Leominster) (Con)
Ben
Williams, Committee Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday 15
March
2010
[Mrs.
Joan Humble
in the
Chair]
Draft
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Regulated Activity, Devolution
and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order
2010
4.30
pm
The
Minister for Children, Young People and Families (Dawn
Primarolo):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups
Act 2006 (Regulated Activity, Devolution and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Order
2010.
The
Chair:
With this it will be convenient to consider the
draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Controlled Activity and
Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2010 and the draft Rehabilitation
of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales)
Order
2010.
Dawn
Primarolo:
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair,
Mrs.
Humble.
The
set of three instruments comprises two proposed by the Department for
Children, Schools and Families to help to implement the new vetting and
barring scheme under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, and
one proposed by the Ministry of Justice to support the new scheme. The
two instruments relating to the 2006 Act support the next milestone in
implementing the scheme: the start in July of registration with the
Independent Safeguarding Authority by new entrants to work in schools
or children’s homes. The main purpose of the regulated activity
order is, on the one hand, to narrow the scope of regulated activity,
and thus of the scheme’s requirement for an individual to
register with ISA and, on the other hand, to make miscellaneous
additions to the sort of work or activity that will be brought within
the scope of regulated activity—for example by including users
of the ContactPoint database on children, and by expanding the sorts of
inspection functions that will fall within regulated
activity.
The main
purpose of the controlled activity regulations is to require employers
to ascertain whether an individual is barred before permitting him or
her to undertake controlled activity. Controlled activity comprises a
specified range of work that gives an opportunity for contact with
children or vulnerable adults, or for access to certain of their
records.
The Ministry
of Justice order contains only two provisions, both of which support
the new scheme. One provision makes a new exemption on an
individual’s protection from having to reveal spent convictions,
meaning that an employer will be entitled to a Criminal Records Bureau
disclosure on an individual newly entering a controlled activity under
the scheme, if that individual is barred from regulated activity. The
second provision enables the Isle of Man to use the CRB disclosure
system, which it wants to start doing as a step towards joining the
scheme.
The
regulated activity order is the first piece of legislation to fulfil a
commitment made in the Government's response last December to Sir Roger
Singleton’s report on the scheme. We asked Sir Roger to check
that the line was drawn in the right place on when an activity should
be covered by the scheme. He recommended sensible and proportionate
adjustments to the scheme, all of which we accepted. We plan to launch
a public consultation shortly on two issues on which he recommended
further work: the continuing need to include controlled activity in the
scheme in the longer term; and the need for CRB checks on an individual
who is already ISA-registered. We are about to publish an updated
version of our 2009 guidance on the scheme which, among other things,
will fulfil our commitment to revise our policy on when an activity is
carried out frequently enough to be covered by the scheme. Those steps
together represent good progress on implementing Sir Roger’s
recommendations.
Mr.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): Speaking as someone who
agrees that we need to protect children from unpleasant and nasty
approaches by adults, will the Minister tell the Committee what
proportion of the offences against children in these categories are
carried out by first-time offenders, and what proportion are committed
by people who would be caught by the
register?
Dawn
Primarolo:
If I may, I will pick up the right hon.
Gentleman’s point as I go through my explanation of why it is
necessary to have controlled and regulated arrangements at present. He
raises an important wider point about the proportionality of such
schemes. As we move to the new arrangements, we will have to consider
whether or not that is a sensible
step.
The
regulated activity order will narrow the scope of what is a regulated
or controlled activity, as recommended by Sir Roger Singleton, to
provide that work is intensive only if it takes place on more than
three days in a period of 30 days. It will amend the scope of regulated
activity for a small number of specialised categories that cover
relatively few people. It also enables the ISA to disclose information
to the police in Scotland and Northern Ireland to help fulfil our
policy that the scheme will have UK-wide effect. The changes will cause
a relatively small number of additional individuals to fall within the
requirements for vetting under the scheme, but they will eliminate
obvious gaps in legislation.
The controlled
activity regulations will require employers to ascertain whether an
individual is barred from regulated activity before permitting him or
her to undertake controlled activity. This narrow set of provisions
deals specifically with someone who is in an area in which they do not
require checking but moves into an area that requires a degree of
scrutiny. The provisions apply only to England. Welsh Ministers will
make their own regulations under section 23 of the 2006 Act and will
set out the circumstances in which a person may or may not be permitted
to engage in a controlled activity in Wales. The regulations will apply
not to those already engaged in controlled activity, but only to those
who start a job in controlled activity after the regulations come into
force.
Bill
Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): My constituency is on the Welsh
border, so our local businesses are on either side of the border. In
such circumstances, will English or Welsh law take
precedence?
Dawn
Primarolo:
The scheme will be UK-wide and the arrangements
will complement each other, so wherever a person is working, the
criteria and regulations will be the same. That is so that we avoid a
situation in which people live in one place but work in another and
therefore come under different regulations. The consultation on the
provisions, which included the Welsh Ministers, was very intense
because we wanted to ensure that such a situation did not
arise.
Peter
Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): I was paying as much
attention as I could, but I would like some further clarification on
that point. Is the Minister saying that schemes will complement each
other, or is she saying that an identical scheme will apply to both
Wales and
England?
Dawn
Primarolo:
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s
correction because it is important that our use of language is precise.
There will be a UK-wide scheme—it will be the same
scheme—but because of the relevant powers, as I said earlier, it
will be necessary for Welsh Ministers to make the arrangements. I
accept that the words “complement” and “exactly
the same” do not always have the same meaning, so I am grateful
to him for enabling me to clarify that point.
Our intention
is to prevent people from entering controlled activity without an
employer knowing that they are barred. There is no prohibition on
barred individuals undertaking controlled activity in England, but we
want an employer to be able to make an employment decision in the light
of a full awareness of a person’s status and history. In
providing for only a notification when a person is not barred, our
intention is to address the need to safeguard vulnerable groups and for
information to achieve that purpose while keeping a proportionate
approach on the extent of the information that is provided. That fits
with the MOJ’s aim of rehabilitating offenders by limiting how
far the right to a CRB disclosure is extended to the new categories of
workers.
The
requirement in the regulations will last until we introduce a permanent
requirement for people in controlled activity to be ISA-registered,
which is currently planned for 2015, or until alternative arrangements
are introduced subsequent to the forthcoming review of controlled
activity following Sir Roger’s recommendations. We plan to bring
the regulations into force on 1 April, subject to today’s debate
and to confirmation of the readiness of the operational arrangements to
process the checks.
Partly because
these are interim arrangements, they are light touch and no criminal
offences are attached to non-compliance. The main aim is to provide
employers with legal backing so that they may make the checks that they
want to make and should be making. The interim arrangements were
signalled clearly in the October 2009 guidance on the vetting and
barring scheme and in the Government’s December 2009 response to
Sir Roger Singleton’s report. Although the Government accepted
Sir Roger’s recommendation to review the long-term need for
controlled activity, we have made it clear that the interim
arrangements are necessary to close off the risk that an employer might
appoint somebody to a controlled activity without knowing that he or
she is
barred.
The
CRB will shortly consult on a fee for the checks, which should be no
more than £10. That is much less
than for an ordinary disclosure because we envisage that almost all
employers will receive a not-barred notification, which costs less to
produce. We want to start the requirement to check at the beginning of
April to ensure as quickly as possible that we close off the potential
that even a single barred person could enter controlled activity
undetected, when that could be prevented by the new service to check
the barred
list.
The
exemptions order allows the safeguarding measures set out in the
controlled activity regulations to be implemented. The Rehabilitation
of Offenders Act 1974 aims to help members of our society with certain
past criminal convictions to leave their offending behaviour behind
them, once the conviction is spent. To aid the resettlement of
ex-offenders into society without fear of discrimination, they are not
required to disclose their spent convictions for most purposes, such as
when applying for most types of employment or for insurance. Research
consistently shows that employment is key in reducing reoffending, so
the Government are committed to encouraging the rehabilitation of
offenders into
employment.
Although
promoting that aim is important, there is a need to protect members of
society from those who pose a risk to them. To that end, the 1974 Act
grants the Secretary of State powers to exclude the application of the
general rules in relation to particular employers, bodies and
proceedings. That power was exercised under the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, which has been amended
periodically to ensure that the criminal disclosure regime meets
changing public protection requirements. Sensitive areas of activity,
such as working with vulnerable groups, are therefore excluded from the
regime introduced under the 1974 Act by the exemptions
order.
When
a post creates opportunities for an employee to cause harm to the
public, a full criminal records history, including details of spent
convictions, is disclosed. That allows employers to make a fully
informed decision on whether an individual may safely be offered a post
in an area of employment. The controlled activity regulations will
require employers to do a barred-list check on an individual newly
seeking work in a controlled activity. If it becomes apparent that an
individual has been barred by the ISA, the employer is entitled to an
enhanced CRB check. An amendment to the exception order to provide that
such a situation is excluded from the Act is therefore necessary to
underpin this narrow scheme, as an enhanced CRB check includes details
of spent convictions.
Bill
Wiggin:
I rather agree with some of what the right hon.
Lady is saying, in that is important to protect vulnerable groups.
However, I have dealt with a constituency case in which the information
about an individual seeking a job was incorrect because he was muddled
up with someone who had a criminal record. He was therefore not allowed
to work and incurred significant financial losses. Eventually, when we
managed to find out that a mistake had been made, his name was cleared
and he was able to find a job. What sort of compensation is available
if the process lets individuals
down?
Dawn
Primarolo:
It is difficult for me to comment specifically
on the hon. Gentleman’s constituency case. I will need to write
to him about possible recourse, but I
will certainly make sure that each member of the Committee receives a
copy. When I have dealt with casework, it has sometimes been necessary
to explain to a constituent why, in certain circumstances, spent
convictions are disclosed. However, I will certainly get back to the
hon. Gentleman about his example of an identification error because, as
I mentioned earlier, although we all try to ensure that vulnerable
groups are suitably protected, it is important for all individuals that
there are proportionate safeguards in the system.
The controlled
activity regulations will require employers to carry out a barred-list
check. Permitting a CRB check and disclosure of spent convictions in
these narrow circumstances does not mean that an individual will
necessarily be prevented from working in a controlled activity; rather,
it ensures that the employer is fully aware of the history of that
person and can choose the appropriate safeguards to put in place, if
they offer that person
employment.
Mr.
Redwood:
Will the Minister explain briefly to the
Committee how that will impact, if at all, on parents or other close
relatives who volunteer in primary schools, after-school groups or
pre-school playgroups and work with other people’s children as
well as their
own?
Dawn
Primarolo:
We are referring here to controlled activity,
and that covers a number of areas that are not currently
regulated—particularly with regard to hospitals, medical
situations, further education and local authorities—in which
there are opportunities for contact with vulnerable groups or access to
sensitive records. In such circumstances, recommendations are made on
the frequency—three days in any 30—of a person’s
involvement in the controlled activity. Volunteers are included in that
scheme.
A great deal
has been said about the question of parents, and we all need to be
sensitive and proportionate. Parents may have accompanied their own
children to particular activities but will not be in a position to
supervise the opportunity for contact or access to sensitive records,
so I think that we can all see that this will not be a charter for
every single parent to be drawn into the arrangements. This is an
interim arrangement to ensure that we close an existing gap between
regulated and
controlled.
The
exceptions order also relates to the Isle of Man. The provision forms
part of the preparations to extend the 2006 Act to the islands, which
was contemplated when Parliament passed the Act. The provision was
requested by Isle of Man Ministers, who are keen to protect the island
through vetting arrangements similar to those in England and Wales, and
to avoid any possibility of those barred by the ISA moving to there to
avoid detection. To enable those working on the island to be subject to
vetting by the ISA, and their employers to obtain a CRB disclosure, it
is necessary that they are covered by the exceptions legislation, which
is what the order
achieves.
The
exemption from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applies only
when the purpose is already subject to an exemption under both England
and Wales and Isle of Man legislation. Therefore, the eligibility to
disclose, and the information that can be disclosed, will never exceed
that in England and Wales. The provision follows a similar one made at
the request of the Channel Islands through the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and
Wales) Order 2009. Therefore, for the sake of clarity and logic, the
provision combines measures relating to the Channel Islands and the
Isle of Man. It makes no substantive change to the law as passed by the
House in 2009, and the Channel Islands authorities have agreed to
it.
I
have taken some time to cover the instruments, given the importance of
the subject matter, and I commend them to the
Committee.
4.52
pm
Mrs.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble. I welcome the
right hon. Lady to what I think is the fourth year of debate on the
legislation under discussion. She is the fifth Minister with whom I
have debated the legislation over that period, and I am sure that she
will take on her new role
valiantly.
Secondary
legislation has been critical to understanding the Government’s
intention behind the legislation, and today’s debate will be an
important part of further understanding how they intend to make it
work. It is surprising that the Liberal Democrats are not represented
here today. They have taken part in debates on such issues
before.
It
is important to have a system that can help to ensure that those who
have committed serious crimes do not end up responsible for children
and vulnerable adults. The confusion and scepticism that the Government
have created among parents, voluntary organisations, employers and
other groups is deeply worrying and is something that every member of
the Committee should be concerned about. When we debated the Bill that
later became the 2006 Act, I criticised it for being devoid of detail
and for making scrutiny extremely difficult. Moreover, each piece of
successive secondary legislation has led to yet more concern about the
ISA’s role and remit, the way in which the Government’s
approach is fuelling a breakdown in trust, and the impossible
complexity involved, of which the Minister’s opening statement
gave us a
flavour.
Given
that some Ministers have found it difficult to answer straight
questions about the scheme, the Committee must consider whether it is
reasonable to expect employers and voluntary organisations to be able
to cope with the complexity involved in determining whether an
individual is covered by it. My right hon. Friend the Member for
Wokingham asked a straightforward question about whether a particular
type of volunteer would be covered by the scheme. I am not entirely
sure that he got a clear answer. Perhaps the Minister will write to
him. We encountered a similar problem in a Westminster Hall debate with
the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member
for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who is responsible for
these matters in that Department. Again, she was unable to answer a
straight question about whether a particular individual was covered by
the Act. If the Ministers responsible are not able to offer that, there
will be a problem for employers and voluntary
organisations.
Mr.
Redwood:
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister
did not explain to the Committee in everyday language what the order
seeks to do. She did not answer my question about whether first-time
offenders are the main problem. As my hon. Friend said, she did not say
whom the order covers. We need clarity, do we
not?
Mrs.
Miller:
My right hon. Friend makes the right point. I hope
the Minister takes the opportunity to respond to his points in her
closing remarks. Debates such as this will flush out the detail, for
which so many organisations are still waiting, only weeks away from
full implementation.
The three
statutory instruments that we are debating show how shambolic the
implementation of the new vetting and barring scheme is becoming. The
SI on regulated activity makes significant changes to whom the scheme
covers before it is even put into place. I believe 9.3 million people
are now to be covered, yet it was 11.5 million previously, with little
reason given as to why those changes have been made, other than a great
deal of pressure put on the Government.
Notwithstanding
the Minister’s remarks on the rehabilitation of offenders, the
relevant SI clearly runs contrary to Government policy to try to help
offenders get back into employment. Again, the Minister was less than
convincing with her arguments on those points.
The final SI,
concerning controlled activity—albeit to restrict the remit of
controlled activity—ignores completely the Singleton
recommendation, as referred to by the Minister, that controlled
activity should not be continued and that Government should rethink
their strategy in that area.
With so much
confusion built into the system, and just a matter of weeks away from
implementation, how do we expect employers, voluntary organisations and
parents—who could face an element of criminalisation eventually
under the legislation—to get it right? In her closing comments,
the Minister needs to work hard to reassure the Committee that she has
a grip of the situation and is answering the questions clearly posed by
these SIs.
We welcome the
Singleton report and the way in which it has forced the Government into
a U-turn on frequency and intensity, and fundamentally challenged some
of their assumptions. The premise of the report was to get the
Government to rethink in those important areas. Originally, the issue
was whether the Act is proportionate. What evidence do the Government
have to show that their changes have made the Act more proportionate?
It has been asserted that the changes have reduced the number of people
involved, but there is no evidence that the Government have gone far
enough to make the legislation a proportionate response to the concerns
of everybody in this area about the proposals.
The Government
said that they accepted Singleton’s recommendations in full, so
why is the Minister pressing forward with controlled activity, when
Singleton clearly recommended a rethink? There is another area on which
the Minister needs to respond. She talked about eliminating obvious
gaps in the legislation through the SIs, but she is still not putting
forward any ways of eliminating the gaps with regard to overseas
workers. What progress
has the Minister made, following the promise of one of her predecessors,
to get proper procedures in place to obtain conviction data for
overseas workers? They make up an increasing proportion of the working
population in schools, and in health and elder care. In June 2006, in a
Committee similar to this one, we were promised that 21 countries would
have protocols with us shortly, yet, as I understand it, at the moment
we may have a reciprocal arrangement only with Australia. Will the
Minister take this opportunity to update the Committee on the
situation? I am sure that a lot of work is going on but we have not yet
had an update on the work being undertaken.
The Singleton
report clearly states that vetting should take place only when parents
or carers put trust in an organisation to care for their child, rather
than when a parent is caring for the child themselves. That is
obviously an extremely important principle enshrined in the vetting and
barring procedure. Therefore, building on the point that my right hon.
Friend the Member for Wokingham made, will the Minister clarify today
whether parents who decide to set up their own coaching scheme for
swimming or netball, run by parents for their own children, need to be
vetted? Where is the line drawn? We are bereft of detail on such
issues, and there are contradictions in what she has said, what
Singleton has said and what the Secretary of State has
said.
Talking
of the Secretary of State, he admitted to Singleton in his letter of 14
December that communication on the Act has been a
“disaster”. What is the Minister doing to change that?
She spoke at length about the provisions in the statutory instruments
and the changes that the Government are making to some of the already
announced details of the scheme. How will she ensure that people are
aware of those changes and can act accordingly?
The Minister
reflected on the impact of the provisions on ex-offenders. The
Singleton report noted that many view the ISA regulations as a
potential and significant disincentive to ex-offenders who wish to
work. The impact of the provisions could be to give employers more
scope to know more about ex-offenders’ convictions, which
perhaps runs contrary to Government policies in other areas. How many
ex-offenders will the legislation affect? What estimates has she made
of the numbers involved and the impact that it might have? The
controlled category could cover 500,000 jobs, which is not an
insignificant number in the employment market. The St. Giles Trust,
which helps ex-offenders, has consistently voiced its concern about the
measures. With 100,000 individuals released from prison every year, the
opportunity cost of not helping them to gain employment could be high.
The St. Giles Trust estimates that it could run to £1
billion.
I
notice that the Minister has removed the police from those subject to
the frequency and intensity check and I agree 100 per cent. with the
Government’s reasons for doing so; it would simply duplicate the
vetting already associated with such employment. What work has she done
to see whether the principle could be extended to lift more groups of
people, particularly professional groups, out of the vetting and
barring process? The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins)
raised that very point in a debate that he secured in Westminster Hall.
The role of regulators is to ensure that an individual is fit to
practise and that is, to
all intents and purposes, why the Government have removed the police
from the scheme. It is for their employers to ensure that they are fit
to practise. Surely she should be looking at whether that principle
could be used more widely to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and wasteful
overlaps, and to save taxpayers’
money.
The
Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for
Hackney, South and Shoreditch replied in that Westminster Hall debate;
I am not sure why she replied rather than the Minister who is here
today. She said that it would be absolutely reasonable to expect that
if a professional committed an offence they would probably have their
case heard and concluded by a professional regulator before being
referred to the ISA. Is there not wasteful duplication and potentially
a lack of clarity about where the responsibility lies? Perhaps the
Minister can clarify
that.
I
am also concerned about possible inconsistencies. The ISA may treat
some evidence or information about an individual’s past
differently from how a professional regulator may deal with it. Who is
right? Is the professional regulator right or is the ISA right? What
can the Minister tell us, either today or in correspondence, about
cautions? Will regulators deal with cautions in the same way
as the ISA? That is an important point that needs
clarifying.
Finally, the
implication of these recommendations for exchange visits is also
important. It has caused a great deal of concern among parents in my
constituency and, I am sure, in the constituencies of other hon.
Members. We know that exchange visits from other countries can add much
to the education of our children, particularly those studying foreign
languages. How will the statutory instruments help to implement the
recommendations in the Singleton report in that respect? I am not aware
that there have ever been any problems around the safety of children
involved in such overseas trips. Has the Minister established how she
can implement the Singleton recommendations that she has accepted to
ensure that they are
workable?
In
summary, these statutory instruments are unravelling before our eyes. I
shall listen closely to the Minister’s case for them, but the
lack of confidence that many have in the Government’s proposals
at the moment mean that she will have to make it very strongly to gain
our
support.
5.7
pm
Peter
Bottomley:
I should like to make two brief points. The
first is not directly related to these instruments and orders. Were
I—I will put it in those terms rather than naming the
person—a deputy lieutenant of a county who is involved in a
hospital home for former service people, a Leonard Cheshire home and a
local hospice, and who is involved in taking groups of schoolchildren
around a local cemetery in the open with other adults, how many times
would I or those involved with me need to apply for safeguarding or
criminal records checks? That is an issue that the Minister may wish to
write to me about
later.
Of
the regulations before us, may I draw the Minister’s attention
back to the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Controlled
Activity and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Regulations 2010? The explanatory note on the back, which we
know is not part of the regulations,
states:
“Regulation
4 modifies section 113A of the Police Act 1997. The modification
provides that the duty of the Secretary of State to issue a criminal
record certificate does not apply if the exempted question for which
the certificate is required relates to the assessment of the
suitability of a person for any work which is a controlled activity
relating to children or a controlled activity relating to vulnerable
adults.”
Does
that mean that more information will be provided to an employer or
less?
5.9
pm
Mr.
Redwood:
I am sure the Committee is united in supporting
the Government’s noble aim. All of us would wish to make any
contribution we could to protect children and vulnerable adults, so
this Committee will not divide on, or dispute, the aim or purpose of
these regulations. The question before us today is whether they are fit
for purpose, whether they will make children and vulnerable adults
safer or less safe, and whether this is the right framework to allow
respectable and sensible adults involved in the care of children and
vulnerable adults to make a full contribution in the way that they
wish, without unnecessary costs or bureaucracy deterring them or
getting in their
way.
I
hope the Minister agrees that it would be a dreadful own goal if this
legislative activity deterred or prevented a large number of extremely
caring and decent adults from looking after the children and vulnerable
adults in their community, whether as volunteers, parents or senior
family members. That is what I am worried about. There is a danger that
the measures might deter the good and the decent. There is an even
bigger danger that they might not capture all of the small minority of
nasty people who intend harm to children and vulnerable adults. There
is a danger of specious precision and of an atmosphere in which it is
thought that, once the regulations are in place, harm cannot
occur.
The
latter point was the purpose behind my first question. When
legislating, we need to know how many of the unpleasant offences
against children and vulnerable adults are committed by first-time
offenders. If it is a significant number, we have to warn people that
the legislation can do nothing to prevent that. People still need to be
vigilant and must still be concerned about the safety of children and
vulnerable adults because the measures are backward looking. They are
based on two propositions: that the criminal law process has detected
the offender and that it has succeeded in prosecuting them. It is only
that category of person that the legislation seeks to prevent doing
further damage to children and vulnerable adults. I urge the Minister
to come up with this most basic piece of information. She must have
studied the matter when she took over responsibility for this
legislation and she must know the
information.
If
a serious number of people committing these offences are unknown to the
Criminal Records Bureau and the prosecuting authorities, we need to
know what the Minister will do about it and how she will warn people
that the legislation will not protect everyone, that they still need to
take measures and that they still need to be vigilant to deal with
these problems. Common sense tells us that most of the potential
damaging interferences with children should be prevented or exposed by
other adults in the community. It is rare in a school
or home that only one adult is left in charge of children; that would be
rather bizarre. One assumes that the professionals and paid staff in
charge of such organisations will have been through elaborate checks in
order to get their jobs and that they will supervise the other people
who come into contact with children or vulnerable people. One hopes
that that system normally works. It is important not to send such
people a message that the system is now on autopilot and that they do
not need to keep their wits about them or observe what other people are
doing, such as those claiming to be parents or grandparents who have
base motives for
contact.
We
are told that it will cost £84 million to set up the ISA and
that there will be running costs of £246 million over the first
five years. We are told that to defray those costs, the individual or
employer will have to pay £28 per application for the
additional regulation and that the total fee, including the CRB fee,
will be £64 per application. I am pleased that the regulations
state that there will be no charge for volunteers. That is helpful.
However, there is still the question of whether people will be put off
because the process gives them a funny feeling or because of the hassle
of going through a check to prove that they are innocent and decent
people. However, I am worried about the specious precision of those
figures and the possibility of cost drift in the scheme. We know that
we are struggling to find enough money to deal with children and
vulnerable people. If we divert too much money to these purposes and
they are not effective at achieving their overall aim, it will be an
own goal rather than good
progress.
Before
deciding how to vote on the measures, I would like some explanation of
what they are trying to do. I thought that it was a convention in
Committees such as this for Ministers to come not only well briefed, as
I hope the Minister is, but able to explain in layman’s language
what the legislation’s main purpose is and how it will be
achieved. I do not think that she has yet done so.
As one who
does not normally specialise in this area of law and activity but who
comes across it in my constituency case load, I would appreciate being
able to take back to the people of Wokingham some statement from the
Minister about whom will be affected. I need to tell people in my
surgery or on doorsteps which sorts of volunteers and jobs will be
affected. If the measures will greatly reduce the number of adults who
must undergo such checks, it would be nice to know why she has had
second thoughts, because the original figures were extremely large and
quite alarming to a lot of decent people. We need to know how she
reached her present judgment. Can we be sure that exactly the right
number of adults will now be caught by the regulation? Are we sure that
the people being exempted are perfectly safe? Are we sure that all
those who will now be captured are potential threats and that we are
dealing with them in the right
way?
I
am worried that the measures will give a sense of false security, as
they will clearly not capture everyone in the horrible minority out
there who mean harm to children and vulnerable people. I am worried
about the lack of clarity. We need more explanation of the collective
ministerial judgment about why the measures were the right way to go
and how they will make people safer. We need to probe more into how
many people will be affected and why we have chosen that
number.
We even need a
bit more clarity on how many parts of the United Kingdom the measures
will cover, as I am not entirely convinced by the Minister’s
answers on England and Wales. I notice that one of the statutory
instruments says clearly that it is for England only. The other does
not, but both have England and Wales in the title, and one of the
statutory instruments reads as if it will apply to Northern Ireland as
well. Even on the rather basic issue of whether we are legislating just
for England or more widely, it would be helpful to have more clarity
before we are invited to vote on the
measures.
5.18
pm
Dawn
Primarolo:
All of us would agree that parents must always
be vigilant about the care of children and young people, particularly
when the parent knows that another adult or individual is caring for
those children or young people. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham
said, in any scheme in which the wider community seeks through
legislation to provide extra support to a parent, it is always
important that we make it clear what is going on.
The
Department’s clear and continual statement and the guidance on
the scheme clearly enable us to say that there is no known reason why
the individual should not do such work. If the right hon. Gentleman or
the hon. Member for Basingstoke can think of circumstances in which we
could always agree 100 per cent. that protection needed to be
proportionate and fair for all the individuals concerned, now is the
time to step up to the plate, because all the consultation and debate
that has gone on in the past and will continue around this important
but difficult subject revolves around those
points.
When
the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations canvassed the
views of parents, a significant majority, 76 per cent., agreed with
registration when parents cannot choose personally who cares directly
for their children. That is a theme that comes out time and again in
discussions around children’s safety. Will the hon. Member for
Basingstoke and her colleagues say exactly what they would be prepared
to permit? The current exceptions order has been so drafted to ensure
that spent convictions, in a very narrow set of circumstances, can be
revealed, and that can only happen when a person entering controlled
activity has been barred from regulated activity but then has moved
across on a temporary, or not so temporary, arrangement. That is the
specific point that we are trying to address, and it is not easy. What
the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Wokingham need to think
about is: would they rather leave the lacuna there? Would they rather
that someone who was barred from regulated activity could enter
controlled activity without the bar being known, and then move
across—even on a limited or temporary basis—and be in
contact with vulnerable people and children and potentially
have access to serious
records?
Mrs.
Miller:
Will the Minister give way on that
point?
Dawn
Primarolo:
Let me finish this point and then I will give
way and go on to the hon. Lady’s important point about the
balance with regard to ex-offenders and rehabilitation. Do we need to
give parents additional
reassurance—not guarantees—that such a situation could not
happen? Everything that I have heard this afternoon from the hon. Lady
does not address the specific issue of whether we should do more,
whether we should do less or whether we should leave the matter alone.
How do we deal with the interim while we wait for the fully consulted
scheme to be implemented? I agree, and I am sure that my hon. Friends
would agree as well, that it is not easy; it is a judgment call. The
Government feel that it is better to protect than leave just one person
who could get through and harm a child or vulnerable
person.
Mrs.
Miller:
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. The
issue of the debate is whether her proposals are proportionate, and
that is something that Sir Michael Bichard has also raised. She talked
about people in controlled activity in some way being able to move into
regulated activity even though they are barred. Surely, if they are
barred, they would not be able to do that
anyway.
Dawn
Primarolo:
Actually, the provisions deal with exactly that
point. The hon. Lady made some very valuable points on which we would
all agree, such as about not creating a disincentive for ex-offenders
who are trying to rebuild their lives. None the less, we have to know
that a barred individual is not working in an area for which such
information needs to be known, although the employment in which they
started did not require it. That goes to the heart of the matter and
rightly raises, as hon. Members have said, the question of what is the
proportionate balance when dealing with the situation in the
interim—Sir Roger’s report has helped us to do just that.
Most people have accepted that activity that takes place once a week
should be covered by the scheme, as he recommended, and that is why we
now have the difference in numbers as we take forward his
recommendations.
There
is an issue around assessing how great any potential risk is. It would
be a brave person who would say that there is no risk and that we
should therefore do nothing, particularly when parents and members of
the public want to see the bar raised on child protection. The
arrangements were clearly signalled in the October 2009 guidance and,
as I have said, we are starting a review.
The hon. Lady
mentioned individuals from overseas who might have a record in other
countries, and she is right to identify that as an important concern.
The Home Office continues to work with several overseas Governments to
gain access to relevant criminal information. When that is obtained, it
will be used to help to decide whether individuals pose a risk. Anyone
undertaking regulated activity will have to be ISA-regulated and
registered, irrespective of which country they come
from.
I
say to the right hon. Member for Wokingham that considerations around
regulated activity relate to its frequency or intensity. The same point
applies to the question of foreign exchanges. If the parents are in
touch with each other before the visit, are content with the
arrangements, and take responsibility for them as parents, that is a
different situation from when they give
permission for their children to be in contact with adults whom they
might not know. In such circumstances, they are entitled to additional
security.
Mrs.
Miller:
Perhaps I misunderstood what the Minister said,
but am I to take it from her comments that she will not be taking
forward the Singleton recommendations that would make exchange trips
private arrangements between parents that would therefore not need
registration?
Dawn
Primarolo:
I understand that the hon. Lady is keen to get
this matter settled. Before she intervened, I was about to say that,
under the commencement order, from November 2010 an exemption for
exchange visits will be carved out from the duty to register. I am sure
that she can see the wider point that I am making about the
registration of facilities that children use. If we try, we can all
disagree and pick holes in anything, but it is incumbent on us all to
ensure that that specific point is
addressed.
Finally,
the hon. Member for Worthing, West asked whether there will be more
information or less. The simple answer is that there will be more
information, but only if the person is barred, because otherwise the
only information will be that a person is not
barred.
The
Government have taken note of consultation and the recommendations of
Sir Roger Singleton. The measures represent a proportionate and fair
response to issues in the system, and they will ensure that parents can
have the confidence that they need and that they certainly say that
they want. I commend the instruments to the Committee.
Question
put.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
5.
Division
No.
1
]
AYES
Allen,
Mr.
Graham
Bain,
Mr.
William
Buck,
Ms
Karen
Cryer,
Mrs.
Ann
McCarthy,
Kerry
McNulty,
rh Mr.
Tony
Primarolo,
rh
Dawn
Smith,
rh
Jacqui
NOES
Bottomley,
Peter
Field,
Mr.
Mark
Miller,
Mrs.
Maria
Redwood,
rh Mr.
John
Wiggin,
Bill
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups
Act 2006 (Regulated Activity, Devolution and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Order 2010.
Motion
made, and Question put,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act
2006 (Controlled Activity and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations
2010.—(Dawn
Primarolo.)
The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
5.
Division No.
2
]
AYES
Allen,
Mr.
Graham
Bain,
Mr.
William
Buck,
Ms
Karen
Cryer,
Mrs.
Ann
McCarthy,
Kerry
McNulty,
rh Mr.
Tony
Primarolo,
rh
Dawn
Smith,
rh
Jacqui
NOES
Bottomley,
Peter
Field,
Mr.
Mark
Miller,
Mrs.
Maria
Redwood,
rh Mr.
John
Wiggin,
Bill
Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order
2010.—(Dawn
Primarolo.)
5.33
pm
Committee
rose.