Session 2009-10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates

Draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Regulated Activity, Devolution and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2010 and
Draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Controlled Activity and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2010 and
Draft Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2010



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.

DRAFT SAFEGUARDING VULNERABLE GROUPS ACT 2006 (CONTROLLED ACTIVITY AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS 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.

DRAFT REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS ACT 1974 (EXCEPTIONS) (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER 2010

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.


©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 9:54 on 16th March 2010