| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I begin with the position regarding carers to which the Minister referred at the start of this debate. I am pleased that he has made such considerable advances in this matter and several others as the Bill has progressed through this House. We started considering the Bill by talking about the need for cross-party consensus, and that consensus has made a real difference. This evening's amendments and the Minister's explanation that we were sent in advance, together with his letter addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, mean that we will deliver a Bill that is in good shape to our honourable friends in another place.
I am extremely grateful for the Minister's response to all of our concerns regarding Clause 6 and support for carers. I have no doubt that he will have checked with care with his department and his lawyers to ensure that it is possible to use the word "expected" with regard to checking the barred status of people employed to work with those whom they care for. In other words, the kind of language that the Minister feels will be used in the code of practice will go a long way to meeting concerns that we have all expressed regarding such sensitive relationships in private arrangements in an informal environment. So we have made real progress, and I am grateful to the Minister for that.
I turn briefly to the group of amendments. It is right and proper that the lists produced by the IBB are comprehensive. It appears that the amendments essentially tighten up the system, and the automatic barring of individuals who have received cautions for offences is certainly the correct step to take. We very much support these amendments.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister not only for his reassurances this evening on direct payments but on so many issues raised during the progress of the Bill. He and other Ministers have actually listened to the concerns raised in this House and taken action on them. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that we are delivering a much better Bill to another place.
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1339
The code of practice on direct payments which the noble Lord outlined may very well work well. It is a pity that he was not able to convince Sense, Voice UK, the Ann Craft Trust, Respond, Mencap and, possibly, Help the Aged. The first five sent us a heartfelt briefing asking us to press the matter with the Minister. I hope that they too are satisfied that the processes which the noble Lord outlined will work well. Can he reassure us that the situation will be monitored and the Government will keep a careful eye on how the code of practice works to ensure that our fears about people with malign intent gravitating towards those who make direct payments to avoid being caught up in the new robust system are not realised?
I hope the Government will ask carers how they feel about having to ask for the check even though that is not mandatory but voluntary. Many noble Lords pointed out that it would be easier for carers to ask for the check when they knew that that they had to do so. If that could be monitored and reported back to the House at an appropriate stage, we would all be very grateful to know exactly how well it is working. I hope that our fears will prove groundless.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their contributions on all the issues relating to the Bill which have enabled us to improve it as we send it to another place. I believe that we have found an effective way forward in this difficult issue of carers in the home. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the wording in the revised code of practice will be that there is an expectation that carers will require those whom they employ of behalf of vulnerable adults in the home to be subject to monitoring. The expectation will also be made clear to those who undertake the caring that they will be expected to make themselves subject to monitoring within the scheme. I hope that that will go a long way to meeting the concerns, which I recognise, expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that those making arrangements on behalf of vulnerable adults will have to ask whether the individual is subject to monitoring. In fact, the regime normally applying will be that they have made themselves subject to monitoring.
I accept that this is a difficult issue of balance which we have had to wrestle with—on the one hand, taking forward a significant tightening-up of the system regarding our expectations of monitoring; and, on the other, the availability of advice to carers that they can and should conduct the CRB checks as appropriate without seeking to criminalise those who are making arrangements often on behalf of family members in their own home.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether we would keep the issue under review. I can give an undertaking that we will do so. We also intend to share with noble Lords and with colleagues in another place the draft wording that we will put in the code of practice as and when it is available. On that basis, I hope that the amendments will be accepted. These
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1340
amendments are actually on disqualification orders but, in agreeing to them, I hope noble Lords will also accept our way forward on carers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Person not to engage in regulated activity unless subject to monitoring]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 2:
"(1A) An individual commits an offence if—
(a) he engages in an activity which is a regulated activity by virtue of paragraph 1(3A) of Schedule 3, and
(b) he is not subject to monitoring in relation to regulated activity relating to children."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 25.
These amendments strengthen the safeguards provided by the vetting and barring scheme in relation to childminders who are required to be registered under the provisions of the Childcare Bill or who would be required to be registered but for the fact that they do not provide childcare for a child below the age of eight.
Parents or others who make arrangements in the context of a family relationship or a relationship between friends are not "regulated activity providers" within the meaning of Clause 6. Without this amendment, when a childminder is engaged by a parent, the Bill would not require that individual to be subject to monitoring.
Childminders operate on domestic premises in the vast majority of cases from their own homes. They also operate with very close and often unsupervised contact with children. It is therefore vital that we provide the greatest degree of protection in relation to these individuals.
The effect of these amendments is that it will be an offence for childminders to provide childcare without being subject to monitoring, whether or not they provide that care for regulated activity providers. Childminders will therefore have by law to apply to the scheme to be monitored and go through the central vetting process. Parents will therefore be able to expect, as a matter of course, that the childminder they use is subject to monitoring and will then be able to check their barred status accordingly rather than the childminder having to tell them that the scheme does not apply to them, as could happen without the amendments.
Amendment No. 25 ensures that childminding covered by the requirement or ability to register under the Childcare Bill and childminding that would be covered by the requirement to register if the child was not aged eight or over will be a regulated activity as defined by the Bill.
We recognise the importance of ensuring that the IBB communicates these new requirements to the sector so that providers know what they should be doing and parents know what they can expect. The IBB will be expected to use the media, such as local
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1341
authority newsletters, articles in the trade press, practitioner workshops and seminars, and the consultative groups of the vetting and barring scheme, and also the planned communications on the new regulation and inspection arrangements that will be introduced by the Childcare Bill, including the Ofsted childcare register. We wish to ensure that parents know that where care is provided outside the family home they should be able to see evidence that carers have been through the vetting and barring scheme. Local authorities will have an important role to play in this, particularly in fulfilling their new duties under the Childcare Bill to provide advice to under-fives providers on their child protection duties, including the new vetting and barring scheme. These amendments further improve the operation and scope of the new vetting and barring scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we support these amendments. It is right to ensure that all individuals who practise childminding are subject to monitoring, whether that is with or without the permission of a regulated activity provider. It is essential to get this right in relation to activities such as childminding, which inevitably allows individuals to have close contact with children whose parents have offered that trust. Again, we support the amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |