Mr.
Dhanda: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in
schedule 3, page 43, line 7, leave
out from ‘children’ to the end of line
8.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendments Nos. 179 to
182. Amendment no.
118, in schedule 3, page 46, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph
(b). Government
amendments Nos. 183, 184, 144 and
145. Amendment No.
113, in clause 10, page 6, line 20, leave out subsection (4) and
insert— ‘(4) A person does
not commit an offence under subsection (1)
if— (a) the activity is
a regulated activity by virtue of paragraph 1(1) or 5(1) of Schedule 3,
and (b) B is entitled to engage
in a regulated activity mentioned in that paragraph only on an
occasional
basis.’.
6.30
pm
Mr.
Dhanda: The amendments are designed to improve the
Bill’s coverage by ensuring that the definitions of regulated
activity relating to children and requirements to check are focused
where individuals have the greatest opportunity to harm
children. Amendment
No. 178 is a minor drafting amendment. Amendments Nos. 145 and 179 will
bring requirements for Welsh child minders into line with those for
child minders in England. AmendmentsNos. 180 and 181 will
ensure that CAFCASS officers and family proceedings officers in Wales
and their managers are covered by the bar and the requirement to check.
As those officers are likely to have unsupervised contact with
children, the amendment ensures that the functions of such officers and
their managers are covered by regulated
activity. Amendments
Nos. 144 and 182 ensure that those who act as deputies on behalf of
children and vulnerable adults are within the scope of the scheme.
Amendment No. 182 adds deputies to the definition of regulated activity
in schedule 3, paragraph 4(1) in relation to children. That means that
a person who is barred from working with children cannot act in that
capacity. Amendment No. 144 means that those appointed as a deputy are
treated in line with other positions such as those of local councillors
and charity trustees in situations in which there is no regulated
activity provider.
Amendment No. 183 clarifies the
drafting to ensure that operators and administrators of the information
sharing index are engaging in regulated activity in relation to
children. Amendment No. 184 ensures that where an activity is carried
out by a member of a group of children and possibly others on behalf or
under the direction of an adult engaging in regulated activity with the
group, the group member will not be engaged in regulated activity. That
will ensure that school prefects, who supervise other school pupils,
will not be required to be subject to monitoring and the school will
not be required to check their
status. My
hon. Friend will later be moving an identical amendment in relation to
vulnerable adults. Those amendments set out real improvements in the
coverage of this Bill. They will increase the protection afforded to
children and ensure that the coverage is appropriately targeted. I
commend those amendments to the
Committee.
Mrs.
Miller: I should like to speak briefly to amendment No.
118 within the string, which is tabled in my name and the names of my
hon. Friends. It is an important amendment because it relates to local
authorities. I will just read out the part of the Bill that it relates
to. It states that one set of positions that would be monitored is that
of “an executive of a
local authority”.
The amendment would in
effect remove that line from the Bill in order that members of an
executive of a local authority would not be included in the monitoring
process. There are provisions within that particular section of the
Bill that already cover any member of a local authority who discharges
any educational or social services function, so that line is
unnecessary.
In the previous string of
amendments, the Minister was at pains to suggest that we should not
place unreasonable burdens on employers. I am not clear why we would
want to single that group out to be monitored, given that any people
within that particular group that had authority with regard to
vulnerable people and adults would already be covered in the previous
sub-paragraph (2)(a). I hope that he understands why we have tabled
amendment No. 118. We feel that it is not a helpful clause to have
within the
Bill. In
my own local borough council, there are only a few people within the
Conservative-controlled authority executive who have any duties to do
with either vulnerable adults or young people. As the Minister is no
doubt aware, the local borough council has limited influence or policy
or financial obligations towards those groups pf people. Anyone who is
involved in activities regarding those groups of people will be caught
in a previous section of the Bill. It is an unnecessary burden on local
authorities. Returning
to the example of TV producers not being able to teach children because
they are barred, it may not be entirely equitable that some councillors
may, perhaps, stop being involved in activities relating to vulnerable
adults or children and may not be able to be members of
executives.
Mr.
Dhanda: Amendment No. 118 would mean that an individual
who is a member of an executive of a local authority that discharges
any educational or social services functions for a local authority
should not be engaged in a regulated activity. That issue was raised in
the other place. I reiterate the sentiments of my noble friend Lord
Harris of Haringey, vice-president of the Local Government Association,
in saying that no member of a local authority cabinet should be allowed
to serve on that body if they are on the barred list. An individual may
not have direct responsibility for social services or education
functions, but he may help to set the overall strategic direction of
the council and he will have the opportunity to influence, at least
indirectly, the lives of children in the local
area. I understand
that it is unlikely for an individual to have no responsibility for
education or social services functions. If an executive member sitting
on an executive with education or social services functions requested
information or required access to particular material or individuals,
that would provide the opportunity for close contact with
children.
Mrs.
Miller: At the risk of opening a can of worms, as was
hinted at on Second Reading, if local authority executive members
should be monitored because they may have access to certain information
or materials or have close contact with children or vulnerable adults,
perhaps hon. Members should consider whether they should be monitored.
This is the start of what could be an expansive process. If local
authority members who have no direct responsibilities for such matters
should be monitored, why should not Members of Parliament be monitored?
Will local authority members not ask that
question?
Mr.
Dhanda: The point about local authority members having
influence over social services and education functions is interesting
and comes from the vice-president of the LGA, so we need to take it
seriously. The Bill as drafted takes the right approach on the
issue. Amendment No.
113 would change the focus of the exception in clause 10 so that
employers of individuals engaging in a specified activity in a key
setting would have to ensure that the person is subject to monitoring.
Those employing individuals to carry out specified activities outside
key settings could do so occasionally without that person being subject
to monitoring. I hope that hon. Members will take on board what I have
said. Amendment
agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 179, in schedule 3, page 43, line 23, at end
insert— ‘(5A) Each of the
following, if carried out in Wales, is a regulated activity relating to
children— (a) acting as
a child minder so as to give rise to a requirement to register under
section 79D of the Children Act
1989; (b) an activity which
would give rise to such a requirement if the child in relation to whom
the activity is carried out were under the age of
eight. (5B) For the purposes of
sub-paragraph (5A), “acting as a child minder” must be
construed in accordance with section 79A of that
Act.’. No.
180, in
schedule 3, page 43, line 23, at
end insert— ‘(5C) The
exercise of any function of the following is a regulated activity
relating to
children— (a) officer of
the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support
Service; (b) Welsh family
proceedings officer (within the meaning of Part 4 of the Children Act
2004).’. No.
181, in
schedule 3, page 44, line 6, after
‘(3),’ insert ‘(5C),’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.]
Mrs.
Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in
schedule 3, page 44, line 31, leave
out sub-paragraph
(a). This is a simple
amendment. I am interested in the Minister’s view on this aspect
of the Bill. As the Committee knows, schedule 3 defines regulated
activity under the Bill, and paragraph 2 of the schedule states that
there are exclusions to monitoring for activities relating to
employment. It excludes from monitoring those who are involved
specifically in the
“care for or supervision of a
child in the course of his
employment”. However,
paragraph 3 states that that exemption does not apply to a child who
has not attained the age of 16. It is possible that I have not
interpreted the schedule correctly because it seems rather
counter-intuitive. There are one or two double negatives in those two
paragraphs. However,
under the Bill as drafted, if a person was employing someone under the
age of 16, that person could be open to the need to be monitored. Will
the Minister clarify how the provision may affect children? We need to
tease that out because I am not sure that the Government intended to
legislate in such a way or, if that is their intention, perhaps the
hon. Gentleman
could outline what effect the provision may have on the employment
opportunities of those young, budding paper boys and girls who rely on
the money that they receive as a source of income. I should welcome his
comments. Mr.
Dhanda: I shall certainly come back to that point and give
the hon. Lady a clear answer. I shall need a moment to think about
it. Paragraph 2(2) and
(3) of the schedule provide that individuals will be engaged in
regulated activities if they principally care for, train, supervise,
give guidance to or treat children under the age of 16 during the
child’s employment. If those people have the particular role of
caring as a chaperone for an actor who is under 16 years, for example,
they will fall within a regulated
activity. The aim of
amendment No. 117 is to ensure that, when individuals are frequently
teaching, training or otherwise working closely with children aged 16
or 17 during their employment, they are also engaged in a regulated
activity, which brings with it a requirement for the employer to check
their status before permitting them to engage in such activity. The
amendment is not appropriate. The provisions under schedule 3 provide a
careful balance between protecting children and not discouraging
employers from offering work with children due to the burdens involved
in checking the
staff. Requiring
checks on those working with 16 and 17-year-old employees may be
particularly damaging to school leavers who are trying to earn a
living. Generally, people who work with 16 and 17-year-olds do not make
a choice to work with children and do not have the same duty of
care.
Mrs.
Miller: I wish to be clear. It is a bit of a complex area
for some reason, but if children aged 14 or 15 years are employed by
their corner shop to deliver newspapers, will the newspaper shop owner
whogives the papers to them in the morning need to put himself
forward to be monitored? If not, why is paragraph 2(3)(a) of schedule 3
in the
Bill? 6.45
pm
Mr.
Dhanda: I do not believe that the employment by newsagents
of paper boys will come within the Bill’s provisions. It is not
a regulated activity—it is not a case of one-to-one interaction
between the employer and the paper boy. We would also have to consider
the frequency. Nevertheless, though the point is a technical one, it is
well made. There may well be issues about that and it is probably best
if I write to the hon. Lady to flesh it
out. Nevertheless, we
do not believe that the amendment is appropriate. Schedule 3 provides a
careful balance between protecting children and not discouraging
employers from offering work to 16 and 17-year-olds. Let us suppose
that hon. Members’ concerns relate to army instructors of 16 and
17-year-olds. In that case, schedule 4 already allows employers to
check the status of individuals who frequently teach, train, care for,
or otherwise work closely with under-18s who are employed in the armed
forces.
We shall
continue to work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that there is
sufficient awareness in the armed forces of the requirements on child
protection, and to ensure that support and advice are given on such
issues during implementation of the Bill. I believe that the Bill takes
the right approach on the issues and I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw
her amendment. Having said that, I shall examine the point that she
made on newsagents employing paper
boys.
| 
