Mrs.
Miller: I am heartened that the Minister will do that. The
Bill appears to say clearly that there will need to be monitoring of
people who care for or supervise a child, or who do so in the course of
their employment, and paragraph 2(3) clearly states that the exclusions
do not apply in the case of children who have not yet reached the age
of 16. Children or people entering employment will receive instruction
during the course of that employment, or may be in their
employer’s care, whether they are a newspaper boy or girl or
anybody else in the relevant age group. If I were an employer, I would
have great concerns, and if the Bill indeed implied that children of 14
or 15 would need to be in the care of somebody who was monitored during
employment, it would put me off employing someone in that age
group. Based on the
Minister’s remarks this evening, it seems that that would be a
wholly unintended consequence of the Bill. As somebody who employed
people for 17 years—albeit perhaps not of that age—such a
consequence would cause me concern, so I am pleased that the Minister
will examine the matter further. When he does, perhaps he will put
himself in the position of an employer reading the Bill, and ensure
that it is amended to clarify the point for employers.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendments
made: No. 182, in schedule 3, page 45, line 45, at end
insert— ‘(ma) a deputy
appointed in respect of a child under section 16(2)(b) of the Mental
Capacity Act
2005;’. No.
183, in
schedule 3, page 46, line 17, at
end insert— ‘( ) For the
purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(k), a person is the operator of a
database if he— (a)
establishes or maintains the database,
or (b) otherwise, exercises any
function in relation to the management or control of the
database.’. No.
184, in
schedule 3, page 46, line 31, at
end insert— ‘ A person who
is part of a group in relation to which another (P) engages in
regulated activity relating to children does not engage in regulated
activity only because he assists P or does anything on behalf of or
under the direction of P which, but for this paragraph, would amount to
engaging in regulated activity relating to
children.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.] Mrs.
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): I beg to move amendment
No. 129, in schedule 3, page 47, line 11, at end
insert ‘or any other establishment which is
exclusively or mainly for people who are entitled to community care
services.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment
No. 130, in schedule 3, page 47, line 13, after adults,
insert ‘or any other establishment which is
exclusively or mainly for people who are entitled to community care
services.’. Amendment
No. 104, in schedule 3, page 47, line 35, at end
insert— ‘(ba) a day centre
providing more than six hours per day of provision for vulnerable
adults and operating two or more days per
week,’. Government
amendments No. 185 and
186.
Mrs.
Moon: I promise not to keep the Committee long. I will
endeavour to be as brief as I
can. It has been said
during today’s debate that people who are abuse are clever. In
fact, in my experience, abuse often arises from ignorance, and more
specifically from institutionalised bad practice. The two probing
amendments in my name would cover establishments that are not currently
regulated and do not have specific standards set for them. In
particular, I wish to include organisations and establishments where
there are opportunities for staff to set their own standards of
practice in working with client groups, appearing to make life easier
for staff but in fact allowing institutionalised abuse to become normal
practice due to a lack of training, supervision and
skills. The probing
amendments would extend the range of establishments defined as
providing regulated activities covered by the Care Standards Act 2000.
As the Bill stands, day care establishments in particular do not appear
to be covered. The definition should be extended to such
establishments, at which vulnerable people would otherwise not receive
protection.
Annette
Brooke: I will also endeavour to be brief. Amendment No.
104 is a probing amendment. It comes from practical experience, but I
suspect that amendments Nos. 129 and 130 approach the problem in a much
more satisfactory manner. I tabled the amendment, plucking hours and
days out of a hat. When my father was elderly, I was encouraged to keep
him in his own home. He went to a church day centre, with which I had
no problems or worries, for up to six hours a day. He went to the
stroke club one afternoon a week; again, I had no problems and knew
everybody. He also went to a local authority day centre two days a
week. They were very kind and carried out a great deal of personal
care, and I was horrified to see that such a centre seems to be
excluded from the Bill.
Equally, I have visited many
training establishments and day centres for adults with learning
disabilities and feel that they should fall within the Bill. I can see
that the wording is much better in amendments Nos. 129 and 130, which I
hope the Minister will support. I have practical experience of
different types of day centre for elderly people, and it is crystal
clear that some need regulation because it is possible for someone who
is doing the cooking, for instance, to befriend vulnerable elderly
people.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Ivan
Lewis): It is a pleasure finally to get to my feet after
sitting for so long.
I congratulate my hon. Friend
the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) on her probing amendments and the
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on her constructive
contribution. It is difficult to get the definition of day care right,
and I shall try to explain why I think the Bill gets it about right,
despite the understandable reservations that have been
expressed. I shall
speak first to amendments No. 129 and 130. They seek to define day care
in terms of an establishment in the same way that elsewhere we have
defined care homes, but the term “day care” covers a wide
range of very different types of services provided to old and disabled
people, as has been acknowledged. It can be provided in a variety of
ways: by a local authority or voluntary sector provider, a private
sector organisation or local faith group, for example. Because of the
disparate nature of day care services, we do not believe that seeking a
definition based purely on setting works. We have therefore tried to
capture “day care” in the Bill by identifying it in terms
of activity rather than in terms of a specific establishment. I
reassure hon. Members that the definition of regulated activity already
includes those working in day care settings whose responsibilities
include the provision of care, supervision, training, assistance,
advice or any other activity listed under paragraph 5(1) of part 2 of
schedule 3. Amendments
Nos. 129 and 130 seek to achieve their aim by defining day care as an
establishment for people who are entitled specifically to community
care services. Community care services are those services provided to
or commissioned by the local authorities defined in the relevant 1990
Act. We have already made provision for all posts within this sector to
come within the scope of the scheme. The Bill provides that all posts
within community care services which are not covered by the bar but
which give the opportunity for contact with those receiving services or
access to records will be covered by “controlled
activity”. That means that all staff working in local
authority-provided day care settings but who are not undertaking
regulated activity will still be subject to vetting processes under the
new scheme. It will
be up to individual employers to decide whether to employ a barred
person in a job involving controlled activity. When an employer takes a
decision to engage a barred person in a controlled activity, we shall
obviously expect extra safeguards to be put in place. We are currently
looking at the most appropriate mechanism for the enforcement of the
requirements related to controlled activity. Extra safeguards are
likely to include additional supervision of a barred person which
prevents him or her from having the opportunity for unsupervised
contact with those individuals attending the day care
group. I hope that to
some extent what I have said provides some reassurance. I say to my
hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset
and North Poole that we need to give greater detail about what the
safeguards may be to allay their concerns.
I deal now
with amendment No. 104, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats. It
raises similar issues. Under the Bill, the definition of a regulated
activity includes inspection functions carried out by those bodies
listed in sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) of part 2 of schedule 3. This is
to ensure that those individuals with responsibility for inspecting an
establishment, agency, person or body which provides any form of care,
treatment or therapy for vulnerable adults are subject to the bar and
will need to be checked and subject to monitoring. Sub-paragraph (7)
lists establishments, agencies and so on which are subject to
inspection by the relevant listed regulatory
bodies. As hon.
Members know—this is a legitimate topic for debate but not
necessarily in the context of the Bill—day care is not currently
regulated under part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000. Very often, as
hon. Members have said, day care is provided in a community setting
where a range of other activities takes place. As such, it would be
very difficult to define day care in terms of an establishment or an
agency appropriate for inspection by the Commission for Social Care
Inspection. I accept that the nature of inspection and regulation of
day care is not a closed debate, but I do not think it appropriate to
deal with it under the
Bill. Government
amendment No. 185 is a minor, technical amendment relating to the
definition of regulated activity in terms of vulnerable adults. It
would bring the functions of the chief executive and other members of
the IBB within the definition of “regulated activity” in
relation to vulnerable adults. Its omission was an oversight, and I am
sure that all Committee members will accept that it is a common-sense
amendment.
7
pm Finally,
Government amendment No. 186 is identical in its application to
vulnerable adults to amendment No. 184 in relation to children, to
which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend has already spoken. It
specifically ensures that, where an activity is carried out by a member
of a group of vulnerable adults and possibly others on behalf of or
under the direction of an individual engaged in regulated activity with
the group, the group member will not be engaged in a regulated
activity. For example, it would ensure that where residents of a care
home provide help and assistance to other residents of that care home,
they will not be required to be subject to monitoring and the care home
would not be required to check their status. Again, it is not a simple
or easy issue but, I hope, a common-sense
outcome. I urge my
hon. Friend to withdraw her amendment and the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole not to press her amendment, and I urge the
Committee to support the Government
amendments.
Mrs.
Moon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendments
made: No. 185, in schedule 3, page 47, line 46, at end
insert ‘( ) The exercise of the
functions of a member or the chief executive of IBB is a regulated
activity relating to vulnerable
adults.’.
No. 186, in
schedule 3, page 47, line 46, at
end insert— ‘( ) A person
who is part of a group in relation to which another (P) engages in
regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults does not engage in
regulated activity only because he assists P or does anything on behalf
of or under the direction of
P which, but for this sub-paragraph, would amount to engaging in
regulated activity relating to vulnerable
adults.’.— [Mr. Ivan
Lewis.]Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
Cawsey.] Adjourned
accordingly at one minute past Seven o’clock till Thursday 13
July at Nine
o’clock.
| 
