Mrs.
Miller: Given that the Minister has written into the Bill
an ability for the Government to change what falls into the regulated
activity category, does he anticipate ongoing communication with those
people who are barred in order to update them on the changes that are
made? I understand what he says about the power of advertising and
placing advertisements in the trade press, but surely we cannot rely on
individuals to read magazines to keep themselves up to date with the
process. Does he expect a continuing dialogue with those who are
barred, so that they are fully up to date with any changes that the
Government make?
Mr.
Dhanda: It is important to do so. It is also important to
remember that, when barred individuals apply for a post in a regulated
activity area, people will be able to check that they are subject to
monitoring and then block their application. I take on board the point
that the hon. Member for Basingstoke makes about discouraging people
from applying in the first place to work in areas of regulated activity
in which they are not entitled to work.
Mrs.
Miller: I am sorry but clearly I did not make myself as
clear as I meant to earlier. The issue is about not employers knowing,
but the individuals applying
for employment knowing. In the circumstances that we are discussing, it
is a criminal offence to seek or offer to engage in employment, so it
is fundamental that the Government should undertake such
communication. I
shall press the Minister a little further. Will the IBB have an
obligation to conduct a communications campaign directly with those who
are barred? If so, does the Minister have costings for that? Given the
40,000 discretionary judgments that the IBB will undertake, will it
have the capacity to undertake what will be a complex process? Would it
not be easier to follow the line of argument that we have advanced and
remove the provision to make the process much
simpler?
Mr.
Dhanda: We should not be looking to create a simpler
process if that would put vulnerable adults and children at risk. I
already answered the hon. Lady’s question earlier—we
intend to inform those who are barred about the activities in which
they are and are not entitled to take part. We shall update that as
well. Mrs.
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab): Will the Minister confirm
that it will be standard practice for an employer to include in the job
description and person specification the fact that the job would be
barred to anyone on the barred lists? That would mean that anyone
barred who was taking the initial step of applying for a job and
seeking the application form would immediately have that information
before them and not apply for the
job.
Mr.
Dhanda: I cannot say to my hon. Friend that job adverts
will say that the job is available only to people who are not barred
from working with the relevant groups, any more than happens at the
moment in advertisements for head teachers’ and teachers’
jobs. That would be a broad commitment to make, and I cannot make it
per se. However, as I said, it is important that we communicate as
broadly as we can with everybody on barred lists and all employers and
regulated activity providers to ensure that they know what is required
of them. We undertake to do
that.
Mrs.
Moon: May I clarify the point? I was thinking not about
the advertising for the job, but the person specification and job
description. The advert might well be general, but the information
should be provided when the individual rings to say that they are
interested and receives details from the employer. Most employers would
be vigilant in ensuring that such information was given to anyone who
sought to enter their
employment.
Mr.
Dhanda: I shall take my hon. Friend’s interesting
point on board and consider it. It is important that the barred
applicant should know in the first instance that they should not be
applying for the job. If we do that in the first place, such situations
should not arise. I
hope that I have clarified that the important thing for the Government
is to err on the side of caution and protect vulnerable groups. I hope
that the hon. Member for Basingstoke sees fit to withdraw her
amendment.
Mrs.
Miller: I thank the Minister for his detailed response,
although I remain most concerned. We have discussed the role of the IBB
in communicating information and the issue of including communication
as part of a statutory obligation. That has been dismissed as
inappropriate by the Government, although we have received strong
assurances that communication will be effective. I was surprised to
hear that the Minister feels that the police should decide how this
part of the law should be interpreted. Obviously, the police interpret
the law, but it is made clear by the Bill, which leaves several other
things unclear, that it is a criminal offence to seek to engage, or
offer to engage, in the relevant activity.
As we have discussed, there is
nothing in the Bill to provide that those who act in that way commit a
criminal offence only if they are seeking to mislead an employer. It is
purely the act of seeking, or offering, to engage in the activity that
constitutes a criminal act. I therefore find it difficult to see how
the police could come to any conclusion other than that individuals on
the barred list who put themselves forward for employment were doing
something they should not, and that action should be taken accordingly.
Unless the Minister has other information to share with the Committee,
surely that is the intention in the
Bill.
Mr.
Dhanda: I should be intrigued to hear from the hon. Lady
who she thinks should decide whether an offence has or has not been
committed, if it is not the
police.
Mrs.
Miller: The reason for the Bill is to define what the
House considers to be an offence. It is clear in the Bill that the
Government consider it should be an offence for someone who is barred
to seek to engage in regulated activity, or offer to do so. If the
Minister does not think so, perhaps we should proceed with the
amendment, which is widely supported in the Committee. If he does not
think that the police should pursue the issues, we can, obviously,
amend the clause accordingly. I remain concerned, and we shall perhaps
seek to revisit the matter later. In the meantime, perhaps the Minister
could think further about the debate that we have had today, and about
the degree of concern expressed by hon. Members of different parties. I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
7 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
8Person
not to engage in regulated activity unless subject to
monitoring Amendment
made: No. 145, in clause 8, page 4, line 24, after
‘1(4)’ insert ‘or
(5A)’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.]
Annette
Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in
clause 8, page 4, line 38, at
end insert— ‘(c) a Further
Education Institution (within the meaning of section 140(3) of the
Education Act 2002 (c.
32)).’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 137, in
clause 8, page 4, line 38, at
end insert—
‘(c) a residential health institution which
is exclusively or partly for the provision of health care or
rehabilitation to
children.’. No.
114, in
clause 8, page 4, line 38, at
end insert— ‘(c) a military
training or educational establishment with recruits and trainees under
18.’.
Annette
Brooke: There are three amendments in the group, one of
which was tabled by Conservative Front-Bench Members, and one of which
has joint support. The principle behind them is the same. They deal
with the question whether the categories of establishments in which the
relevant regulated activity is carried out are broadly enough defined.
Of course the issue arises of whether to confine the provisions to
cover those most at risk or whether to cast the net further. I think it
is important to ensure that we assess the risks in more educational and
health institutions than are set out in the Bill.
Amendment No. 1 ties in with
amendment No. 2; it could almost be a computer cut-and-paste, as the
two amendments together would transfer further education institutions
from the provisions on controlled activity to the provisions on
regulated activity. I raised the issue on Second Reading in an
intervention. I could not see that there should be a distinction
between further education establishments and schools, in the matter of
ancillary workers, given the 14-to-19 agenda. That encourages the idea,
which I support, that children will move between institutions, fully
engaging in their new curriculum and studying in different contexts.
What on earth will be the difference, as the agenda
extends? My local
further education establishment has an enormous array of special
educational needs courses. It is the usual route from a special school
to the local college and is promoted the most for younger people with
special needs. We could argue that it is promoted for vulnerable
children more than for others. I do not understand why further
education should be included in that section. The response that I
received from the Minister for Children and Families on Second Reading
was that we should scrutinise such issues in
Committee. 9.45
am
Judy
Mallaber: It is obviously difficult to know what should
and should not be in the Bill. It would be helpful to learn whether the
hon. Lady is asking for more areas to be included in regulated
activity, given that she has said previously that we might be including
too many areas. I realise that it is difficult to strike a balance, but
is she asking for more regulation or saying that we already have too
many regulated
activities?
Annette
Brooke: Further education colleges are included in the
Bill. At present, they are in the controlled activity area, presumably
on the basis that a large number of further education students are
over 18 years old. However, we are on the cusp of a change
with the 14 to 19 agenda, and children will move interchangeably
between colleges and schools, so there should be a regulated activity
aspect. For example, the school caretaker or the college site manager
should be subject to the same degree of checking and barring as those
in regulated activity. A lot of the Bill stems from the Ian Huntley
case when a school caretaker was not
subject to the same checks as a school teacher. With a controlled
activity, the catering people, site managers and others in a further
education college will be treated differently from those at a school. I
should like the Minister to respond to such matters. I am talking about
the difference of treatment of ancillary
workers.
Sarah
Teather: My hon. Friend may recall that, when I raised the
matter in response to the statement that the Secretary of State made on
the Audit Commission report, he undertook to look at it. I have not
heard from him, so it would be helpful if the Minister could explain
why FE has been treated slightly
differently.
Annette
Brooke: I thank my hon. Friend. I recall clearly the
important statement made by the Secretary of State about the Ofsted
inspection and how staff were being checked. There was a positive
response to her suggestion that, as we move to the 14 to 19 agenda,
further education colleges should be treated exactly the same as
schools. The amendment
picks up a point that has been made on the Conservative Benches about
checks on members of governing bodies. As the Bill is drafted,
governors of further education colleges are not checked in the same way
as governors of schools. That is why the amendment is necessary. I
remind members of the Committee that I am concerned not only about the
14 to 19 agenda but about particularly vulnerable young people with
special needs at colleges, and as long as they can still receive
funding, there will also be adults with learning disabilities
continuing with their courses at further education colleges.
The area that we are discussing
is important. I hope that the Minister will make a positive response.
Furthermore, I hope that I have made it crystal clear why I suggest
this simple movement of category. We must take on board the nature of a
further education college in the 21st century. It may have been
reasonable in the past to treat further education colleges as the Bill
does, but I do not think that it is
now. I support
amendment No. 137, but I will leave comments on it to others. We tabled
amendmentNo. 114 in response to the excellent speech by
thehon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood
(Mrs. Humble) on Second Reading. I asked her whether she
would mind if I tabled an amendment, and I spoke to her this morning on
the way here to explain what I intended to say. I want to make it clear
that I am not trying to steal anyone’s thunder. I was extremely
moved by her speech on Second Reading, and it was noticeable that the
Minister, in summing up the debate, did not provide any answers in this
area, so I very much want it to be considered in detail in
Committee. This is an
important area: many families have experienced heartbreaking
situations. It is easy to say, “Oh, that involves the Ministry
of Defence; it has nothing to do with this,” but the Bill is
designed to safeguard vulnerable groups of people and that should
include raw recruits, if I can put it that way, who are under 18. I am
talking about young people who probably have not left home and may not
have experienced the wider world until they entered a military
education or training establishment.
The hon. Member for Blackpool,
North and Fleetwood spoke as chair of the newly established all-party
group on Army deaths. She
said: “I am
acutely aware of the pain and anger that arises from the suspicion that
those with responsibility for the care of children fail to protect
young recruits from sexual abuse.”—[Official
Report, 19 June 2006; Vol. 447, c.
1106.] She gave a particularly
telling quotation from the inquiry and review carried out by Nicholas
Blake QC on the tragic deaths at Deepcut barracks. As she said, at the
close of the review recommendation 12
states: “Instructors
should be vetted for their suitability to work with young people,
applying standards that are no less rigorous than those applied to
civilian establishments educating or training people under
18.” As the
hon. Lady said, the Bill is intended to provide proper arrangements for
vetting people working with children and barring those who are
unsuitable, so we are asking why on earth military establishments
should be excluded from it. As she also said, child abuse cases in
schools and the outcry about staff not being subject to enhanced
Criminal Records Bureau checks concern all parents, but the Deepcut and
Beyond families point out that problems also exist in military training
establishments. I understand that non-commissioned officers and
civilian staff are not subject to Criminal Records Bureau disclosures
of any kind. That is absolutely shocking. No parent who is passing over
their child to be cared for, in a sense—someone else is to take
on the parental responsibility—can have any idea that that is
the situation, and the issue is not only that checks are not made, but
that there are outcomes from that. The hon. Lady went on to give a
number of examples from parents who were totally bewildered to discover
that the checks were not made. That is absolutely incredible, which is
why her speech was so
moving. I dipped a
little further into the Deepcut review by Nicholas Blake QC and I
picked up another paragraph, with which I shall conclude my remarks on
the
amendment: “The
Review recommends that the Army applies, as a matter of best practice,
no less rigorous checks on the background of its instructors who will
supervise recruits and trainees under 18 than would apply in civilian
life, particularly in a residential boarding school. Such information
could no doubt be accessed through RMP files and personnel records. If
the present state of the law proves an obstacle, the Review would
recommend that military service is identified as an exception to the
position of employers
generally.” Hon. Members
can dig that strong recommendation out from the Deepcut review. We have
a duty to consider this important exclusion from the Bill and the lack
of checks that has resulted in some dreadful
outcomes.
| 
