The
Chairman: I must draw attention to an error in the
amendment paper: the names of the hon. Members for St. Albans (Anne
Main) and for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) have been
mistakenly added to amendments Nos. 137 and 114. I apologise for that;
their names will be withdrawn. They do not sign blank cheques
either.
Tim
Loughton: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset
and North Poole feels deflated because she does not have the support of
my hon. Friends the
Members for St. Albans and for Reading, East, whose names were added to
her amendments in error. I shall mention her amendment before talking
to amendment No. 137, correctly tabled in my name and that of my hon.
Friends. I have some
sympathy with amendment No. 1, which goes to the heart of the problem
of when children stop being children—particularly those with
learning disabilities for whom special provisions need to be made when
they reach 18 but will continue in various educational or support
establishments. It is an anomaly why governors of such establishments,
which deal with vulnerable people, are not covered by the Bill, whereas
governors of other educational institutions are. I am confused about
why the explanatory notes do not say what subsections (3), (4) or (5)
are intended to achieve and why certain things have been left out of
them. I have some sympathy with including additional educational
institutions that the hon. Lady mentioned. I am interested in hearing
what the Minister has to say in defence of keeping them
out. I have less
sympathy with the hon. Lady’s amendment No. 114, although I
endorse all her comments about the telling speech made by the hon.
Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. Problems with recruits in
certain Army barracks are rightly the subject of ongoing
investigations. The people responsible for those institutions need to
get their act together and provide assurances to the House, those
serving and those who may be considering serving in the forces.
However, although I am not trying to pre-empt the Minister, the way in
which the hon. Lady’s amendment is phrased could cause great
confusion. She refers
to “a military training
or educational establishment with recruits and trainees under
18”, but because the Army
can recruit from the age of 17, that would presumably mean that an
entire training or educational establishment that takes on recruits,
including senior Army people who happen to be part of it, would be
subject to all the vetting and barring. Under no definition could those
recruits be construed as vulnerable adults. Indeed, if they could be,
what place would they have performing such a potentially dangerous task
as serving in the
military? Kali
Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): I take the hon.
Gentleman’s point, but is it not also the case that the Armed
Forces Bill, which is currently proceeding through the House, includes
measures for the protection of new recruits to all the armed forces?
Those who are under 18 would receive special protection under the
provisions of that Bill, so the amendment is not
necessary. 10
am
Tim
Loughton: I am not as familiar with that piece of
legislation as the hon. Lady is, but it is greatly reassuring that it
includes those checks and balances. They will remove the requirement
for the amendment in its current form, which has enormous implications
for a raft of military institutions that it is not intended to cover
but that happen to take on a small number of recruits at the age of 17.
As specific provisions of a dedicated Bill can be applied to them, the
hon.
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole might wish to reconsider the
amendment. Our
amendment No. 137 is a probing amendment, which was largely instigated
because the explanatory notes are unclear on what is covered under the
definitions of “establishments”, in clause 8(5), and the
governing bodies of such establishments. I want to give just one
example of where an establishment might fall between two
stools.
I recently
visited a fantastic charity-run establishment in Surrey, a residential
establishment looking after young people with severe learning and
physical disabilities. Most of them were in wheelchairs and most had
profound learning disabilities. The charity, which has been running for
many years and is connected with Great Ormond Street, provides a
fantastic, unparalleled service to those young people. Alas, there are
not enough institutions like
that. That charity is
not strictly “an
educational institution which is exclusively or mainly for the
provision of full-time education to
children”, as specified
by subsection (5)(a), however. By their very nature, those young people
could not have full-time education. It is difficult to define a lot of
their classroom time as education in the sense that we might
understand. A lot of their daytime is spent on more therapeutic, health
and other caring services, which is not strictly education. Some
fantastic educational work is certainly done, giving skills to those
young people in their disadvantaged circumstances, but such an
institution would not necessarily fall within the definition in the
clause. I should make
it clear that I have nothing but praise for that institution. I have
absolutely no reason to think that anything bad goes on there, but
there could be similar places, to which certain individuals might be
able to find their way and have access to physically and mentally
vulnerable children, whom they could then take advantage of. The
purpose of amendment No. 137 is to add residential health institutions
to the list of establishments in subsection (5), because places such as
the one that I have described fall between a healthand
therapeutic establishment and an educational
establishment. Amendment
No. 137 is not phrased in the best way, and I am sure that the Minister
has all sorts of criticisms based on the unintended consequences that
it could cause. The point of it, however, is to ask him to reconsider
the phrasing of the definition in the clause, because there is no
clarification about that in the explanatory notes. Strictly speaking,
some institutions would not be covered by that, so some people with bad
intentions could gain access to a governing body and not be subject to
some of the barring and vetting procedures to which they would be
subject under other provisions in the Bill. Will the Minister look
again at the definitions or give some reassurance that such
establishments are covered by other definitions in the Bill that are
not made clear in the
clause?
Mr.
Dhanda: The amendments extend the definition of regulated
activity in relation to children to governors of further education
institutions, military training or educational establishments and
residential health institutions.
The Bill
provides already that governors of institutions, primarily for the
full-time education of children and of maintained nursery schools, must
be subject to monitoring and requirements to check. So the bar will
apply because the role of governor places the individual in a position
of trust and gives them the opportunity of contact with children, and a
role in appointing staff with significant contact with
children. Governors of
FE institutions delivering full-time education, mainly or exclusively
to children, will be subject to those requirements. Furthermore, if a
governor of an FE institution teaches or supervises children
frequently, or carries out another activity mentioned in paragraph 2(1)
of schedule 3, he will be engaging in regulated activity and the same
requirements will
apply. Hon. Members
must ask themselves whether they want a catch-all system in which, for
example, the instructor of an adult pottery class will be barred from
running that class because they are on the children’s list. That
would be the consequence of the amendment saying that all FE
institutions should be treated the
same. I am sympathetic
to the argument about the changing role of FE institutions, which is
why they are included as controlled activity providers. Principals in
FE institutions can put those safeguards in place using common sense
and with an awareness of their staff and those in regular contact with
children.
Tim
Loughton: I am still slightly confused by what the
Minister is saying. He has given examples of part-time or voluntary
pottery teachers, but subsection (3) refers only to members of a
governing body of specific establishments, so I am not sure why his
comments are
relevant.
Mr.
Dhanda: I am digressing and responding to the hon. Member
for Mid-Dorset and North Poole who asked specifically about further
education and regulated activity. However, I hope that I explained also
the point about governors during my contribution. I hope that I made
that clear, but I am happy to reiterate the point if I did
not. Amendment No. 1
would capture governors of all FE institutions, including those working
at a working men’s college, for example, who deliver exclusively
adult education, and place a duty on some institutions and governors
when clearly inappropriate. The Bill should be proportionate. I accept
that, as the hon. Lady said, the role of those institutions can change.
If the roles change, activities considered regulated and controlled can
change also. However, we want to get it right for the situation as it
is at the
moment. Anne
Main (St. Albans) (Con): May I seek clarification? I
understood that governors were covered because possibly they have some
control over the appointment of staff. Would that view extend to
trustees of charities that work with vulnerable children, which will
have some control also over the appointment of staff and so have a
similar role to such governors? As the Minister mentioned, very few
governors teach
children, but they do have control over the staffing and running of the
school. Very few indulge in teaching, particularly as many are
appointed by councils, which they represent. In that case, should we
considering a wider pool of the people who have anything to do with
appointments for vulnerable children or
adults?
Mr.
Dhanda: I am trying to stay as close as I can to the
amendments. Some governors do have a role in selecting staff, which is
why it is particularly important that they should be involved. The
wider roles that the hon. Lady mentioned are covered in other parts of
the Bill. I am happy to drop her a note about trustees if she wishes to
follow it up. I move
to amendment No. 114, because it is important. The amendment refers to
military training establishments, which do not have governing bodies,
as they are under the control of a commanding officer. Unlike schools,
they deliver training and education to adults, which includes 16 and
17-year-olds serving in the armed forces. Unlike other organisations in
which individuals work with 16 and 17-year-olds in the course of the
child’s employment, the armed forces will be specifically
allowed by the Bill to check the scheme status of those who supervise
or train under-18s. I hope that that satisfies some of the legitimate
concerns of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole. Amendment No.
137 would make it mandatory for governors of residential health
institutions that provide children’s health care to be subject
to monitoring. Not all health institutions have governors, and the
governors of those that do might have no contact with children or any
role in appointing staff. The Bill already requires governors of
residential health institutions who frequently care for, supervise or
carry out another activity mentioned in schedule 3(2)(1) to be subject
to monitoring. We have carefully considered such settings. I hope that,
taking all that into consideration, hon. Members will not press their
amendments.
Tim
Loughton: Perhaps I might respond on amendment No. 137. I
am not entirely convinced by what the Minister said. He did not respond
to the specific example that I gave. The amendment is designed not to
cover various health institutions that happen to have governors but to
expand the definition of an educational establishment that does not
offer full-time education, as the clause puts it, “exclusively
or mainly”. The
example that I gave might be rare, but there will be such examples. I
do not think that the institution involved could be
classified—one could certainly make a strong case that it should
not be—as
being “exclusively or
mainly for the provision of full-time
education”. There appears
to be a kind of halfway house, which falls between two stools, that
provides education but predominantly provides care, therapy and
therapeutic services to severely mentally and physically disabled young
people. I do not think that the Bill covers the governors of such
institutions, which could be run as small private charities not subject
to the normal attention from the local education authority, for
example. We need to ensure that people cannot effectively hide in just
that sort of institution, obtain a position of responsibility and then
abuse.
Mr.
Dhanda: I assure the hon. Gentleman that where the staff
have the regular contact with children that he describes, they will be
covered under regulated
activity.
Tim
Loughton: I am grateful and not surprised by that
assurance. The Minister is discussing staff, but the clause deals with
governors. However, I just wanted to place that thought in his mind.
The definitions are broad, and certain institutions that deal with the
most vulnerable children will not necessarily be
covered. Both
Ministers seem to want to contribute at this
point. 10.15
am
Mr.
Lewis: This is an important issue in terms of places where
vulnerable adults are being cared for on a full-time basis. There might
be ambiguity about whether they are in education, care or a combination
of the two. The term “governor” is quite important. An
educational institution is likely to be run by a board of governors. If
it were more of a care-type institution, it is more likely that the
equivalent would be charitable trustees or a board of people of that
nature. Therefore the term “governors” is generally
understood in the context of an organisation predominantly providing
education, whereas if it were predominately about care, it would either
be a board of management or a group of
trustees.
Tim
Loughton: I take the Minister’s point but he said
“more likely” and “generally”, not
exclusively. That leaves a raft of institutions that may not be
covered. We need to ensure that all of them are covered. He refers
purely to governors. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans said,
there are organisations run by other classes of people who are not
governors. The reference is only to members of the governing body. Does
that include charitable trustees or directors of, for example, a
charitable company? I
am a director of a charitable company that is considering taking over
the management of an arts education facility, which has been provided
as a section 106 gain to the local authority. I wonder—now I
think about it—whether I would be covered. I am part of the
governing body but I am not a governor. We are not offering mainly, or
exclusively, full-time education to children. However, I will be in a
position, if we take over management of that facility, to engage
members of staff—who may or may not be subject to vetting
procedures—who will be opening up the premises and involved with
children. That is part of our charitable trust remit. On the basis of
what is in this Bill, I am not sure whether I and fellow directors of
this charitable company, who are the governing body effectively, will
be covered. Therefore, many anomalies are still creeping
in—which the Minister is now going to
allay.
| 
