Mr.
Dhanda: When I write to the hon. Member for St.
Albans—I will copy in the hon. Member for East Worthing and
Shoreham—I will clarify where it is in the Bill. What I can
confirm is that if he is a trustee of a charity and that charity is
involved in regulated activity, he too will be
covered.
Tim
Loughton: Strictly speaking, I am a director of a
charitable company limited by guarantee. I am not strictly speaking a
trustee. Am I covered on that basis? I am directly covered as a
director of a charitable company. The Minister is indicating that he
believes so. It has gone from yes to believe so.
The point is that there are
many question marks being thrown up. That is not helped by the fact
that there is no mention of any of this in the explanatory notes, which
are particularly brief in this area. I will not press my amendment to a
Division: in any case, it is not the lead amendment. I will defer to
the Liberal Democrats on that.
However, we need some extra
clarification. It might come in one of the many letters that the
Minister has been promising to myself and other Committee members all
week—he is going to have a very full list and we are going to
have full postbags. Some more thought needs to be given to that and
some clarification, if not some amendments, needs to be introduced on
Report. Does he wish to intervene before I sit down? Otherwise I will
say my piece and hand over to the Liberal
Democrats.
Annette
Brooke: On further education, I can envisage a situation
in which one might, for example, reach40 per cent. as the
total proportion of students at an FE college who are under 18, or
under 16, or who have special needs or who are adults with learning
disabilities. It would easy to reach that 40 per cent. mark. We might
say that there should be a majority, but a significant minority would
be just as important. Nevertheless, I shall not press the amendment at
this stage, although I am not happy about the trigger—the
threshold—when one slips from one definition to
another. Amendment No.
114 was always intended to be a probing amendment. It was difficult to
find a suitable opportunity to address the point, but I felt that it
should be pressed, as we had not received any answers on Second
Reading. I make no apology for pressing it, because there was no
response to what I thought was an excellent speech on an issue of
national significance that should be considered at all possible levels.
There will be more and more trust situations—the
responsibilities of the trustees of new trust schools may need to be
clarified, for instance. So I concur with the hon. Member for East
Worthing and Shoreham that notes are required, and I look forward to
receiving a copy of the Minister’s letter on the issues. With
that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn. Amendment
made: No. 146, in clause 8, page 4, line 38, at end
insert— ‘( ) A person does
not commit an offence under subsection (1) or (2) if he has not
attained the age of 16.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.] Clause
8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause 9
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
10Use
of person not subject to monitoring for regulated
activity Amendment
made: No. 147, in clause 10, page 6, line 19, at end
insert—
‘( ) A person does not commit an offence
under subsection (1) or (2) if B has not attained the age of
16.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.] Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Sarah
Teather: I continue to have some concerns about the
breadth of clause 10. The sentiments underlying the clause are similar
to those underlying clause 9, except that clause 9 relates to people
who are barred rather than those subject to monitoring. As drafted, the
clause would criminalise mistakes, which I do not believe is the
Government’s intention. I suspect that, particularly as the
legislation beds down, mistakes will be likely, because there are a
number of points of potential confusion. For example, there is the
question of whether therapy is a regulated activity. Therapy provided
to a child is a regulated activity. However, under clause 14(1)(a),
complementary and alternative therapy are listed as areas of exemption
from the need to make monitoring checks for vulnerable adults.
Meanwhile, therapy is listed as a controlled activity in relation to
both children and adults, requiring guidance from the Secretary of
State before engagement in it. Clauses 18 to 20 deal with
that.
The situation is confused. As I
said on a similar matter earlier, the definitions are not clear and I
suspect when the legislation first comes into force there will be a
high potential for mistakes. Serious misconduct can lead to
disciplinary action or dismissal, but there is a question mark over
whether it is appropriate to deal with it in legislation. I wonder
whether the Government might consider an amendment on Report to narrow
the definition so that there would have to be knowledge of monitoring.
That would catch fewer
people.
Mr.
Dhanda: With your permission, Mr. Conway, I
shall leave the discussion on clause 14 until we reach clause 14. As to
use of people who are not subject to monitoring, many of the arguments
were made in discussing an earlier clause. The Government wish to err
on the side of caution and our arguments remain the same.
Clause 10, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the
Bill. It being
twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put,
pursuant to the Standing
Order. Adjourned
till this day at One
o’clock.
| 
