Mr.
Lewis: The debate has demonstrated that, to some extent,
these issues will always be a matter for judgment and timing. They need
to be looked at sector by sector, organisation by organisation, groups
of paid and unpaid staff by groups of staff. It is not a
one-size-fits-all approach.
It would be nice to believe
that we could make this neat and tidy. Having considered this Bill,
along with other colleagues, I think that it is incredibly hard to make
it neat and tidy. An element of judgment has to be made that is linked
to proportionality, particular sectors and activities.
We also need to take account of
existing checks that are made in certain sectors in which there are
well established processes and procedures. In other sectors, we are
starting from a very low base, if any base at all. It is right to say
that it is not a one-size-fits-all Bill. Judgments are having to be
made all the time about the nature of the protection that is being
offered and the responsibilities that are placed both on employers and
individuals.
1.30
pm I turn to the
Opposition’s amendments. Amendment No.138 would remove the
reference to “the
control or management of”
housing. That appears to remove the
exemption in relation to those organisations that manage housing
services but that are not the provider of such services. In many cases,
the provider or the owner of housing stock subcontracts out the
management of that housing stock to another organisation. Many
registered social landlords let and manage property of which they are
not the legal owner.
Therefore, we
believe—this may be an unintended consequence of the wording and
not necessarily related to the principle that the Conservative party is
trying to support—that the amendment would make checks mandatory
for those individuals working with organisations with day-to-day
responsibility for the management of housing services, where those
services are contracted out. However, as drafted, the amendment would
also have the effect of retaining optional checks for individuals
working in local authority housing services, for example, which manage
their own housing stock. That would create an inconsistency that we
want to avoid. At this
stage, we wish the exemption to apply across the sector. It is crucial
that the scheme offers flexibility and allows those services in which
the concept of central vetting will be new the time to phase in checks
as appropriate to their individual services. That is the case for all
providers of housing services. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that
this Bill has established that it is legitimate to reflect on the need
for a phasing-in period in some sectors—hence the sunset clause.
Having considered the matter carefully, we believe that housing is one
example of that. We
agree with the hon. Gentleman that a warden in sheltered accommodation
is one example of the type of worker who might have access to
vulnerable people on an ongoing basis. However, having looked at the
sector as a whole, the judgment that we have made is that it is more
desirable and realistic to phase this in over time. That is the
difference between us. There is no difference
of principle. It is that the hon. Gentleman seeks through the
amendment—even though there is the unintended consequence that I
have referred to—to make this happen from day one. We believe
that a phasing-in period is
needed. Tim
Loughton: I am not so concerned about a phasing-in period
and the timing. Despite what the Minister read out, I still do not know
which part of the Bill covers a housing warden of a sheltered
accommodation block. This part of clause 14 appears to exempt them, now
or at some stage in the
future.
Mr.
Lewis: Clause 14(1)(d) to (g) covers organisations
providing the management of housing and housing-related support
services, where the sunset clause would apply. Unless I have missed
something, the phasing in would apply to someone working as a warden in
social housing. The only difference between us is at what stage in the
process such a worker should be covered by the
rules.
Tim
Loughton: The Minister is rather uncertain and I am even
more uncertain now. I want to know where in the Bill it states that the
warden of sheltered housing accommodation is subject to vetting and
barring procedures, because I cannot find it. Will it be in
regulations, and if so,
when?
Mr.
Lewis: I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 14(1)(d) to
(g). Included in that list are recreational, social, sporting or
educational activities or courses, and the management of housing and
housing-related support services. Unless I am missing something, the
warden of a sheltered scheme would, in due course, fall under the
jurisdiction of the Bill in that
context.
Tim
Loughton: Is it not the case that the list can be changed
at any time, so the exemptions on the list may, or may not, actually
come into effect, in however many years’ time? Strictly
speaking, that is the case, is it
not?
Mr.
Lewis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is
absolutely no intention to change the list. The difference between us
is that the hon. Gentleman is implying, despite the unintended
consequence to which I referred, that he would like the measure to be
applied from day one. We are saying that, in the context of the housing
sector generally, it needs to be phased in over time, which is why the
sunset clause applies. He should accept that, as that is what the
measure to which I referred states. He suggested that I or any other
Minister may have an agenda to remove that item from that list but that
is untrue. Elsewhere we have the power to revisit these issues under an
affirmative resolution and Parliament could have another look at them,
but sheltered housing and the role of wardens are specifically covered.
Clause 14(1)(f) states, in brackets, “including sheltered
housing”. I
genuinely do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns on
this occasion. He normally makes salient points, although they are
sometimes at variance with the Government’s position. I do not
understand the point he is making, so I will move on. If he wishes to
come back, or to press the amendment to a Division, he will have the
opportunity to do so.
Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 would
remove from clause 14 paragraphs (b) and (c) which relate to the Prison
Service and the national probation service, which remain exempted from
the Bill. Those services provide a wide range of services to adult
offenders and require the flexibility to specify and undertake the
vetting requirements that are relevant and proportionate to their
unique businesses. I reassure hon. Members, especially the hon. Members
for Basingstoke and for East Worthing and Shoreham, who tabled
amendments Nos. 59 and 60 calling for the removal of the services in
question from the clause, that from the outset all prison and probation
officers, and workers who currently receive a Criminal Records Bureau
check and will be working with young offenders in any capacity, will be
covered by a CRB check. That covers the point that the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) reasonably made. Anybody in
those categories will be
checked. The
exception, on which we need to focus, will provide discretion for
employers to check other categories of workers, such as volunteers and
certain psychological staff, based on a risk assessment. I shall give a
specific example. Volunteers involved in counselling such as
bereavement counselling may be checked, but others such as those who
give regular legal advice to a group of prisoners with prison officers
always present might not require checks. That is a good, tangible
example and I hope that it reassures the hon. Lady on why we feel there
needs to be discretion based on a risk
assessment.
Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister, because he is addressing my
concerns. I appreciate that and understand the matter better. Will
there be published regulations? How will the details and precision that
he is giving us be conveyed to the relevant
bodies?
Mr.
Lewis: We have received reassurances from the Prison
Service and the probation service on what will happen as a consequence
of the passing of the Bill. I am sure that we can provide the hon. Lady
with written assurances that will make her feel that she has something
beyond my verbal assurances in Committee. I am willing to provide
that.
Mrs.
Miller: I am not entirely sure whether what the Minister
has outlined will make the situation in the settings in question any
different from that in other settings. Presumably a legal adviser
coming into a prison under the supervision of a prison professional
would fall into the Government’s “occasional”
category. I am not sure whether he is giving us a strong argument for
making an exception in the case of incredibly vulnerable
groups.
Mr.
Lewis: The hon. Lady may not be entirely sure, but
following serious discussions with the probation service and the Prison
Service, and having weighed up their description of the range of
probation support activities that take place in prison, we have made a
judgment. We have been given tangible examples of situations in which
we should enable those in the system to make a risk assessment and
judgment.
Mrs.
Miller: Why not apply it in other
circumstances?
Mr.
Lewis: That is a matter of judgment. That is what
Government and Opposition spokespersons do all the time—they
make judgments on difficult matters. One of the arguments that we
always hear from the Opposition parties is that we need to allow people
working on the front line of public services, at the sharp end, to make
more judgments and use more discretion, with fewer centrally imposed
diktats and instructions. Now we have had serious discussions with the
Prison Service and the probation service, and they have provided us
with examples of why we should adopt an approach that allows risk
assessments. They have persuaded us, and we ought to accept that their
assessment of the situation is
correct. I hope that I
have reassured hon. Members as to why we have reached our judgments on
the different circumstances in question. On the question of housing, it
is a matter of phasing in over a period of time. There is no difference
of substance between us.
On the question of probation
service and Prison Service workers, some of the concerns expressed by
the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole have been allayed as a
consequence of my contribution.
Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister for his response, because it
has been helpful. I asked one further question, which was about the
meaning of paragraph (e). Before we leave the issue, I should like to
hear about any further discussions that might have taken place behind
the scenes.
Mr.
Lewis: I shall do my best to describe paragraph (e) for
the hon. Lady. “Prescribed description” means that the
Secretary of State will prescribe the types of course in regulation.
The regulations might prescribe particular skills courses, for example.
That is what it means, if that is any clearer for her. I am more than
happy to write to her with an even clearer and more vivid explanation
than the one that I have just given—if that is at all possible.
However, on that basis, I ask the Opposition to consider not pressing
their
amendments. 1.45
pm
Tim
Loughton: It has been an interesting debate, made no
easier by the Minister’s uncertainty about the territory on
which he was treading at one stage. It confused various hon. Members,
not least myself. The
Government’s sunset clauses are welcome, and unusual. The
Opposition usually propose sunset regulation, so those clauses are
welcome, but we have doubts about the Government’s ability to
stick to the suggested timetable, given the arbitrary, hotchpotch
nature of the areas covered, which we believe should not have been
included, nor should they have been subject to exceptions or to
deferment of the incoming criteria.
I take the Minister’s
point about sheltered housing wardens, because they play an important
role. He has made it clear in our discussions that they will be
included in the criteria, albeit at a later date. We hope that the
timetable will be adhered to and that the terminology will not change
during that time.
I am less convinced by the
Minister’s refusal to consider amendments Nos. 59 and 60
concerning the Prison Service and the probation service. Opposition
Members have not been swayed by the reasons why those services should
be treated differently, given the nature of the vulnerable people with
whom they deal. To try to reassure us, the Minister cited various
discussions and agreements with the work force in those services, but
we do not know the nature of those discussions, the undertakings given
or whether those professionals feel able to deliver. We are taking a
lot on trust. It
would not be beneficial to ask the Committee to vote on our amendment,
but the Government’s provision must be fleshed out on Report.
The hallmarks of this Bill have been the lack of definition and the
confusion among Ministers about who is included, how and when, to the
extent that they have promised us a record number of letters. I do not
mean to take anything away from them, as the Bill is highly technical
and legalistic, and it covers largely uncharted territory, but that
makes it all the more important that in Committee we receive real-life,
specific examples of how it is—or is not—likely to work
in practice. Those
who seek to abuse, particularly paedophiles and suchlike, are
exceedingly devious and will find ways of getting round the law and of
ingratiating themselves with trusting and vulnerable people. We have
heard many examples, and it is essential that the legislation is
crystal clear to those who are responsible for enforcing it and for
monitoring people who are in positions of trust with vulnerable groups
of adults and
children. Clearly, we
are in the hands of the Government on their amendments, but we shall
not press our amendments at this stage.
Amendment agreed
to. Amendments
made: No. 155, in clause 14, page 9, line 42, at end
insert— ‘(3A) Paragraphs
(d), (e), (f) and (g) of subsection (1) cease to have effect on the
relevant day. (3B) The relevant
day is— (a) the last day
of the period of three years starting on the day any provision of this
section is brought into force,
or (b) such later day as the
Secretary of State specifies by
order. (3C) A date specified
under subsection (3B)(b) must be not more than three years
after— (a) the relevant
day as mentioned in subsection (3B)(a),
or (b) the last day specified
in respect of the paragraph concerned under subsection
(3B)(b).’. No.
156, in
clause14,page9,line43,leave
out from ‘amend’ to end of line 45 and insert
‘or omit any paragraph of subsection
(1)’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.] Clause
14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
