Mr.
Dhanda: Before talking about the amendments, I should
first like to comment on online checks. A key feature of the new scheme
is the facility for online checks, which will allow an
individual’s up-to-date status to be checked quickly by
prospective employers. The checks will be available to a wider range of
employers than is the case at present, and will include private
employers such as parents for the first time.
We have been consistent in
underlining, as Sir Michael Bichard did, that the ultimate
responsibility for deciding whether to employ an individual, must be
the employer’s. It is our responsibility to ensure that there is
reliable, clear information to help to support that decision, but the
information provided by the vetting and barring scheme will be only one
element in the overall judgment. That does not remove or replace the
responsibility of the
employer. As the
Minister for Children and Families said on Second Reading, in our work
on the design of the
vetting and barring scheme, we explored some of the details involving
the security and implementation of the online check facility, which led
us to amend its design. First and foremost, we must ensure that
employers and parents can access the information they need to inform
recruitment decisions quickly, easily and reliably. Showing explicitly via the
online check that a person is barred would require elaborate security
procedures. Given the sensitivity of the information, that would
seriously obstruct the speed and ease of access of the
facility.
Mrs.
Miller: Is one reason why there has been a delay that
individuals can hack into the system, not just to look at information
on other people but actually to change it so that it shows, for
example, that a person is barred, rather than unbarred? Has the
Minister encountered that problem, which has occurred in the United
States?
Mr.
Dhanda: No. I have worked with officials on the scheme but
that has not been a principal issue. It is a matter of getting the
right structure and process in place to give the right information. I
will come to that in a moment, when the hon. Lady may wish to respond
to what I say with further comments and questions.
We will table amendments on
Report that will change the online check to show whether an individual
is subject to monitoring, which is confirmation that he is being vetted
by the scheme and is not barred. That fundamental reassurance will
enable the employer to proceed to the other checks that are necessary
on recruitment, such as taking up references and verifying
qualifications. We will table similar amendments to clause 26 so that
employers are notified that monitoring has ceased, rather than that the
individual has been barred.
When an individual is shown as
not subject to monitoring, it may mean that he has not yet applied to
the scheme, that he has withdrawn from it or that he is barred. For
regulated activity providers recruiting to a regulated activity, the
effect is the same: they can employ only people who are subject to
monitoring, as the Bill lays down. We shall ensure that the online
check facility provides clear messages for employers and parents about
the implications of an employee being subject, or not subject, to
monitoring and the further steps they need to take in recruiting. We
shall develop and test those messages as we prepare for
implementation. The
revised approach to the information conveyed by the online check will
ensure that it directly supports employers’ needs and helps them
to find appropriate staff, and that notification will be quick. We are
committed to delivering the improvements that online checks offer and
to implementing them in the most effective way. No one will forgive us
if we do not develop the best possible system to protect children and
vulnerable
adults. Over time, we
would like as many people as possible to be monitored in the vetting
and barring scheme. We intend that the scheme will encourage employees
in the relevant work forces to be monitored and employers to use good
employment practice and recruit only those
who have been vetted and who are monitored. The monitoring will ensure
that information about employees is continuously updated and that
employers are notified of changes in status. That approach to the
online check will help to secure the benefits of monitoring while
ensuring that employers have fast and easy access to information about
employees’
status. Mrs.
Miller: I did not get an answer from the Minister’s
comments to a very simple question. Who will be responsible for the
accuracy of the online scheme and who will be responsible for any
errors that are
made?
Mr.
Dhanda: The CRB will be responsible for the administration
of the system, but the IBB will be responsible for the two barred
lists. In speaking to
amendment No. 187, I said what I wished to say about online checks,
although I appreciate that hon. Members may wish to return to the
subject. Amendments Nos. 188 to 193 and Nos. 165 to 170 are all minor
and technical amendments to the Bill. I circulated a note to hon.
Members before the Committee stage in which I explained the
Government’s intention behind all the amendments that we tabled,
including those ones. I welcome any questions or otherwise on the
online lists, and ask hon. Members to accept the
amendments. Amendment
agreed to.
Amendments made: No.
188, in schedule 4, page 49, line 37, at end
insert— ‘Person
who is considering whether to permit B to engage frequently in an
activity in respect of which financial resources are provided pursuant
to section 5(1) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, if engaging in the
activity gives B the opportunity to have contact with
children | Relevant
information relating to
children’. |
No.
189, in
schedule 4, page 50, line 10, leave
out ‘the first and second entries’ and insert
‘entries 1, 2, 5 and
6’. No. 190, in
schedule 4, page 50, line 11, after
‘if’ insert
‘— ( )
’. No.
191, in
schedule 4, page 50, line 12, at
end insert ‘or ( ) it were not
merely incidental to another
activity.’. No.
192, in
schedule 4, page 50, line 12, at
end insert— ‘( ) In entries
3, 4, 7 and 8 in the table the reference to controlled activity
includes a reference to an activity which would be a controlled
activity if it were carried out
frequently.’. No.
193, in
schedule 4, page 50, line 35, at
end insert— ‘ Regulations
may make provision requiring a local authority which makes or proposes
to make payments to or on behalf of a person in accordance with
regulations under section 17A of the Children Act 1989 or section 57 of
the Health and Social Care Act 2001 to inform the person of his right
to obtain relevant information in pursuance of this
Schedule.’.—[Mr. Dhanda.]
Schedule 4, as amended,
agreed to.
Clause 26 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
27Regulated
activity providers: duty to
refer Amendment
made: No. 165, in clause 27, page 17, line 44, at end
insert— ‘( ) For the
purposes of subsection (3)(b), conduct is inappropriate if it appears
to the person to whom subsection (2) applies to be inappropriate having
regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under paragraph
4(4) or 9(4) of Schedule 2.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.] Clause
27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
28Personnel
suppliers: duty to
refer Amendment
made: No. 166, in clause 28, page 18, line 40, at end
insert— ‘(
) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), conduct is inappropriate if it
appears to the personnel supplier to be inappropriate having regard to
the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under paragraph 4(4) or
9(4) of Schedule 2.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.] Clause
28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 and 30 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
Clause
31Local
authorities: duty to
refer Amendment
made: No. 167, in clause 31, page 20, line 30, at end
insert— ‘(
) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) or (6)(a), conduct is
inappropriate if it appears to the local authority to be inappropriate
having regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under
paragraph 4(4) or 9(4) of Schedule 2.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.] Clause
31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
33Registers:
duty to
refer Amendment
made: No. 168, in clause 33, page 21, line 31, at end
insert— ‘( ) For the
purposes of subsection (2)(b) or (6)(a), conduct is inappropriate if it
appears to the keeper to be inappropriate having regard to the guidance
issued by the Secretary of State under paragraph 4(4) or 9(4) of
Schedule 2.’.—[Mr.
Dhanda.] Clause
33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
35Registers:
notice of barring and cessation of
monitoring
Mrs.
Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 194, in
clause 35, page 23, line 35, leave
out subsection (7) and
insert— ‘(7) A person is
subject to a relevant disqualification
if— (a) he is included
in a list maintained under the law of Scotland, Northern Ireland, or
any other country or territory which the Secretary of State specifies
by order, approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, as
corresponding to a barred list;
or (b) he has been charged or
convicted of a criminal offence in a country other than the United
Kingdom which, if committed in the United Kingdom, would have led to
him being barred or considered for
barring.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 195, in clause 35, page 23, line 37, at end
insert— ‘(7A) A person is
subject to a relevant disqualification if he is included in a list
maintained under the law of a country or territory outside the United
Kingdom which the Secretary of State specifies by order, approved by a
resolution of both Houses of Parliament, as corresponding to a barred
list.’.
Mrs.
Miller: The two amendments deal with the same problem. I
suppose that we are trying to give ourselves an option, with two
different ways to solve it. It is not only we who have identified the
problem; those who debated the issue in the other place and a great
many of those involved in the Government’s extensive
consultations have highlighted their concerns about overseas workers.
Again, it is somewhat disappointing that, despite all the consultation,
nothing in the Bill helps employers further.
The amendments are probing.
They address the problem of overseas workers. It was identified as
important not only in the post-Bichard consultation but by a great many
other groups that were consulted by the Government. I said in February,
on Second Reading, that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr.
Willetts) had written to the then Secretary of State for Education and
Skills asking for assurances in respect of overseas workers in schools.
The Minister said on Second Reading that he would follow the matter up,
because we had not received a reply to that letter. Unfortunately, we
still await a reply. Perhaps the Minister is still undecided. If so, I
hope that he accepts the amendments as constructive solutions to a
problem that has yet to be resolved. I shall therefore consider them in
more detail. I remind
the Minister of the statistics. There is a growing number of overseas
workers in all the sectors under the Bill that deal with vulnerable
adults and children. Almost one in five nurses and one in three medical
practitioners come from overseas. About18 per cent. of social
workers and 15 per cent. of carer assistants come from overseas. They
work with some of the most vulnerable people in quasi-domestic
settings. As we all
know, overseas workers make a vital contribution in schools, hospitals,
care homes and many of the other settings covered by the Bill. It is
important that we find a way to deal with them as a set
of workers within our communities. The Bill must offer a robust system
to ensure that those workers who come from overseas can, whenever
possible, enjoy the same affirmation for their role in the workplace as
those from the UK. We need to work a little harder on that
problem. I have read
the many notes that Lord Adonis sent with the Bill to clarify those
areas that are a little opaque. One note contained details of the
Government’s work in setting up agreements with certain
countries. It is interesting to note that the countries that the
Government are making a priority are Australia and Canada. We welcome
that important move, but I am concerned that it does not adequately
address the problem. The official statistics show that the majority of
overseas workers who deal with children and vulnerable adults come from
Africa, Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Perhaps the Minister will
take the opportunity afforded by this debate to outline what the
Government are doing in relation to those other parts of the world,
which cover the majority of people from overseas working
here. Amendments Nos.
194 and 195 would broaden the scope of clause 35(7). Instead of
allowing the Secretary of State merely to draw up regulations on
arrangements with Northern Ireland and Scotland, he would be able to
draw up regulations that included all countries and territories, which
would obviously cover all overseas workers.
3
pm Amendment No.
194 would have the added advantage of allowing us, should the country
in question not maintain a relevant list in the way in which we do, to
look at the relevant criminal charge or conviction and assess whether
it would lead to barring in this country. We could then take
appropriate action. I
have outlined the statistics. This is not a peripheral matter that can
be put to one side. It has been suggested that we could deal with this
group of people as though they had never put themselves forward for
monitoring before and were fresh on our database. The number of
overseas workers in this country is growing. They are important, and we
need to ensure that the Bill shows them the level of respect that they
deserve regarding their roles within our community. The amendments give
the Minister the opportunity to respond to several questions on the
issue. This is not a
unique problem. In many other areas, individuals from overseas are
dealt with adequately. In the realms of the legal profession, there are
recognised ways of acknowledging overseas lawyers. Perhaps, in reaching
his decision the Minister could consider such examples outside of our
proceedings. I hope that we can find a better way of dealing with this
important group of
people.
| 
