Annette
Brooke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new
clause 3— Other organisations: duty to provide information on
request— ‘(1) This
section applies if IBB is
considering— (a) whether
to include any person in a barred list; or
(b) whether to remove any person from a barred
list. (2) If IBB thinks that an
organisation holds any prescribed information relating to the person
specified in subsection (1), it may require the authority to provide it
with the information. (3) The
organisation must comply with a requirement under subsection
(2).’.
Annette
Brooke: Again, the new clauses are probing. I wish to
touch on other areas that we feel are not fully covered by the Bill.
One gives power to organisations to refer cases to the IBB, and the
other suggests that other organisations should have the duty to provide
information on request. They both tackle the same area, and I seek a
little more detail on the responsibilities and duties of those other
organisations. During
debates in the other place, the Government clarified that under the
Bill it would be possible for other bodies that do not have a duty to
refer cases to the IBB to do so. Examples that have been mentioned in
discussions include doctors, psychologists, some NGOs,
Barnardo’s and the National Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Children; they will obviously encounter cases in which they
believe that an individual’s conduct is of concern, in that they
pose a risk to children or vulnerable adults, and they may want to
refer such cases to the IBB.
It would be helpful if the
Minister were further to clarify the Department’s thinking on
referrals. For example, will the criteria for such referrals be based
on the criteria set out in clause 31 on referrals from local
authorities, as the new clauses suggests? What might happen in terms of
the IBB seeking more information from the referrer? Unlike local
authorities, under clause 32, those other organisations have no
requirement to provide prescribed information; the starting point might
be for those bodies to provide information, but what happens if the IBB
wants more information? That is how the new clauses are
linked. Finally,
would organisations that refer conduct cases to the IBB outside the
statutory scheme be able to avail themselves of the protections against
damages set out in clause 42? Do the Government agree that bona fide
referrals should be protected, as are those from local authorities? I
should like clarification on that, because it could make referral
either less likely or more likely. I await the Minister’s
response. I have gone
through my questions rather quickly, and shall be happy to intervene on
the Minister if he asks me to. I hope that he sees that the new clauses
are two sides of the same coin, dealing first with an offer and then
with a need on the part of the IBB to seek more information. We can
imagine how that would happen; as MPs in our surgeries, we sometimes
get a little information but need to know more about a situation before
we can proceed. I
hope that I have put that into context and that the Minister will
address the questions. I hasten to say that these are probing
new clauses. The issue of organisations offering up information will be
really important; it represents new territory beyond the
confidentiality that we have had so much of in the
past.
Mr.
Dhanda: We are discussing two probing new clauses; that is
unusual, as we usually talk of probing amendments. However, I welcome
them.
The Bill does not prevent an
organisation or individual from referring information to the IBB when
it or he is not under a duty to do so. The Bill also provides that the
IBB must consider any information that it receives from whatever source
and of whatever nature. New clause 2 would create a power for any
organisation to refer information to the IBB.
We agree that the IBB should
not be limited to considering information only from organisations under
a duty to provide it, and I reassure the hon. Lady that the Bill
imposes no such limitation. For organisations not covered by the duties
in the Bill, we plan to issue guidance setting out when we would expect
an organisation to make a referral to the IBB. The guidance will advise
individuals who wish to make such referrals to refer the information to
the police or another appropriate authority, such as a local authority
or social services, so that it can be properly investigated and any
action needed to protect children or vulnerable adults can be set in
train quickly. New
clause 3 would enable the IBB to require information from any
organisation when it is considering whether to include or keep a person
on a barred list. We have already ensured that the key organisations
likely to have such information are under a duty to provide information
to the IBB. That duty is imposed on employers that are regulated
activity providers, including former employers, local authorities, the
police, keepers of registers such as the General Medical Council and
supervisory authorities such as Ofsted.
The IBB will also be able to
ask any other organisation for information relevant to a barring
decision. It seems unlikely that an organisation would not comply with
such a request, given that the protection of children and vulnerable
adults would be at stake. If such an organisation were reluctant to
provide information and if the details that the IBB already had
suggested that the child or vulnerable adult might be at risk, the IBB
would be able to refer the case to the police and/or other local
services for further investigation. That is pretty important.
Our approach strikes the
correct balance between ensuring that the IBB has access to
information, so that it can make decisions, and avoiding duplicating
the investigative and intervention roles of other organisations,
including the police and social services. Given those assurances, I
hope that the hon. Lady will not insist on her probing new
clauses.
Annette
Brooke: I shall not, although I have one question
outstanding. As the Minister is in such writing mode, needing plenty of
work over the summer recess, I hope that he will answer in due course
my other question about the protections against damages, as set out in
clause 42. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
4Definition
of “occasional
basis” ‘(1) For the
purposes of subsections 8(9), 10(4) and 11(5), an employer must produce
a statement defining “occasional basis”
for which monitoring is not necessary in relation to that particular
establishment. (2) Any
statement produced under this section shall take account of guidance
issued by the Secretary of State.’.—[Mrs.
Miller.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mrs.
Miller: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. I am pleased
that we have reached new clause 4; we have had many discussions during
the past few days, and it has looked doubtful whether we would get this
far. We grappled with
the important issue that the new clause addresses on the first day of
our proceedings; I hope that it gives us an opportunity to flesh out
further the arguments and discussions about it. The definitions of
“frequently” and “occasionally” have been a
vexed question throughout discussions of this Bill in both Houses.
Originally, the new clause was to have been reviewed and discussed
alongside our original amendment to remove the idea of
“frequently” from the Bill and allow professional people
within the settings covered to establish a definition of
“occasional” relevant to their
setting. One of Lord
Adonis’s notes attempted to clarify the meaning of
“frequently”, and in doing so define what was meant by
“occasionally”. At that point, it was said that if an
activity was undertaken for longer than five days continuously, or more
than six times a year, it would be deemed to take place frequently and
be subject to
monitoring. That
strikes us as a rather arbitrary figure in respect of what constitutes
“frequently” as opposed to “occasionally”.
Can the Minister say anything that would suggest that there is more
robustness behind the thinking? If so, he should share it with us, as
we have been unable to find that in correspondence on this
subject. At another
juncture, Lord Adonis stated that it would perhaps be up to the barred
individual to determine whether contact was occasional or frequent. We
Conservatives feel that that argument is unacceptable. I should be
interested in hearing the Minister’s view. Can the Government be
reasonably expecting those who are subject to the rules in the Bill to
determine whether they are undertaking activities on an occasional or
frequent
basis?
Anne
Main: I remember that during discussion of this matter in
the House, one of the issues raised was the annual Eisteddfod in
Llangollen, which takes place for five days every year. Perhaps
predictable regularity could be incorporated. If it is known that
something will come up regularly but not fall within the time scale,
that could also be regarded as falling within the remit of the
Bill. 3.45
pm
Mrs.
Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
Perhaps our new clause would cover what she is talking about. It would
oblige an employer to define “occasional basis”, so an
Eisteddfod could be dealt with as the people on the ground saw fit,
rather than there being a one-size-fits-all approach.
I should like to touch on a
couple of comments made by Ministers today that suggest that they might
be more in favour of the new clause than I initially thought. Perhaps
the Health Minister will support it. He said earlier that we should
allow the judgment of front-line professionals to come into play, and
front-line professionals are exactly what the new clause is about. If
he cannot recall, I should say that it was when we were talking about
exemptions. My new clause is intended to let the people who know best
about what is happening on the ground have discretion to define what is
meant by “occasional”, rather than leaving it to the
Minister in his office in Westminster, which I am sure is wonderful, to
do it.
The proposal would, along with
removing “frequently”, which received cross-party support
on the Opposition Benches, allow employers to use their discretion to
determine how to define “occasional”. If the Minister
feels that that way forward is inappropriate—although I am ever
optimistic on these issues and he may see the merit in the argument
that we are advancing—perhaps I could urge him to think a little
further. I have asked the people who have to implement such rules and
regulations about how they regard Lord Adonis’s description of
what counts as occasional and frequent, and the Government may be a
little bit more out of step with the people who will apply those
procedures than they think they
are. Hampshire county
council, which, as the Minister knows, is designated by the Government
as an excellent education authority and an excellent
council—
Tim
Loughton:
Conservative-run.
Mrs.
Miller: Indeed. It has taken this issue seriously in its
safer recruitment toolkit, which is available online for all employers
and employees in Hampshire. That toolkit talks specifically about what
constitutes occasional
work: “Occasionally,
volunteers may be engaged to assist with a single event only, where
they will be working under the supervision of a qualified member of
staff, or may be undertaking a role that will allow them no
unsupervised access to children. In such instances, headteachers should
use their professional
judgement— echoing the
Minister’s
words— “to
determine if disclosure is
necessary. Hampshire
education authority felt that Lord Adonis’s proposal on the
definition of “occasional” was not in line with what it
would like to see in respect of schools in the county. This is a most
important aspect of the Bill that deserves to be focused on a little
more by the Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell
me how he will deal with the differing views of what constitutes
“occasional” or “frequently” and whether he
will allow employers such as Hampshire education authority, which has a
great deal of experience in this area, the flexibility that they will
need to deal with the circumstances on the
ground.
Mr.
Dhanda: For the first time in many hours of debate we are
moving towards a new Tory party policy being fleshed out. I am looking
forward to having a good look at Hansard. I am rubbing my hands
with glee, because I cannot wait to get my hands on the
document from Hampshire to see exactly what it means. Having got our
teeth into that, we shall assume that that is how the Tory Front Bench
want to define “occasional” and
“frequently”. We will see about that in
time. The
new clause takes us into consideration of a key term in the Bill:
“on an occasional basis”. We did more than touch on that
issue on Tuesday. The exemptions from the obligation on the employee to
be subject to monitoring and on the employer to check whether a person
is subject to it apply when a person is engaged in specified
activities, such as caring for children or vulnerable adults in a key
setting such as a school or care
home, “only on an
occasional
basis.” Let me
be clear that the term, “on an occasional basis”, is
intended to take its normal meaning. We do not think that it is
desirable to restrict the circumstances in which an employer, for
example, would not be under a duty to check an individual’s
status. In reality, an interpretation of the term
“occasional” will, to some extent, depend on the
circumstances of the employment. Our guidance will support employers
and employees in taking those decisions. However, having said that, I
am looking forward to reading Hansard closely to see what the
hon. Member for Basingstoke said and returning to that on Third
Reading.
| 
