§
Amendment made: No. 27, in page 9, line 43, after '(2)' insert
',or the condition mentioned in subsection (2A),'.—[Ms Shipley.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ 2.4 pm
§ Ms ShipleyI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Hon. Members will recall that, when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill in February, I expressed my great pleasure at having had the opportunity to introduce a Bill whose object was further to strengthen our national arrangements for protecting some of the most vulnerable members of our society. At that time, I expressed confidence that hon. Members on both sides of the House shared a real determination to ensure that adequate and workable protection would be put in place.
In Committee, we had the opportunity to consider the Bill and its purpose carefully. I believe that the Bill returned to the Floor of the House stronger as a result of the constructive contributions of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I pay tribute to them for their sensitive, detailed, positive examination of it.
As has been noted, the Bill is not perfect. Sadly, we cannot guarantee that no child will ever again suffer abuse, but the Bill will nevertheless substantially enhance the protection available to prevent unsuitable people from working with children. I have been deeply touched by a wealth of letters of support. I know that other hon. Members have received many letters from people who have been directly or indirectly scarred by abuse that they or their siblings suffered in childhood outside the home.
664 Some incidents go back decades. I hope that those who wrote can draw some comfort from what the Bill puts in place to protect children and the wider context in which it will operate.
While improved in some details, the amended Bill returns to the House unchanged in its overall intent. By putting the existing Department of Health consultancy index on a statutory basis, it continues to offer a vital first step to providing a one-stop shop to compel, or allow, employers to access a single point for checking the names of people whom they propose to employ in a post involving care of children. With the related changes to the Department for Education and Employment List 99 and the Criminal Records Bureau, which was established under part V of the Police Act 1997, the effect will be greatly to increase and facilitate the efficiency of the checking process, as envisaged in the proposals stemming from the Whitehall working group that is examining the whole question of protecting the vulnerable.
I shall briefly identify where significant changes have been made to the Bill. Their general thrust has been to recognise concern in Committee that, while the essential aim of strengthening the protection of children from abuse and the risk of abuse should at all times be maintained, it needed to be balanced by addressing the reasonable rights of individuals facing a possible lifetime ban on working in child care positions.
I was persuaded in Committee that it would not be right to include incompetence in the grounds in clause 2 for referring a case to the Secretary of State for consideration for listing. The grounds should rely solely on misconduct that harms a child or places a child at risk of harm. That change has been made because concerns were raised that incompetence, as opposed to misconduct, would cast the net so wide that it would catch those who might have acted out of mere inexperience or immaturity. Incidents involving gross incompetence will still be included in the remaining category of misconduct. However, it seemed on reflection inappropriate to make individuals eligible for listing as a result of a single, possibly isolated, incident. Leaving a gate open and allowing a child to run out on to the street was an example cited in Committee. That could lead to people being banned from employment for which, with suitable guidance and training, they might prove well suited.
Clause 2 has been amended on Report so that the capacity to refer names extends to circumstances where it becomes apparent to child care or other organisations after the dismissal, resignation, retirement or transfer of an individual that, had the relevant information been available, they would have dismissed or considered dismissing that person on the ground of misconduct that harmed a child or put a child at risk of harm.
Clause 4 has been amended to improve the position of individuals whose names have been referred to the Secretary of State and listed by him provisionally. In its original form, there was no opportunity for such cases to approach the tribunal set up by the clause because no useful rights of appeal could be given in circumstances where there was no final decision on listing, and therefore no ground for appeal available. What is now clause 4(2), read with subsections (4), (5), and (6), safeguards the position of individuals listed provisionally by giving them an avenue of approach to the tribunal, with the tribunal's leave, if they have been listed provisionally for more than nine months. That will not, and cannot, be a right of 665 appeal; rather, it protects individuals against being kept provisionally listed for unreasonable periods without a decision from the Secretary of State by transferring the decision, where the tribunal agrees, to the tribunal itself.
Given the care that must be taken in such cases, nine months seems not unreasonable, especially as clause 2 lays down strict procedures under which the Secretary of State has to seek observations from the various parties and make such inquiries as he thinks necessary. By the same token, the amendments provide for a reasonable period of consideration before approach to the tribunal becomes open after the determination of any civil or criminal proceedings, should the case involve such proceedings.
The requirement to obtain the tribunal's leave in all cases will prevent abuses of process whereby individuals seek to delay the Secretary of State by failing to submit their observations. The tribunal will most appropriately function as a reviewing body, rather than substituting for the Secretary of State's initial administrative decision. However, it is clearly right that there should be protection from unreasonable delay, and individuals should not be kept waiting interminably for the Secretary of State to act. Needless to say, I have no doubt that Ministers will want to ensure that such delays occur as infrequently as possible, if at all.
We have sought to improve the transitional position of individuals who have been referred to the list in the present consultancy service index, but whose cases will not have been determined before the new listing arrangements under clause 2 are brought into force. Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 13 now provide that all such cases should be treated as if they were fresh references under clause 2, thereby attracting from the outset all the procedural protections conferred by that clause.
Those changes have clarified and strengthened this necessary Bill. I am particularly grateful for the spirit in which the Bill has been approached by all the hon. Members who served on the Committee, without exception. They properly probed and tested the proposals, but they were entirely constructive throughout. That spirit has continued today, and I am grateful for that. I commend the Bill to the House.
§ Mr. HammondI congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), first, on having selected this important subject for her private Member's Bill when she was successful in the ballot and, secondly, on the considerable fortitude that she has demonstrated in dealing with what is, by the standards of private Members' Bills, complex and difficult legislation.
I thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged so constructively with all members of the Standing Committee and all hon. Members who have expressed an interest in the Bill. He has genuinely sought to deal with issues raised during the Bill's consideration. That spirit of consensus was evident during the Committee proceedings and has been evident this morning. Perhaps that demonstrates that, if one can remove the politics from this place, it works extremely well to everybody's benefit.
There has been consensus on the Bill's underlying principles since they were first aired on Second Reading. What concerns have been expressed have related to the 666 details of its implementation and, most seriously, its implications for the rights of individuals caught up in its mechanisms. The Committee proceedings and our consideration this morning have gone a long way to resolve some, perhaps even most, of those concerns. The remaining concerns can be re-examined when the Bill is considered by those in another place, who have demonstrated their particular interest in issues of fundamental individual rights, and I look forward with great interest to their further deliberations on the Bill.
I repeat the plea that I made vicariously through my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Will the Government consider making draft guidance available before our noble colleagues examine the Bill in another place? That would help them to get the legislation absolutely right and ensure that, if it is not perfect, it is as near perfect as any legislation can ever be.
It is important that we remember that the Bill is only a part of the attack on abuse against children. The Minister mentioned the Government's wider agenda in that respect, and spoke about how the Bill would fit into the overall programme. We look forward to seeing those measures in due course, and we hope to be able to support them in the constructive spirit that Conservative Members have been able to extend to the Bill.
However, it is important that we remember that legislation alone will not solve the serious problem of abuse against children, and it is important that we do not allow the Bill or any other piece of legislation to encourage us to slip into a sense of false security and a belief that the problem has been tackled, because it is deep-rooted and persistent.
On balance, the Bill is a sound, reasonably robust measure, which will make a very important contribution to the protection of children, without unduly putting at risk the rights of individuals who are caught up in the system. As such, I am delighted to be able to lend it my support.
§ Mr. HuttonThe Bill is a very important measure, which will go a long way to construct a more complete and more effective child protection system.
I again warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on using the opportunity given to her, following the ballot, to introduce such an important and responsible measure. She has gained the admiration of the House for the way in which she has mastered a very complex topic and steered the Bill through to Third Reading.
The Bill deserves to succeed, and I hope that it receives favourable and swift attention in another place. However, it places heavy obligations on Government. Provided it passes all its stages, implementation of the main provisions will require considerable application and—as the regulatory impact assessment has shown—new resources. Setting up the new Department of Health list will entail very careful consideration of all the current cases from the present consultancy service index, which the new list will replace. An entirely new and fully independent tribunal will have to be set up to hear appeals against inclusion in the Department of Health and Department for Education and Employment lists. But we have no doubt at all that those provisions are necessary, and that the necessary resources will be made available to ensure that they work well.
667 The protection of children is a subject on which, I am glad to say, everyone in the House is happy to unite. However, it is vital for Parliament—even at the same time as deploring the actions that we are trying to prevent—to ensure that the package of measures is balanced and fair. Strong measures require strong protections. Of course children should be protected, but so must the rights of adults considered for listing. I believe that the Bill brings about a better balance and, on behalf of the Government and all Labour Members, I unreservedly recommend that it receives a Third Reading.
I believe that we have done something very important and profound today. Again, the House has shown that, when it comes to protecting the interests of children, we can put party political differences aside—that we can act together concertedly and determinedly to protect children from abusers and those who would place them at risk of harm. That is a tribute to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the time to participate in these proceedings.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) for his kind words, but I believe that all of us who have been involved in the Bill—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge—may take great comfort from the fact that we have done something of real importance, which will significantly develop protection for children.
I hope that the Bill proceeds today and goes into the House of Lords, and that it soon reaches the statute book.
§ Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)I add my warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), on behalf of many hon. Members and on behalf of children who have no voice in the House—but who seem to have been given a very loud voice by my hon. Friend.
There has been much talk of trawling. I take up that theme by saying that the Bill does much to close the net around wicked people who use their position to abuse children. I wish the Bill fair weather to sail swiftly through the other place, and to return safely to the House.
§ Mr. MacleanI, too, wish the Bill all success as it leaves the House in the next few minutes, and I congratulate all who gave it proper consideration in Committee. It received proper consideration also on Second Reading and on Report.
If the Bill had been a Government measure, it would have received a full day's consideration on Second Reading. It would have been considered over five or six sittings in Committee, followed by a full day on Report. It is a happy coincidence that this private Member's Bill was debated for a full day on Second Reading, during which concerns were expressed, especially about the incompetence provision. That was followed by five days in Committee.
It is one of the few private Members' Bills that has had five genuine sittings in Committee. These Bills sometimes go into Committee to emerge half an hour later, when we say that wonderful improvements have been made and 668 then expect to get them bounced through the House on the nod on a Friday. If they have had more than four sittings in Committee, Members try to block them for whatever reason. In this instance, we have seen genuine consensus across all parties, which desire legislation to be tightened periodically, whenever there is an opportunity to do so, to protect children.
I played a minor part in the previous Conservative Government and I am proud of what we achieved through various pieces of legislation. The Department of Health introduced measures to increase the protection of children. Through some of the measures that we introduced at the Home Office, we tried to deal with those who abused children. We did so in different ways—by introducing different criminal sanctions and taking up the work that the NCIS does, for example. The Bill is a further improvement and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on taking up this subject in the ballot, on presenting the Bill as clearly as she did on Second Reading and on taking on board in Committee the concerns that we had expressed.
I am so grateful that the hon. Lady dealt with the incompetence provision; it would not be such a good Bill if she had failed to do so. We were all concerned about primary schoolteachers taking children out for an afternoon to some event—those teachers are not child abusers; they have no malice towards children and, indeed, they love, adore and respect them—and through an oversight, through no doubt what could be incompetence or through an error of judgment, being slightly careless. Every parent is in that potential position 24 hours a day. If a primary schoolteacher had made an error that was regarded as incompetence, he or she would have been caught by the Bill and would have appeared on the same list as some of the vilest child abusers imaginable. That was clearly wrong.
On listening to the responses on Second Reading, I was not convinced that the point would be taken on board. I am sorry if, over the past few months, I have caused the hon. Member for Stourbridge and her hon. Friends undue concern.
§ Mr. BoatengIt is on the record.
§ Mr. MacleanThe record at the time speaks for itself. I was deeply concerned about the incompetence provision and I was muttering at the time that I could not support the Bill unless the point was taken on board. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—I rarely do so—for advancing the issue in Committee. It was considered carefully by the Minister and by others in Committee, and the Bill has been improved. I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he has handled the Bill and on his demeanour today.
I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are in the Chamber regularly on a Friday. It seems that some Ministers take slight umbrage at the fact that they have to be in the Chamber for a full day to deal with amendments that they think could be dealt with in five minutes. They become rather upset when Bills are not bounced through on the nod. Today, we have given proper consideration to a proper Bill. We are merely carrying on what the hon. Member for Stourbridge and her hon. Friends did in Committee.
The hon. Lady has introduced amendments that have been accepted. In my inadequate way, I advanced similar amendments. Of course, they were not as well drafted as 669 the hon. Lady's. If I had the resources that are available to Ministers and that the hon. Lady might have had available to assist her—[Interruption.] No, I did not mean that; I apologise. I think that the hon. Lady had £200 with which to hire the best legal advice. She spent her money wisely. The hon. Lady's amendments have improved the Bill still further. [Interruption.] I only wish that one could buy an alternative Government for £200.
The Minister's demeanour today has been exemplary and he listened carefully to the points that were made. Where he thought it appropriate, he rejected amendments, but he has convinced me that, whether in respect of Government or Department of Health guidelines, he takes these issues deeply seriously and wants the Bill to work.
The Bill stands a good chance of working. I was a Minister for long enough and am not so naive that I think that perfect legislation can be achieved. As I said earlier, as soon as we think that we have cracked down on one type of criminality—on one aspect of the behaviour of paedophiles in particular—those devious, clever, nasty people manage to exert their evil influence in some other area that we had not considered. The best example of that relates to pornography and the abuses involved in it. If we try to crack down on pornography, it pops up in a different aspect the next day.
I congratulate the Minister on his responses, but I hope that he will take on board one of the key points made during the debate on new clause 2, which was not accepted by the Government. The spirit of the new clause, however, was accepted. I am not making a party political point by again using the phrase "joined-up government"—that is the Government's phrase—but our debate provided 670 the best example of where joined-up government can deliver coherent explanations to the House. That is much better than Conservative Members bashing out parliamentary questions, some of which may be answered and others of which may not, on the ground of disproportionate cost.
Even if Ministers answer all the questions—[Interruption.] I look forward to receiving answers from the Home Office in due course; the Minister of State, Home Office is smiling at me. Even if all the questions are answered, we still have only bits and pieces of information and they need to be pulled together in a coherent form, which is the sort of thing that Cabinet Committees are good at.
The structure for achieving that coherence exists. There is a departmental working group; Ministers are co-operating on all aspects of improving the lot of children and on how they can bear down more viciously on those who abuse children. If the machinery exists, let us pull it together and present a report—it would not have to be statutory—to the House. We would then have proof positive that the Bill, which will go to the other place, will make a positive impact in improving the lot of children everywhere.
I am delighted to support the Bill, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) is throwing the full weight of the Conservative party behind it. I had hoped that there would be a Liberal present in the Chamber to commend the Bill. I wish it well as it proceeds to the other place.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.