Child Care Workers

HC Deb 15 October 2002 vol 390 cc45-53WH 12.30 pm

Ms Debra Shipley (Stourbridge)

Within an hour of Mr. Speaker granting me the opportunity to highlight concerns relating to vetting of child care workers, the Department of Health rang my office to ask what I would be saying and to find out whether the Department of Health or the Home Office would respond. In doing so, it unwittingly demonstrated the first major problem: who takes responsibility for vetting? If the Departments do not know, what hope is there further down the line of accountability?

Vetting should be multi-agency, of course, but there should be clear lines of accountability leading via Ministers to one Secretary of State. At present, there are at least three Secretaries of State involved—four including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I shall say more about that later.

I confirm that I told the Minister in writing prior to this debate the areas that I would be covering. I told him that the debate would cover the work of three Departments based on my tabled questions and ministerial answers over a three-year period, and would draw on written ministerial replies to me about vetting concerns from three Departments. Aided with that information, I trust that the Minister will be able to respond to my concerns about health, education and Home Office matters and the implications for Northern Ireland. Failure to do so would further indicate the limitations of the existing structure of accountability.

What is wrong with the vetting of child care workers? Gaps, a limited definition of child care workers—I know that because I was responsible for the definition—poor lines of accountability, a lot of buck-passing at local level and fudging at ministerial level. No one person ultimately takes responsibility at local level or Government level.

The report, "Safeguarding Children", which was published on Monday, contains a clear insight into the problems of child protection as it currently operates. Many of its observations about the ability of agencies and professionals to safeguard children being compromised could be applied to the various vetting processes. The report states that, first, The priority given to safeguarding had not been reflected firmly, coherently or consistently enough in service planning, resource allocation nationally or locally across all agencies". That includes vetting.

Secondly, the report says: Local agencies interpreted their safeguarding responsibilities in different ways or with a different emphasis. Other priorities competing for attention had sometimes resulted in resources being diverted away from key safeguarding activity". Thirdly, it says: The priority that senior staff said was given to safeguarding children was not reflected in many agencies' business plans". The report continued: Many staff … were confused about their responsibilities and duties to share information about child care and welfare concerns with other agencies and were not confident about whether other agencies shared information with them". Damningly, it also stated: Despite consistency in the findings of enquiries over past years about weaknesses and failings in information sharing, there were few formal"— I emphasise the word "formal"— agreements between agencies about how"— I also emphasise the word "how"— and when information should be shared". This is certainly true with a view to vetting with organisations not covered by the Protection of Children Act 1999.

I would like the Minister to put on the record today his response to that specific point. He need not take up limited time by telling me what the working groups are doing or about interdepartmental ministerial meetings. I am well aware of that. I would like to know the outcome and what exactly is being done to ensure that the inspectors' criticism is being dealt with with a view to vetting—or does the Minister believe that the inspectors are wrong? I, for one, believe that they have been very moderate in their report.

For example, it has been brought to my attention that in the London borough of Southwark children are collected from school by drivers and escorts who are not known to the school. When challenged, they failed to produce photo identity as to who they are. Have those people, who have apparently been provided by various agencies, including International Aunties, been vetted? Who knows? Certainly not Southwark council.

I have been assured in writing by Southwark council that all the necessary procedures are in place, but those are empty words, because no recording system exists in the schools. If a driver or escort arrives to collect a child and says that he has forgotten his identification pass, the child is nevertheless sent off with him; the school does not take responsibility. If the case is brought to the attention of social services, they simply pass the buck by saying that procedures are in place; they will not take responsibility either.

Last week, I personally asked the chief executive of Southwark council to ensure that, at the very least, any driver or escort who is collecting a child, and who is unknown to the school, has his or her details, such as a driving licence, noted. I was flatly told by the chief executive that in boroughs such as Southwark, which has so many children in this position, operating such a system would be impossible. Clearly, he will not take responsibility for those children.

I also gave the chief executive the name of a girl about whom I had worries. I carefully spelled out her name, but his secretary had to ring me the next day because the chief executive had managed to take it down wrongly. A week later, having had no response, my office rang the chief executive's office to discover that the name had been passed on to social services—the very people who I had said were not on top of the case. The chief executive did not contact me at all.

I asked Romi Burns, the deputy director of social services for Southwark, for an update. She said that she had been asked to ring me but did not have my number. So, we are dealing with a social services deputy director who does not know how to ring the House of Commons. When questioned, she simply reiterated that drivers are properly checked and procedures adhered to. How did she know? Schools do not have to maintain records because, as the chief executive had explicitly stated, it would be impossible for them do so. The answer must be that she did not know. Advice being issued was good enough for her, but it is far from good enough for someone in so senior a position to be so complacent.

When I asked about the little girl who I had named to the chief executive, she said that she knew the name but had no information because the case was being dealt with by the education department. When we rang the head of education, we were told that they were "interrogating information". If that is an example of Southwark council dealing with an MP, what hope is there for concerned members of the public who attempt to blow the whistle to help safeguard children? What will the Minister do to ensure that such complacency and buck-passing is quickly brought to an end?

I now turn to the work of the Criminal Records Bureau. My Bill, which became the Protection of Children Act 1999, changed part 5 of the Police Act 1997 to facilitate the establishment of the Criminal Records Bureau. I therefore followed with interest last week's exchange in the other place. When the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform—a Minister of State at the Home Office—was questioned about the CRB's poor performance he had no reply other than to reiterate what had happened. Perhaps the Minister in the Chamber today will be able to improve on that. To help him, I shall be specific.

My first point is that last February, I asked the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety—another Home Office Minister of State—in a written question, to list bodies registered with the CRB, and he refused. He stated: Since most had not given their specific consent, it would not be appropriate". I must ask: why? What do they have to hide? He went on to say that the details of those who have given consent were available on the website www.disclosure.gov.uk. It had not occurred to that Home Office Minister in February that the fact that most organisations were not giving consent was a problem. What is the view of the Health Minister who is to answer the debate today?

Secondly, I was seriously shocked, when I questioned the CRB's chief executive, to discover that compliance checks do not mean, as I had hoped, that random checks are undertaken to ensure that an employer who has been informed that certain individuals are unsuitable for, or banned from, working with children is not employing such individuals. It seems that "compliance checks" mean that the CRB will check that the forms have been correctly filled in and that the prospective employee has given his or her permission for the check. That is a major loophole in the CRB system because paedophiles will knowingly employ other paedophiles, and the public rely on the fact that an individual has been checked if the organisation has the kudos of being registered with the CRB. How are the public to know whether the employee is suitable? We do not know, because the Minister of State says that we do not have to be told.

I raised those matters in writing last April with the same Minister. I can only say that he fudged the answers by explaining what had happened and finally stating that I was correct in my assessment. I do not want to be correct; I want Ministers to ensure that what the CRB has revealed is acted upon correctly. Does the Minister who is here today agree with me, and what will he do to facilitate that?

I also raised the problem of court records in relation to the CRB vetting process with the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform in April. In order for a vetting process to be up to date, court records need to be electronically communicated to the CRB immediately after sentencing. That administrative measure will be greatly welcomed by the CRB and the police. The Minister wrote to tell me that the principal database from which the CRB will draw its information is the Police National Computer". Will the Minister who is to answer the debate please clarify today whether the PNC receives electronic information directly from the courts immediately after sentencing? Will he also update me on whether that information is now available to the CRB? On a wider point, will he address the issue of referrals of abusers?

In a letter that I received on 23 September from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), I was told: As you know, all non-regulated child care organisations are encouraged to refer names to the Secretary of State for possible inclusion on the Protection of Children Act list and to check against the list when proposing to appoint people to any childcare position". That sounds okay; most parents, on receiving a letter like that, would assume that child care workers employed by agencies and organisations would have been vetted. They would be entirely wrong in that assumption. As the Back-Bench MP responsible for the Protection of Children Act 1999, I know that my definition of a child care worker is precise and very limited, and so, too, is the list of statutory bodies that are required to vet their workers. I also know that there is a massive difference between saying that an agency "must" vet a worker, and saying that it "may".

The same applies to the suspicion of abuse. Under my Act, statutory bodies are required to instigate investigation procedures and refer known abusers for listings. Other agencies and organisations are only encouraged to do so. For example, private tutors need not be vetted. What is more, prior to my Protection of Children Act, vetting procedures—apart from those relating to education List 99 for teachers—were almost impossible to carry out. They were at best piecemeal and at worst non-existent. That means that before my Act was passed, many people employed as child care workers were not vetted to discover whether they had ever physically or sexually harmed a child.

I took that matter up with the Minister for Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law Reform, and was appalled at his reply, which I received on 13 September. The Secretary of State, in effect, washed his hands of the whole business. The Minister wrote: As to existing employees…In general, it is a matter for employers to decide whether or not they wish to carry out checks on existing staff and whether they wish periodically to re-check their staff. That reply is simply not good enough. A responsible employer might seek to carry out retrospective vetting now that the possibility exists, but it is the sloppy, the second-rate and the plain bad employers that should be required to vet. It is not good enough for that Minister to pass responsibility to the employer; he should be taking the lead himself. His failure to do so may have something to do with employment legislation, as in his letter he went on to say: Where employers wish to ask existing staff to undergo checks they need to pay due regard to the terms of the relevant contracts or conditions of employment. They may wish to seek professional advice". That is a clear hint that retrospective vetting may be hampered by employment legislation. Unfortunately, the Minister concerned did not offer to look into the issue; he did not liaise with his ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry. As far as I am aware, he just let the matter drop.

A decent employer seeking to do the right thing and vet existing employees is on his or her own. That is not good enough, and I look to the Minister who will respond today to undertake to make good this serious legislative hurdle in the vetting process.

My Protection of Children Act 1999 does not cover Northern Ireland, but the Assembly was seeking to put its own expanded version of it on to the statute books. The Northern Ireland version would introduce a welcome extra dimension, that of accreditation, in clause 16. However, I wish the Minister to tell us today how the accreditation of voluntary organisations will be supported and promoted by all Government Departments. I also want him to comment on the vetting of those who cross the border from the south to work with children in the north. At present, there is no equivalent vetting process in the Republic of Ireland, which effectively creates a major loophole in our system when child care workers come over here from the island of Ireland. The Minister will undoubtedly have been made aware of my concerns, so what I am looking for today is a progress report.

Finally, I almost feel sorry for the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who has the task of replying today. I want to put on the record the fact that he did not make any of the ministerial replies that I have quoted; in every case, and with regard to every Department, the replies were made by Ministers of State. That raises the question of why my hon. Friend was considered to be the most appropriate Minister to respond today.

12.45 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) for giving us this opportunity to debate these important matters. I know that she takes a passionate interest in helping to ensure that our children, who are the most vulnerable members of our society, are offered the best possible level of protection. That is very evident from what she has said today.

I should begin by saying that the Home Office is the Department that takes the lead on such issues, but it is clear that other Departments also have their respective responsibilities, and the Government think carefully about which of them should respond to specific Adjournment debates. I am pleased to respond to the debate today. I also refer my hon. Friend to the way in which she framed her debate; it is about social care workers. Therefore, as I am part of the Health team, it is appropriate for me to respond today.

We remain grateful to my hon. Friend for guiding her private Member's Bill through Parliament. That resulted in the Protection of Children Act 1999, which the Government implemented in October 2000, and it was that legislation which, for the first time, required Government to maintain a list of persons considered to be suitable to work with children, and to place specific requirements on child care organisations to carry out comprehensive vetting of the staff whom they intend to appoint to work with children. The legislation that was proposed by my hon. Friend was a vital first step towards achieving the Government's aim of establishing a framework of coherent cross-sector schemes for identifying people considered to be unsuitable to work with children, and to prevent such people from gaining access to children through their work.

Ms Shipley

I know what my Act did. It is not cohesive, extensive or anything else; it is very precise and limited. It also has lots of holes, which I regret, but I could not get the necessary changes through at the time. I do not want to sit here and listen to a description of what already exists—and, in particular, of what I have done. I want the Minister to address the questions that I have raised today.

Mr. Lammy

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments, but it is important that I put the history of the matter on the record, because it pertains to many of the points that she raised both today and when the Act was passing through Parliament.

I wish to make some progress now, so that I can get around to addressing my hon. Friend's points. As she has said, many of them have been addressed in correspondence with various Departments, but I will seek to write to her if I am unable to get around to dealing with all of them in this debate.

I know from what my hon. Friend has said today that she would like the elements in her legislation that require organisations to seek checks on their staff to be applied to all organisations that work with children, rather than only to the statutory sector. However, that would involve some intractable problems. It was recognised very early on in the life of the Protection of Children Act that a scheme that required all employers to check that Act's list would be impossible to monitor and enforce.

That issue goes to the heart of much of what has preoccupied my hon. Friend over the past two years—and, indeed, of what has been said today. For that reason, a requirement to undertake relevant checks was made for organisations that are regulated by statute—those who employ social workers, nursery staff and everyone who works in children's homes—while other organisations are encouraged to undertake such checks.

Indeed, the net is widely cast in relation to the type of person on whom a check might be sought. In past correspondence my hon. Friend asked about minicab drivers who drive children; for example, a minicab driver may offer to parents the service of driving unaccompanied children—

Ms Shipley

No, I did not. Will the Minister confirm that I did not raise that issue?

Mr. Lammy

The issue raised related to taxis to school. My hon. Friend will know that, in London, as in other cities, a service is provided by taxis, minicabs and various other companies that transport children to school. Service providers are encouraged to vet their drivers, and it is right for the Government to encourage that. As important as the various checks are, however, it must remain paramount for all organisations entrusted with the care of children and other vulnerable people to carry out the full range of pre-employment checks to search for criminal backgrounds. That is only one part of a process that should include face-to-face interviews. Checking the referees and references of the various people is equally important. An applicant's employment history must be considered and employers must be satisfied that any gaps in details are adequately explained.

The Government quickly built on the foundations laid by my hon. Friend, and in January 2000 we implemented part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which, taken with the building blocks contained within the Protection of Children Act and the Education Acts of 1988 and 1996, complemented the integrated scheme to prevent unsuitable people working with children. The child protection measures in part 2 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 created a new way for the courts to disqualify unsuitable people from working with children, in addition to the existing schemes for education and child care. Those who commit a serious offence against children can therefore be prevented from all such work by means of disqualification by a judge, as part of their sentence or the disposal of their case.

We also ensured that the Act provided for the disqualification to apply to persons included on the Protection of Children Act List and to those included on the list maintained by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—List 99—which, as my hon. Friend knows, contains the names of persons barred by the Secretary of State from working in educational establishments. The Act also provided strong criminal sanctions against those who breached the disqualification order, whether the new order was imposed by the courts or the person had been included on the Protection of Children Act list.

Ms Shipley

The Minister is treating me to a history lesson, using information of which I am extremely well aware—as I hoped I demonstrated when I was speaking earlier. He has seven minutes left, in which he should attempt to answer at least one of my questions. I would like him to answer some of the questions that I raised.

Mr. Lammy

My hon. Friend raised several issues, including the taxiing of children, which I believe I have dealt with. She also raised the issue of the requirement of all organizations—

Ms Shipley

I did not mention the words, "taxiing of children". I never said "taxiing". I said that in some Southwark schools children are collected by drivers and escorts who are unknown to the schools, and that those people often fail to provide evidence of identity. The chief executive told me that the schools would find it an overwhelming task to record all the information. The question that I want answering has nothing to do with taxiing.

Mr. Lammy

As my hon. Friend will have heard, I am setting out the obligations that rest on the relevant bodies, and those relate to the illustration that she provided. I am seeking to deal with it and I want to make progress. We can exchange views, but I cannot make progress unless my hon. Friend allows me to continue. I shall certainly write to her if I cannot reach a conclusion on the issues that she raised.

The complete framework of protection provided by the 2000 Act introduced a new definition of working with children, which formed the area to be covered by disqualification. Working with children in all sectors—including voluntary work and irrespective of whether that work is paid or unpaid—thus fell within the remit of the scheme. My hon. Friend posed questions about the definition of a child care worker, and her preferred wording is on the record. However, a clear definition is set out in section 36 of the 2000 Act.

I shall now move on to discuss the Criminal Records Bureau, which has an important role in preventing unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults. The Government are acutely aware of the problems experienced by the bureau, which have caused difficulties for the proper protection of children and other vulnerable groups, but it is important not to allow such problems to detract from the value of the initiative itself.

The CRB is designed to achieve several substantial improvements. First, it will enable information from police records to be made much more widely available to employers, voluntary organisations and others, primarily those working with the vulnerable. Secondly, in respect of working with children, it will be possible to search lists of unsuitable people, which are maintained by my Department and by the Department for Education and Skills. Thirdly, the level and speed of service will be higher than the police have been able to provide in the past. I do not disparage the past record of the police, but resourcing issues apply.

My hon. Friend mentioned the list of registered bodies under the Criminal Records Bureau. If lists were given without consent, it would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998. That is the Government's position, upheld by parliamentary counsel. Consent is a critical issue in a democratic context.

Ms Shipley

What does the Minister think of listed organisations that fail to give consent?

Mr. Lammy

I pass no judgment on the many and varied reasons why organisations may not want their details passed on beyond the CRB, which is charged with that function, to other third parties—including my hon. Friend. The information relating to organisations that give consent is available for inspection on the website or a list can be provided.

My hon. Friend also spoke about compliance checks, but that is not the CRB's function and it is not equipped to carry out that task. The inspection bodies—Ofsted, the National Care Standards Council and other bodies whose inspection duties include compliance—should rightly take up that function.

Ms Shipley

The Minister used the word "should", so can he confirm that that is the case? Does it actually happen?

Mr. Lammy

I am surprised to hear my hon. Friend ask that question. If she looked at the reports of Ofsted and other inspection bodies, she would see that compliance is examined when schools and hospitals are visited. That is where the duty lies. Action is being taken to address the bureau's operational problems. The bureau, in conjunction with its private sector partner, has put in place a service improvement plan that has already delivered several improvements, and continues to do so.

Action is being taken to address the bureau's operational problems. The bureau, in conjunction with its private sector partner, has put in place a service improvement plan that has already delivered several improvements, and continues to do so. One of the earliest—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara)

Order. We must now move on to the next debate.