Dr Hendron (Chairperson)
Mr Berry
Mr J Kelly
Ms McWilliams
Ms Ramsey
Mrs I Robinson

Ms T Caul ) Children’s Law Centre

The Chairperson: Thank you very much for your documentation, Ms Caul.

Ms Caul: Thank you for affording the Children’s Law Centre the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Committee. The NSPCC representatives comprehensively covered issues similar to those addressed in our submission, and I will not dwell on them. The Children’s Law Centre is a small, independent non-governmental organisation that helps children and young people and parents, carers and professionals to work with and understand the law relating to children. Our submission deals with the clauses of the Bill.

The Children’s Law Centre’s work involves day-to-day contact with children and young people, and we agree that children have the right to be protected from harm by a comprehensive and seamless system. However, we would welcome the creation of a one-stop shop to complete the vetting procedure.

The ultimate goal, as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, is to protect as many children as possible from harm. That is reinforced by the European Convention on Human Rights, which also requires states to implement effective legal mechanisms to protect children from inhuman and degrading treatment.

It is clear from case law that child abuse can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. If a state does not implement a coherent and comprehensive system of protection, it could therefore be potentially liable for harm suffered by children.

We welcome the Bill. We endorse the NSPCC’s comments about the importance of the proactive implementation of an accreditation scheme, raising public awareness and the need to ensure adequate all-island systems of checking. As stated on page 2 of our submission, the Children’s Law Centre welcomes the proposal in clause 1 to establish a statutory list.

Clause 18(1) defines "childcare organisations" as organisations that are concerned with either the provision of accommodation and social and healthcare services to children or, in the case of prescribed organisations, with the supervision of children. It is a narrow definition, and the Children’s Law Centre recommends that all organisations that employ staff, and/or volunteers who have regular contact with children and young people, be obliged to carry out checks and make referrals through the new system — as a duty, not a discretion. The definition should include organisations such as the Brownies, Scouts, Guides, youth clubs and sports clubs and people such as entertainers and home tutors. Institutions in the criminal justice system that have regular contact with children and young people should also be included.

It is for that reason that the Children’s Law Centre suggested a wider definition of "childcare organisation". It accepts that the accreditation scheme is innovative. If the amendments to that definition are not accepted, the centre would support accreditation. However, it would prefer the Committee to consider broadening the definition. The centre’s suggestion is outlined on page 2 of its submission.

The definition of "childcare position" is outlined in the Bill. The centre recommends that that definition be broadened to include reference to children in juvenile justice centres and those who work with them. The centre is unclear about an exclusion contained in clause 29(4), which addresses children who are in employment, and would like the Committee to consider it. We also recommend that clause 29(1)(c) be amended to include the words "advising" and "counselling". Those involved in advising and counselling should fall within the definition of a childcare position.

In the event that amendments are not made to the statutory definition of a childcare organisation, we would support the introduction of the accreditation system under clause 16. However, we would like to see that as a mandatory requirement for organisations that include post holders who have regular contact with children. We have suggested an amendment in that regard.

One of the issues dealt with in the evidence given by the NSPCC, which I was to pick up on, relates to the education sector. The education sector is to hold a separate list, List 99. There will be two lists — the Protection of Children Act list and List 99. The articles and Regulations that govern List 99 relate to the prohibitions and restrictions on the employment or further employment of teaching and non-teaching staff in grant-aided schools. The present Bill recommends the amendment of those Regulations to cover cases of unsuitability to work with children. That is a significant improvement on the enabling education legislation.

However, there are a couple of points that we hope that the Committee could raise with the Department of Education. We have talked to Department of Education personnel about these issues, but I am not suggesting that they are aware of our amendments. It is important that there be more consultation about any further Department of Education Regulations. It is of particular concern that independent schools do not currently seem to be covered by either this Bill or the education Regulations.

Also, non-teaching staff in further education institutions may not be covered by either the education Regulations or the present Bill. I say "may" because it has been indicated that the way the Regulations are currently drafted may be wide enough to cover ancillary staff in further education. However, I suggest that the Committee might clarify that with the Department.

I have three final brief points, the first of which concerns the standard of proof. Under current education provisions, the requirement is that

"the individual is unsuitable to work with children."

So the wording is slightly different to that of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill, which clearly says it is whether the individual has been

"guilty of misconduct…which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm."

We are unclear at this stage as to the implications of two standards of proof. Again, we would like officials to deal with that.

Perhaps the most important point that we could raise today would relate to the implementation of the Police Act 1997. As has already been stated, Part V of the Police Act 1997 and the establishment of a criminal records bureau must be expedited urgently. We would support the establishment of a one-stop-shop system.

We also want to endorse the NSPCC’s position on arrangements for the cross-border issue and on waiver of fees for voluntary and charitable sector organisations.

The Chairperson: Thank you very much. That has been helpful.

Ms Ramsey: Thank you, Ms Caul. I am interested in the independent or voluntary schools, which you write about in your submission. What is an independent school? How many of them are there?

As you know, further education does not fall under the remit of the Department of Education or the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. I assume that we are talking about vulnerable adults?

Ms Caul: I have raised the issue of independent schools with the Department of Education. I suggest that the Committee again queries whether the legislation can cover independent schools. Independent schools are not grant-aided schools. The Department of Education will have to give the Committee some indication of its intentions.

Ms Ramsey: In my constituency of West Belfast there are groups of young people who, for various reasons, are not involved in mainstream education. Are those types of groups included? Do they go through the same process?

Mrs I Robinson: The reference is to private, independent Christian schools.

Ms Caul: That is correct.

Ms Ramsey: Will the voluntary sector also be dealing with it?

Ms Caul: Do you mean things such as out-of-school provision?

Ms Ramsey: No, I refer to school provision. They are providing classes; however, the kids are not in mainstream education.

Ms Caul: I presume that they operate in accordance with Our Duty to Care as regards good practice guidelines in that sector.

Currently, teachers in further education colleges are covered by Department of Education Regulations. The non-teaching staff are not specifically referred to in those. It may be that the definition is wide enough to cover them, but they are not clearly included, and that is an important point.

Ms McWilliams: To clarify the position of independent schools, are they exempt from other types of legislation, which cover punishment et cetera?

Ms Caul: I am aware that the Education and Libraries Bill incorporates an amendment to deal with corporal punishment in independent schools.

Mrs I Robinson: My children went to an independent Christian school where there was the option of corporal punishment.

Ms McWilliams: That was part of a recent debate on the Floor of the House. It is exempt in some of the legislation in Britain. When that was going through, were amendments made?

Ms Caul: I do not have that information, but I can check.

Ms McWilliams: There are other faith schools in Britain that would be independent. It would be useful if you checked if there were amendments, and if they were successful.

The submission from Women’s Aid among others stressed a difficulty with fees for accreditation. What is your response?

Ms Caul: I agree, as a lot of those organisations rely on volunteers, and most have strict policies as it is. The introduction of accreditation will be expensive for organisations that depend on volunteers. We use volunteers and students in our centre, and currently, we vet everyone. It has significant implications for smaller organisations.

Ms McWilliams: Do you have any proposals for that?

Ms Caul: We hope that the fees would be waived for small, voluntary and charitable organisations to enable those to comply with accreditation, as many schemes want to become accredited. Alternatively, additional funding might be provided to cover the fees.

Ms McWilliams: Is there equivalency in, for example, registered homes? Is there a sliding scale depending on their size? A large charity might be able to afford this; the difficulty lies with little groups.

Is there an equivalent? Perhaps you do not know the answer to that. It may be worth checking that out because if we make a proposal, it will be either a lump sum or nothing. We might get nothing, but we may at least get a sliding scale recognised. The last thing we want is no vetting. Some organisations may feel that it is more than they can afford because they would have to do it regularly.

The Chairperson: We will explore that.

Mrs I Robinson: With regard to the current loopholes in the provisions which apply in the Irish Republic, what mechanisms would the centre advocate in support of collaborative cross-border vetting arrangements?

Ms Caul: We endorse the NSPCC’s position.

The Chairperson: Thank you for the presentation and documents.