| Membership | What's Happening | Committees | Publications | Assembly Commission | General Info | Job Opportunities | Help |
|
SESSION 2002/2003 COMMITTEE FOR HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY Protection of Children and MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE Ordered by The Committee for Health, Social
Services and Public Safety to be printed 9 October 2002 POWERS AND MEMBERSHIP POWERS The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and under Standing Order No.46 of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and has a role in the initiation of legislation. The Committee has the power to:
MEMBERSHIP The Committee was established on 29 November 1999 with eleven members including a Chairman and Deputy Chairman, and a quorum of five. The membership of the Committee is as follows:
NOTE The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee commenced the Committee Stage of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill on 09 September 2002. The Bill is intended to strengthen the existing arrangements under which checks are carried out as to the suitability of those seeking to work with children or adults with a learning disability. Through the introduction of a system of disqualifications and offences, it is intended that the legislation will help to improve the protection of children and vulnerable adults. The Committee wrote to a wide range of relevant bodies to seek their views on the Bill. It received 27 written submissions and held seven oral evidence sessions. The Committee agreed on 09 October 2002 to publish the oral and written evidence at an early stage, in order to help inform the public of the wide range of very helpful views expressed. The Northern Ireland Assembly and its statutory committees went into suspension from midnight on 14 October 2002, and it has not been possible to make further corrections to transcripts of oral evidence outstanding at that date. The publication is annotated accordingly to indicate where evidence has not been examined. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Witnesses that gave Oral Evidence List of Organisations that provided Written Submissions WEDNESDAY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2002 AT 2.00 PM Present: Dr J Hendron (Chairman) In Attendance: Mr P Hughes (Committee Clerk) Public Session 2.50pm 6. Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill - Briefing Assembly Research Services: Dr Janice Thompson Dr Thompson spoke to a briefing paper outlining the key provisions of the Bill, which include:
Some issues for consideration by the Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill include:
Departmental Officials: Mr John Clarke Mr Clarke gave a brief overview of the purpose and provisions of the Bill, which was followed by a brief question-and-answer session. The proceedings are recorded separately in verbatim minutes of evidence. Agreed: The Clerk will make arrangements for the Northern Ireland Office to be invited to give oral evidence in relation to Part V of the Police Act, which has yet to be enacted in Northern Ireland. The meeting was suspended at 3.40pm and resumed at 3.46pm. Ms Ramsey and Rev R Coulter left the meeting at 3.40pm and 4.00pm respectively. DR J HENDRON [Extract] WEDNESDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2002 at 1.30 pm Present: Dr J Hendron (Chairman) Apologies: Rev R Coulter In Attendance: Mr P Hughes (Committee Clerk) Public Session 3.30pm 7. Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill - Oral Evidence NSPCC: Mr Ian Elliott Mr Elliott spoke to a briefing paper, which posed a number of questions about the policy intent of the Bill, as well as some technical queries. This was followed by a question-and-answer session. The entire proceedings are reported separately in verbatim minutes of evidence. The main issues raised are summarised as follows:
Mr Reid pointed out that the absence of a consultancy index in ROI is a major flaw in the system. Another problem is that the Criminal Record Bureau in England is not checking the Department's list and so is not implementing fully the legislation across the UK. Agreed: The Chairman will write to OFMDFM to request that the issue of cross-jurisdictional vetting in relation to work with children be taken up with the British-Irish Council. The Children's Law Centre: Ms Tara Caul Ms Caul briefed the Committee on the main issues for the Children's Law Centre arising from the Bill. These included:
The independent schools do not appear to be covered by the Bill or the education regulations. (In response to a query by Ms McWilliams, Ms Caul undertook to ascertain whether amendments were put down in relation to this matter when similar legislation was being passed in England.) Non teaching staff in further education colleges may not be currently covered.
The meeting was suspended at 4.15pm and resumed at 4.25pm. DR J HENDRON [Extract] WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2002 at 2.00 pm Present: Dr J Hendron (Chairman) Apologies: Mr T Gallagher (Deputy Chairman) In Attendance: Mr P Hughes (Committee Clerk) Public Session 3.45pm 6. Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill - Oral Evidence Probation Board for Northern Ireland Witnesses: Mr Brian McCaughey The witnesses gave a brief presentation on the relevance and importance of the Bill to the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. The organisation listed five main issues arising from the Bill, which are summarised as follows:
Ms McWilliams recommended that consideration be given to suggesting an amendment to clauses 21 and 22 (on disqualifications) by way of strengthening the provision of the court to make a disqualification order. The entire proceedings are recorded separately in verbatim minutes of evidence. SSAFA Forces Help Witness: Mrs Maggie Smyth Mrs Smyth gave a brief presentation on the perceived gaps in the provisions of the Bill in relation to the arrangements for carrying out background checks on persons serving with the Armed Forces and their families.
Agreed: The Clerk will write to invite the Police Service of Northern Ireland Superintendent who is responsible for child abuse investigation to request evidence in relation to the implications of the extension of Part V of the Police Act 1997 to Northern Ireland. The Clerk will also write to the Three Bureaux Implementation Group for details of its co-ordinating work on the protection of children and vulnerable adults. DR J HENDRON [Extract] WEDNESDAY, 25 SEPTEMBER 2002 at 1.30 pm Present: Dr J Hendron (Chairman) Apologies: Mr T Gallagher (Deputy Chairman) In Attendance: Mr P Hughes (Committee Clerk) Public Session 4.10pm 7. Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill - Consideration of Evidence The Chairman referred members to a paper prepared by the Clerk that set out the range of issues raised in the written and oral evidence. This included a number of proposed amendments. The Clerk explained that the paper was by way of a preparatory guide to members in advance of the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, which was due to commence at next week's meeting. Members undertook to examine the paper in the overall context of the Bill prior to the next meeting. The Clerk confirmed that letters of invitation to provide oral evidence had issued to the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Motion for Extension to Committee Stage of Bill Question put and agreed to: That, in accordance with Standing Order 31 (5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31 (3) be extended to 22 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. (NIA 22/01). DR J HENDRON [Extract] WEDNESDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2002 at 2.00 pm Present: Dr J Hendron (Chairman) Apologies: Mr P Berry In Attendance: Mr P Hughes (Committee Clerk) Public Session 2.15pm 5. Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill - Oral Evidence Detective Chief Inspector William McAuley, Care Co-ordinator for Northern Ireland, PSNI The Chairman welcomed DCI McAuley to the meeting. DCI McAuley then briefed the Committee on the importance of the implementation of Part V of the Police Act in Northern Ireland to the effectiveness of the Bill. He explained that this would allow the sharing of "soft" police information through an enhanced criminal record check. DCI McAuley emphasized that enactment of Part V of the Police Act would make the disclosure of information much more detailed and time effective. The Chairman thanked DCI McAuley, and he left the meeting at 2.35pm. The entire proceedings are recorded separately in verbatim minutes of evidence. Mr John Clarke and Ms Eilís McDaniel, Child Care Unit, Departmental Officials joined the meeting at 2.35pm. The Chairman referred members to a clause-by-clause briefing paper setting out the key issues and concerns, including suggested amendments, as highlighted by witnesses. He welcomed the Officials, who would be facilitating the Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill. Ms Armitage left the meeting at 2.35pm and returned at 4.25pm. Ms Courtney left the meeting at 2.55pm. The meeting was suspended at 3.32pm and resumed at 3.40pm. Clause 1 (Duty of Department to keep list) Question, That the Committee is content with clause 1, put and agreed to. Clause 2 (Inclusion in list on reference following disciplinary action, etc) The Chairman advised that some witnesses had suggested that the requirement to refer individuals for inclusion on the register should not be restricted to child care organisations but should include all organisations. Mr Clarke advised that equivalent legislation is before the Scottish Assembly. He advised that to amend the legislation by replacing "A child care organisation shall" with "All organisations shall" would not prove effective, as it could not be enforced in practice. He cautioned that the legislation was operating in relation to the vetting of individuals and was not meant to provide certificates of clearance for work with children. The Committee deferred further consideration of the clause until next week's meeting. Clause 3 (Employment agencies, nursing agencies and employment businesses: duty to refer) Question, That the Committee is content with clause 3, put and agreed to. Clause 4 (Power of certain other authorities to refer) Scrutiny of clause 4 was deferred as a consequence of the Committee's further consideration of clause 2. Clause 5 (Individuals named in the findings of certain inquiries) Question, That the Committee is content with clause 5, put and agreed to. Clause 6 (Inclusion in list on reference under Part II) Question, That the Committee is content with clause 6, put and agreed to. Clause 7 (Reference by authority making direct payments in respect of services) Scrutiny of clause 7 was deferred in the context of the Committee's further deliberations on clauses 2 and 4. Clause 8 (Inclusion in list on transfer from Pre-Employment Consultancy Service Register) Question, That the Committee is content with clause 8, put and agreed to. Clause 9 (Appeals against inclusion in list) Question, That the Committee is content with clause 9, put and agreed to. Clause 10 (Application for removal from list) Question, That the Committee is content with clause 10, put and agreed to. Clause 11 (Conditions for application under section 10) Question, That the Committee is content with clause 11, put and agreed to. Clause 12 (Restoration to list) Further scrutiny of this clause was deferred pending the Department's clarification of the need to ensure that executive directors of social work in HSS Trusts may apply for an order in respect of an individual being restored to the list. Clause 13 (List in connection with prohibiting or restricting employment in schools etc) Scrutiny of this clause was deferred pending input from officials from the Department of Education. Clause 14 (Effect of inclusion in either list) Scrutiny of clause 14 was deferred pending the Committee's consideration of clause 2. Clause 15 (Access to the lists) Scrutiny of clause 15 was deferred pending a response from the Northern Ireland Office on the commencement of the Police Act 1997 in Northern Ireland. Clause 16 (Accredited organisations) Scrutiny of clause 16 was deferred pending the Committee's consideration of clause 2. Clause 17 (Whistle-blowing by employee or member of child care organisation) Scrutiny of clause 17 was deferred pending the Department's further consideration of the suggested amendment by the NSPCC to allow one organisation to whistle-blow on another. Clause 18 (Interpretations of this Chapter) Scrutiny of clause 18 was deferred pending the Committee's consideration of clause 2. Clause 19 (Transitional provisions) Question, That the Committee is content with clause 19, put and agreed to. Clause 20 (Meaning of "offence against a child") Mr Clarke explained that the Department had been examining the new Scottish legislation, which introduces a concept that is different from disqualification orders. It means that courts can make referrals directly to the Department and avoid the difficulty with disqualification orders. Scrutiny of the clause was deferred pending the Department's consideration of the suggested amendment and the flexibility afforded by the Scottish approach. Clause 21 (Disqualification of adults from working with children) Mr Clarke advised that the Department would consider a suggested amendment by the Probation Board that the qualifying sentence should include community orders, and a suggested amendment to sub-section 5 by Ms McWilliams, which was essentially a strengthening provision. The clause was referred for further consideration. Clause 22 (Disqualification of juveniles from working with children) Mr Clarke advised that the suggested amendment to strengthen the disqualification provisions would be considered in the context of the Department's further examination of the Scottish system, which gives the courts the power to make referrals to the Department. Clause 23 (Sections 21 and 22: supplementary) Scrutiny of clause 23 was deferred for the same reason as clause 22. Clause 24 (Appeals) As clause 24 refers to a disqualification order, which is the subject of a suggested amendment, scrutiny was deferred until next week's meeting. The Chairman thanked the Officials for their input, and the Committee Stage of the Bill was adjourned until next week's meeting. DR J HENDRON [Extract] WEDNESDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2002 at 1.30 pm Present: Dr J Hendron (Chairman) Apologies: Mrs P Armitage In Attendance: Mr P Hughes (Committee Clerk) Public Session 3.25pm 6. Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill ii. In order to keep the public informed of the range of views and suggested amendments expressed in witnesses' written submissions and oral evidence, the Chairman recommended that the Committee order the publication of the evidence received. Question put and agreed to: That the written submissions received, minutes of evidence (as amended) and explanatory memoranda, and the minutes of proceedings relating to the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill be printed. DR J HENDRON [Extract] LIST OF WITNESSES THAT GAVE ORAL EVIDENCE Wednesday 4 September 2002 Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety Mr John Clarke Wednesday 11 September 2002 Children's Law Centre Ms Tara Caul Explanatory Memorandum NSPCC Mr Ian Elliott Wednesday 18 September 2002 Probation Board for Northern Ireland Mr Brian McCaughey Explanatory Memorandum SSAFA Forces Help Ms Maggie Smyth Explanatory Memorandum Wednesday 2 October 2002 Police Service of Northern Ireland* DCI William McAuley Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety* Mr John Clarke * Transcripts of oral evidence that have not been examined MINUTES OF EVIDENCE Wednesday 4 September 2002 Members present: Witnesses: 1. The Chairperson: I thank John Clarke and Eilís McDaniel from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for coming here to brief the Committee on the background to the Bill. 2. Mr Clarke: The general purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the arrangements for vetting people seeking to work with children or vulnerable adults by placing the existing arrangements on a statutory basis. New statutory registers will include the names of individuals considered unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable adults. Under the new arrangements certain organisations will be required to check the new statutory registers before employing an individual in a relevant position, and will also be required to refer the names of those who they consider to be unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable adults for inclusion on the register. 3. An important strengthening of the existing arrangements would be the introduction, through the Bill, of offences that an organisation would commit if it knowingly employed an individual who was on the statutory register. It would also be an offence for an individual to work, or seek to work, with children or vulnerable adults while registered on either of the new lists. To protect the rights of people listed on the registers, the Bill introduces a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. 4. The Bill is quite large and I am conscious of the time. There are 11 main subject areas in the Bill, so I will touch on those briefly. The first main subject area concerns the maintenance of the lists. The Bill makes provision for two lists: one to deal with those deemed unsuitable to work with young children; and the other to deal with those deemed unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. The Department will maintain the two lists, and it will be possible to place an individual on both if he or she is deemed to pose a risk to both categories of people. 5. The other main subject area concerns access to the lists. Where a childcare organisation proposes to offer an individual employment in a childcare position, the organisation will be required to check whether the individual is on the list. The organisation will also be required to check the lists held by the Department of Education of those deemed unsuitable to work with children on the grounds that they pose a risk. The legislation interfaces with the suitability of those who wish to work in schools. I am sure that there will be discussion about the fact that the Bill would require only childcare organisations to carry out checks, while other organisations may carry out checks. The Department will facilitate checks against the list. The provisions in relation to vulnerable adults are broadly similar. 6. Childcare organisations will be required to make referrals to the list of those deemed unsuitable to work with children. The criteria for an organisation to make a referral are broadly that the individual has harmed a child. 7. Ms Ramsey: May we comment point by point? 8. Mr Clarke: I am happy to deal with it in that way as the Bill is quite big and I could talk about it for a long time. 9. The Chairperson: It is better to do that as the Bill is extensive. 10. Ms Ramsey: The Committee received a large response to the draft Bill from individuals and organisations involved in this field. I was struck by the fact that although the majority, if not all, of those who responded welcomed the Bill, they were all concerned about the definition of childcare organisations. The Bill states that childcare organisations must carry out those checks, and that other organisations may carry them out. I would hate to go half-a-mile down the road with the Bill, with everyone welcoming it, only to go back half-a-mile because of the definition of childcare organisations. 11. The Bill is for the protection of children and vulnerable adults, but organisations working with vulnerable adults are not classed as childcare organisations, which means that although the adults are vulnerable, people working with them do not have to undergo the same checks. 12. Mr Clarke: That would not be right. A duty is placed on those who provide services to vulnerable adults. There is a whole raft of issues concerning what "vulnerable adult" means, and we will come to that later. Providers of services to vulnerable adults have a duty, comparable to that of providers of services to children, to make referrals to the relevant list of those unsuitable for work with vulnerable adults. 13. Ms Ramsey: What is the Department's definition of a childcare organisation? 14. Mr Clarke: The definition of a childcare organisation is contained in the legislation. The whole point of having such a definition is to enable the identification of organisations so that statutory duties can be placed upon them. Clause 18 (1) states " "child care organisation" means an organisation- (a) which is concerned with the provision of accommodation, health services or personal social services to children or the supervision of children; (b) whose activities are regulated by or by virtue of any prescribed statutory provision; and (c) which fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed;" 15. The key thing to remember is that the Bill is based on the principle that the childcare organisation is already recognised in the statute. There has been substantial argument about the suggestion, which many have made, that the duty should be placed on all organisations. That leaves one faced with the difficulty of identifying what is meant by "all organisations" and what is "an organisation". Groups of people can be involved with children but they may not be understood to be an organisation. When placing a statutory duty on any group, we are always faced with the problem of identifying the group. The approach in the Bill is to introduce a system of accreditation, which basically allows that if one cannot place a duty on an organisation, organisations can identify themselves. The view taken in the Bill is that it most important to be able to identify which groups the duties will be placed on. I know that there are concerns about not proposing that all organisations should make referrals. Presumably we will return to this issue when we go through the detail of the Bill. 16. Ms Ramsey: I am not happy with that, and will return to this later. 17. The Chairperson: We will move on. 18. Mr Clarke: As regards appeals, a person will not be placed on either list without being able to make representations to the Department. The Bill sets out the referral process. When the person has been informed of the referral, they are invited to make comments. The organisation that made the referral may also be required to do so. Only after the Department has considered all the representations made by the individual and the organisation will a decision be taken to place an individual on a list. The person will still have the right to appeal to an independent tribunal. 19. The Bill creates powers to allow the Department of Education to make regulations that will prevent an individual being employed as a teacher or in other education-related employment involving children. Those regulation powers will be added to the Department of Education's existing power to make regulations relating to the suitability of people working in the education sector. 20. The Bill makes it an offence to work in a regulated position, and the definition of "regulated position", as set out in the Bill, is extremely wide. It covers all areas where people work with children. The Bill also makes provision for disqualification orders to be made. The court will have the power to make a disqualification order on people who have been convicted of certain offences that are set out in the schedule to the Bill. The effect of the disqualification order will be similar to being placed on the list held by the Department in that it will be an offence to work, or seek work, with children whilst subject to a disqualification order. 21. There are inter-jurisdictional arrangements. The Bill makes provisions for any disqualification or prohibition from working with children made in another jurisdiction to apply in Northern Ireland. That power is stated widely in the Bill, and the Department will have the power to enforce all disqualifications regardless of where they are imposed - in another European jurisdiction or elsewhere. 22. The Criminal Records Bureau is associated with the Bill, and it is topical as its mechanism in England and Wales is now receiving adverse publicity. The Department has been informed that the Secretary of State in the Northern Ireland Office, who has responsibility for this area, does not intend to commence the legislation in Part V of the Police Act 1997 which would create a body equivalent to the Criminal Records Bureau in Northern Ireland. That means that the Department will carry out the checks, including criminal record checks. The Department does that in liaison with the police and will continue to do so. 23. However, I am concerned about that. Although the Department can access criminal record certificates, there is a problem because Part V of the Police Act 1997 also makes provision for enhanced criminal record certificates, which would include certain "soft information". The enhanced criminal record certificates contain actions that fall short of a criminal conviction. At present the Department does not have a difficulty with accessing criminal records that include convictions and cautions - those are part of criminal records. However, the Department is unclear about whether it can access anything equivalent to an enhanced criminal record certificate in the absence of commencement of Part V of the Police Act 1997. Departmental officials are continuing to discuss these matters with the Northern Ireland Office because they range outside the Bill into other areas. 24. The definition of "vulnerable adult" may cause problems. Children are presumed to be vulnerable by virtue of their age, but the same does not apply to adults. The Bill provides a lengthy definition of "vulnerable adult", but it is an area of concern. Comparable legislation in England and Wales, the Care Standards Act 2000, has not yet been implemented. My understanding is that it is unlikely to commence until next year. Much of the delay has been caused by substantial difficulties in defining the relevant posts for the purposes of identifying people who are working with vulnerable adults. There are problems in identifying vulnerable adults and deciding which posts require checks to be carried out, particularly those in the health sector which are more problematic than those on the social-care side. 25. Our legislation covers an accreditation scheme, which will be open to any non-childcare organisations that apply. We would like the organisations to adopt proper child protection standards, including the carrying out of checks. I must emphasise that carrying out checks is only part of the child protection measures that are in the Bill. We would expect accredited organisations to undertake wider implementation of protection standards. 26. Those are my general comments on the Bill. There may be points that Committee members wish to pick up on. 27. Ms McWilliams: One or two of the submissions suggested amendments to the Bill. Can you comment on those at this stage? One submission from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) suggests that the Department might accept its amendment concerning accreditation. You are in a better position to comment, because you must be familiar with the consultation process and amendments that have been suggested. Can you tell the Committee what stage the Department is at? 28. Mr Clarke: I am not sure what you want me to say. I am aware of the consultation and what people would like to be changed. We touched on the definition of childcare organisations, for example. Many issues have been raised; do you have a specific one in mind? 29. Ms McWilliams: I will be specific. The NSPCC's submission says that it proposed an amendment to clause 17. My understanding is that it is saying that the Department has taken that amendment on board. For example, the Committee may be familiar with the famous Martin Huston case. If I remember correctly, he worked for the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO) or one of those organisations, but he moved from one organisation to another and was abusive in each post. An organisation should be able to blow the whistle and alert other organisations about an employee who has moved on. At present, an organisation can only blow the whistle on its own employees. 30. Mr Clarke: That suggests widening the whistle-blowing ability. Despite what the NSPCC has implied, the Department is not in a position to officially accept such an amendment, although it has regular discussions with the NSPCC. That is a policy consideration, and I cannot say that anything has been agreed. 31. My reaction is that such an amendment would create a new dimension of responsibilities for organisations. The NSPCC might be suggesting that, if an organisation knows that an individual is a potential threat to children, it should inform other organisations. Legislation concerning organisations is generally based on the fact that an organisation has taken some action by dismissing or removing the person from the post. Why should we stop at saying that an organisation should be able to blow the whistle rather than an individual? In other words, anyone should be able to blow the whistle. I am not entirely clear about the logic of allowing one organisation to do it rather than the general public. That opens up some wide-ranging issues. 32. The Chairperson: When we come to the clause-by-clause discussion of those matters, and possible amendments to them, it will be relevant to us. 33. Mr Clarke: We must be careful with the Bill not to open up a situation in which anyone can make a referral about a person. I am not saying that that might not be right in terms of child protection, but I would caution against that possibility, or going down that road, because it creates a different dimension in respect of the rights of individuals to make accusations against others. 34. Ms McWilliams: I am certain that the NSPCC are not suggesting that for a moment. I am suggesting that the NSPCC have extensive experience of the problems surrounding the sexual abuse of children, and are anxious that the legislation, as currently drafted, does not take on board one of its major concerns. All of us have issues around civil liberties, but they have asked that a specific amendment be made. It is obviously the NSPCC's understanding, but not yours, that the Department are going to take that matter on board. That is all that I wanted to be clarified, because the NSPCC stated that in their submission to us. Clearly, you are not of the same view. 35. Mr Clarke: I am not in a position to make a decision on a policy such as that. It represents a major policy shift in the Bill, and we would have to take cognisance of it if the Committee is supporting it. My initial view is that it makes the position regarding referrals much wider. While I can understand why the NSPCC would put it forward, I am not sure why it would be limited to an organisation and why individuals would not be permitted to make a referral. 36. Ms McWilliams: The NSPCC has proposed its own amendment, which limits the right of referral to childcare organisations. They have given us a wording that we can look at. 37. The Chairperson: We can go back to that in the clause-by-clause discussion. 38. Mr Clarke: Why would it be limited to a childcare organisation? We are dealing with significant and serious areas of law that involve criminal offences. If referrals were to be permitted, we would have to scrutinise that situation carefully. I would not like to give an off-the-cuff opinion. 39. Ms Ramsey: To be fair to the NSPCC, they were talking specifically about the Martin Huston case, and they mentioned and included the Police Act 1997, as Mr Clarke said. It is not as if they were talking about individuals. It was about individuals working within organisations and the whole issue of whistle-blowing. Martin Huston was able to move from one organisation to another. 40. Mr Clarke: I do not want to create the impression that we are dismissing what the NSPCC are saying. I have been put on the spot on a serious issue, and have flagged that as an issue to be returned to. 41. The Chairperson: We may or may not support that amendment, but it is an important point. 42. Mr Hamilton: Is the Department satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards to protect workers from malicious accusations? The nature of what we are dealing with means that in certain professions a malicious accusation could be enough to wreck an entire career. We must be certain that the safeguards against that happening are strong enough to ensure that the Bill does not create a different kind of victim. 43. Mr Clarke: That is linked to what we have been talking about. Referrals are currently based on the assumption that employing organisations have taken some action, such as dismissal or transfer. There are employment issues there. Before the system in the Bill kicks in, a hurdle must be jumped in that the employer will have decided to remove a person. 44. Outside this Bill there are implications concerning employment law. My focus is on child protection and we shall go as far as possible to get it right. However, there is a concern about malicious referrals, as well as referrals that are made negligently without much thought, and the whole set of consequences for the person involved. Although it does not happen day and daily, information has been passed to us, as the branch responsible for the existing Pre-Employment Consultancy System (PECS), which puts us in an invidious position. In the current system the criteria are set out, and they are broadly similar to those in the Bill. If I am told that someone is a threat to children - and that could well be the case - I cannot simply make assumptions. That could have implications for an individual. There is a danger of malicious referrals, although I do not know how great that danger is, because it concerns employment situations. 45. There are sufficient safeguards in the Bill as it stands, because the employer has had to jump a hurdle and make a decision in relation to an individual. That has come from the employing organisation and not from someone who has made a referral with no risk to himself. In dismissing or taking action to move a person in his or her employment, the employer has at the very least rendered himself open under unemployment law to further action by an individual. In our concern to protect children we must be very careful that our whole legislative framework is not subject to any challenge which could seriously damage it. There are sufficient safeguards, but it is an area of concern. 46. In my general comments I did not cover fees, resources and implementation. It is not envisaged that the legislation will have major resource implications; however, those could be famous last words. That is partly because PECS is in operation and approximately 30,000 checks a year are made. Unlike other occasions, if the numbers were to rise we could calculate the difference fairly accurately because a system is already in operation here. For example, if vulnerable adults were to weigh in with an equal number of people, it would not be difficult to calculate the necessary additional staffing resources, which would amount to only three or four people. 47. Ms McDaniel is giving some thought to streamlining the way in which we do business. Our current system is largely manual and savings could be made if IT was introduced. However, major resource implications are not anticipated. Provision is made for fees to be charged, and those would offset resource implications. Voluntary organisations could be charged fees, and that is an issue. Many issues come to light, and I do not wish to address all of them now. 48. With regard to implementation, we are much further advanced in relation to children than to vulnerable adults. We could probably commence this for children in approximately one year, which would allow for the revamping of guidance and other matters, as it would not be such a revolution in the work of organisations. The text of existing guidance would be more closely modelled on the legislation. There is a lot of work to be done, but it is achievable in a relatively short time. 49. The arrangements for vulnerable adults have caused substantial problems in England and Wales, and will not commence there for another three years. We are less confident about the timescale. The only vulnerable adults that we currently deal with are adults with learning disabilities, so we do not have the full system, or anything like it, for vulnerable adults at present. 50. Ms McWilliams: My question relates more to the NIO than yourselves, but clearly you have been in consultation with them. It relates to soft intelligence, as opposed to hard intelligence, and the enhanced certificate that exists in England and Wales, but not here. 51. Mr Clarke: Strictly speaking, that relates to the commencement of Part V of the Police Act 1997. The Criminal Records Bureau is the mechanism for doing that in England and Wales, and it has a lot of problems. Although we can see an administrative way round being able to get criminal records certificates, as at present, our problem is that the public should be sensitive about the area where people have not been convicted, but where there is sufficient evidence for the police to certify something about those people. It is obvious that we need that, and that legislation already extends to Northern Ireland. There will be communication at ministerial and other levels with the Secretary of State about when it will commence, but there are no plans for that at present. We can go ahead with our legislation because that is outside our legislation. However, I mention it because it is relevant to the child protection issue. 52. Ms McWilliams: That is one of the major areas where problems arise. We all know the difficulty of getting convictions, especially where there is a clear record of intelligence, but no conviction. 53. Mr Clarke: The release of intelligence requires the legislative backup, which is why that was legislated in the first instance. It is a potentially dangerous area because of people's rights. That is why we have Part V of the Police Act 1997, which already extends to Northern Ireland. We can work the system as this does not affect the Bill - it is working at present. However, for the protection of children that is an element that is missing. It is an element that we need in this area, and it is also needed outside the Bill for other vetting. It is wide-ranging and includes the suitability of people to adopt children. There is a whole raft of issues in the Police Act 1997 that touch on enhanced certificates, and this can only be answered by its commencement or some decision taken in connection with what will be done here about enhanced criminal record certificates. 54. Ms McWilliams: In light of that, perhaps we should ask the NIO to give us evidence. 55. Mrs I Robinson: It is very important. 56. The Chairperson: That would seem reasonable. Thank you Mr Clarke and Ms McDaniel, this has been very helpful. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE Wednesday 11 September 2002 Members present: Witnesses: 57. The Chairperson: Thank you very much for your documentation, Ms Caul. 58. 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. 59. 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. 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. 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. 63. 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. 64. 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. 65. 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) is amended to include the words "advising" and "counselling". Those involved in advising and counselling should fall within the definition of a childcare position. 66. 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. 67. One of the issues dealt with in the evidence given by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (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. 68. However, there are a couple of points that we hope 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. 69. 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. 70. 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 in 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." 71. We are unclear at this stage as to the implications of two standards of proof. Again, we would like officials to deal with that. 72. 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. 73. 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. 74. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. That has been helpful. 75. 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? 76. 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? 77. 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. 78. Ms Ramsey: In my constituency of Belfast West 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? 79. Mrs I Robinson: The reference is to private, independent Christian schools. 80. Ms Caul: That is correct. 81. Ms Ramsey: Will the voluntary sector also be dealing with it? 82. Ms Caul: Do you mean things such as out-of-school provision? 83. Ms Ramsey: No, I refer to school provision. They are providing classes, however, the kids are not in mainstream education. 84. Ms Caul: I presume that they operate in accordance with 'Our Duty to Care' as regards good practice guidelines in that sector. 85. 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. 86. Ms McWilliams: To clarify the position of independent schools, are they exempt from other types of legislation, which cover punishment et cetera? 87. Ms Caul: I am aware that the Education and Libraries Bill incorporates an amendment to deal with corporal punishment in independent schools. 88. Mrs I Robinson: My children went to an independent Christian school where there was the option of corporal punishment. 89. 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? 90. Ms Caul: I do not have that information, but I can check. 91. 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. 92. The submission from Women's Aid among others stressed a difficulty with fees for accreditation. What is your response? 93. 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. 94. Ms McWilliams: Do you have any proposals for that? 95. 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. 96. 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. 97. Is there an equivalent? Maybe 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 not get the 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. 98. The Chairperson: We will explore that. 99. 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? 100. Ms Caul: We endorse the NSPCC's position. 101. The Chairperson: Thank you for the presentation and documents. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 11 September 2002 Members present: Witnesses: 102. The Chairperson: Thank you for coming. You are very welcome. 103. Mr Elliott: The NSPCC is very grateful to the Committee for this opportunity to give evidence on the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. We have been closely involved in campaigning for this legislation and for improvements in our system of suitability checking for those who work with children. We feel that the provisions of the Bill are the sound product of constructive consultation. We commend the Department for attempting to address our concerns. 104. In some respects, the proposals in the Bill take us beyond current practice in other jurisdictions. In particular, the concept of accreditation in clause 16 deals imaginatively with the absence of an obligation under the Protection of Children Act 1999 for non-childcare organisations to refer those dismissed for harming children or, indeed, to carry out checks against the 1999 Act list. Accreditation, if developed imaginatively, has the potential to improve child protection standards in non-regulated organisations. 105. This Bill establishes a floor, not a ceiling. The challenge will lie in its implementation and outworking. We still have questions about the policy intent of the Bill, and a few technical queries about the legislation. The Committee may find it helpful to tease these out with departmental officials during the Committee Stage of the Bill. 106. Accreditation of voluntary organisations should be supported and promoted by all Departments. Ideally, we would like to see this concept acquire the status of a Kitemark. Parents will want to know that organisations meet expected standards in child protection. 107. What is the Department's position regarding the imposition of fees, both for accreditation and for accessing the registers, for smaller organisations that depend on the use of volunteers? We hope to see those fees waived, as has already been announced by the Home Office and the Scottish Executive in equivalent legislation. It is an important issue. Small organisations could be overburdened by the costs involved in carrying out checks, which could be a considerable disincentive. 108. We seek adequate all-island systems of suitability checking, placing emphasis on how this issue is being progressed by the Department of Health and Children in the Republic of Ireland. Although the Minister has announced that access to the Department's list will be available to organisations in the South for checking on staff who have been domiciled or have worked in Northern Ireland, the lack of an equivalent consultancy index or, indeed, criminal records system, is worrying. It effectively creates a major loophole in our own system for staff coming from South of the border. 109. We recommend the establishment of an advisory panel with expertise drawn from inside and outside the Department to consider cases for potential listing under clause 2. We suggest the establishment of a small reference group to assist the Department in examining individuals for potential listing against the criteria to be used. 110. We welcome the development of the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS) awareness group to promote and raise awareness of vetting and to provide information for parents. This group has an important role to play in the outworking of the Bill. 111. It is important to recognise that a range of situations are not covered by the scope of the Bill, such as, for example, self-employed entertainers, unregistered childminders employed in parents' own homes, and au pairs not employed through an employment agency. There is an urgent, ongoing need to educate the public about the limits of vetting people's suitability to work with children. The Department's list is but one component of good employment practice. That is an important message to convey to the public. 112. The NSPCC recommends that the PECS awareness group be established as a permanent forum within the Department to develop the public education component of suitability checking, and that the group develop strategic outputs that link in to, and are overseen by, the proposed child protection review group that is being established by the Department. 113. I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee some potential amendments that we would like you to consider. The first relates to clause 13. There is a complex interface between List 99 and the Department's list. That is particularly so in regard to Regulations that have yet to be developed by the Department of Education under the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Ms Caul of the Children's Law Centre will deal with that in more detail. 114. We suggest that the Committee consider the necessity of the phrase "(other than provisionally)" in clauses 13(2) and 13(3). We have been advised by the Department of Education that, if someone is listed provisionally on the Department's list, then procedurally and under Regulations to be developed by the Department they could still be working with children. We are unclear as to why this distinction is in the Bill. Is it necessary? 115. The second proposed amendment relates to clause 17. The NSPCC has had lengthy discussions with the Department regarding this clause and the adequacy of the proposed whistle-blowing arrangements. This is another unique feature of the Bill. There is a complex balance of considerations in this clause, set within the context of human rights issues. 116. We understand that, in many ways, clause 17 will interface with accreditation and other regulatory requirements and, over time, be reflected in the development of whistle-blowing policies in organisations. However, we propose a slight amendment, which, we understand, may be supported by the Department. The Committee may wish to consider a provision to allow organisations to blow the whistle on other bodies where they are aware that the requirements of clause 2 are not being fulfilled - for example, when a person is dismissed for harming children, is listed by the Department, and moves to another childcare organisation, and requirements are not followed. It should be remembered that the Martin Huston case involved an individual who moved from one voluntary organisation to another to further his abuse of children. We suggest changes in the wording of clause 17 to strengthen it and address that issue. 117. Finally, we invite the Committee to address part V of the Police Act 1997, which extends to Northern Ireland but has not yet been enacted. The 1997 Act is part of UK-wide measures that run in tandem with the provisions of the Protection of Children Act 1999 and this Bill. Part V of the 1997 Act effectively allows for the provision of soft police intelligence - allegations, unsuccessful prosecutions, et cetera - in the form of an enhanced criminal record check that is required for work with children. The failure to apply part V of the 1997 Act to Northern Ireland is potentially very serious in terms of the interface with this Bill. The position in Northern Ireland will be left different from that in England and Wales. 118. It may be useful to give an example of how the failure to apply part V of the 1997 Act to Northern Ireland might impact here. Consider an adult who has had six serious allegations of sexual abuse made against him over a period and one unsuccessful prosecution due to the fact that the child was too young to give evidence. The individual is regarded as a serious risk to children by the police and by social services. However, he has no convictions and has not been dismissed from any post where he has harmed children. 119. He applies to work in a youth club. He falsifies references, but a check is carried out by the organisation, which is accredited, as required by the Bill. He appears to have a clean suitability check. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has no legal basis on which to advise the Health Department of its soft intelligence, and there is no provision for the production of an enhanced criminal record certificate. He gets the job and has access to children. If he lived in England or Wales, information in regard to his past would become apparent under an application to the Criminal Records Bureau for an enhanced certificate, and he would not be employed. 120. We do not consider that to be a satisfactory state of affairs. It is damaging to the operation of the Bill. We suggest that the Committee ascertain from Minister of State Jane Kennedy, as a matter of urgency, when part V of the 1997 Act will be applied to Northern Ireland. The Committee might wish to invite officials from the Northern Ireland Office to explain their intentions in relation to that. 121. The Chairperson: We have asked the NIO to come to us on that issue. 122. You referred to clause 17. How would your proposal to extend whistle-blowing to organisations work in practice? What are your views on extending the whistle-blowing provision to vulnerable adults, as well as children? 123. Mr Reid: Our proposed amendment is a simple one. It provides organisations with legal protection when they blow the whistle on other organisations; for example, if an employer dismisses someone for harming children, but later sees that person taking up, or trying to get, employment elsewhere. The amendment would facilitate an organisation to contact the Department to advise them of the unsuitability of the person and the fact that they are trying to take up employment elsewhere. 124. I am probably not the best person to answer questions about adults. However, the Bill interfaces with vulnerable adults and children, and we feel that there should be no distinction between the categories. 125. Mr Berry: Clause 13 of the Bill is about independent schools. Has the Children's Law Centre established why staff of independent schools and non-teaching staff in institutions of further education are not covered by the education Regulations or the Bill, and what are your views on the extension of the legislation to cover these groups? 126. Mr Reid: Ms Caul, who is giving evidence next, will deal with some of those matters. This is not how to design a scheme if starting afresh; in a sense, existing systems are being built upon. We have concerns about the lack of clarity as regards List 99, the Department of Education's requirements for teaching, non-ancillary or ancillary staff. The issue is not clear, which is one reason why you should get departmental officials to clarify the intention. Much is left to faith in the Department of Education to develop Regulations that will bring their scheme into line with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's register. There are some peculiarities between the two. 127. Ms McWilliams: This is a comprehensive background paper. Last week I asked departmental officials about the point you made in your submission that the Department was minded to adopt the amendment to clause 17 relating to whistle-blowing. I quoted the case of Martin Huston to the Department. The Department took a different view; it said that it might not intend to adopt that clause. I am concerned as to how that misunderstanding might have arisen. Clearly you have had contact with the Department - you would have discussed the amendment with them and, therefore, must have put the relevant point into your submission as a consequence. 128. Mr Reid: I understood that to be the position. There has been substantial contact between the Department and the NSPCC about this clause. Indeed, in many ways we might have proposed other amendments to this clause. I have concerns about what happens when a whistle-blower does not want his or her name used. We had a long and fairly detailed discussion with the Department about clause 17. I also gave the Department a copy of the letter that I sent Mr Hughes on this issue. 129. Mr Elliott: We discovered the Department's position on the matter only today, and it fair to say that we are genuinely surprised. However, we would not want that to divert attention from the importance of the amendment. We continue to propose it, and to advocate it. 130. Ms McWilliams: Such a case could be repeated if this clause is not amended. 131. Mr Elliott: That is our view, which is why we brought the matter to the Committee's attention. We are sincerely committed to ensuring that everything possible is done to prevent another tragedy such as the Martin Huston case. 132. Mr Reid: You need to ensure that loopholes, through which people would fall, do not appear in this complicated legislation. We are seeking to ensure that the legislation is as robust as possible. There are many good aspects to the legislation, and we welcome the fact that it goes further than the Protection of Children Act 1999, which came about as the result of a private Member's Bill introduced by Debra Shipley MP. She has warmly welcomed the provisions in this Bill and feels that if she could incorporate some of its provisions into her legislation, it would strengthen the Act. 133. Ms McWilliams: Even with the introduction of this legislation, we will not be able to tackle cases involving self-employed entertainers. In one case, it came to my attention, and the NSPCC's, that a known paedophile was working as a self-employed entertainer at children's parties. Obviously this legislation will not cover such cases. The public needs to be made aware of the limitations of the legislation otherwise they could be lured into a false hope that it will cover every aspect of the problem. One thing we know about child abuse is that when the legislation restricts paedophiles, they move into other things. This is a clear incidence that has been left unregulated. 134. Mr Elliott: It is critical that we raise public awareness of the limitations of vetting - you cited some examples of those limits. That is why the NSPCC has made reference to, and emphasised the importance of, the role of the PECS awareness group. 135. Mr Reid: Vetting is very important, but the most significant element is Part V of the Police Act 1997. That is why we find it bizarre that the NIO has not been clear about what is actually happening in that regard. PECS and List 99 will capture only those who have been convicted or dismissed. Many people never end up being convicted of offences, which is why Part V of the Police Act 1997 is so significant. If it is implemented it will, through soft police intelligence, capture people who are unsuitable to work with children. 136. Ms McWilliams: I have accompanied people though the very difficult process of trying to get sex abuse convictions. Sometimes it takes up to three years, which is how long my most recent case took. In that case the police ended up with only a very minor prosecution for indecent assault despite the fact that the victim had suffered a much more serious assault. The problem is that if the person admits their guilt, et cetera, the nature of the conviction will be affected. Does soft intelligence take into account bind overs, cautions, et cetera? 137. Mr Reid: It involves non-conviction information; for example, if somebody has been investigated several times by police and social services for alleged sex abuse. One would have a fair idea of people who pose a risk in the community, and that information would be part of an enhanced criminal record certificate, if such a person subsequently applied to be a children's coach. That information would come out as part of the vetting process. Soft intelligence is information about people who have not been convicted or dismissed for harming children, and which the police could make available in an enhanced criminal record certificate, as happens in England. 138. Ms McWilliams: Is one of the reasons for the delay in recruiting teachers in England the fact that the enhanced certificate is in place? 139. Mr Reid: The Criminal Records Bureau was launched in March and has had many teething problems. We have had difficulties with the body because, bizarrely, it will not check the Department of Health's list in Belfast. As a result, people deemed unsuitable to work with children on our current list could go to England and gain employment without that information coming up during a check. We have had lengthy discussions on that, and various MPs have asked why the Criminal Records Bureau has not implemented the legislation on a three-nation agenda. As a result of intervention from Debra Shipley the bureau has set up a three-bureau implementation group to try to deal with some of these cross-jurisdictional issues. 140. Ms McWilliams: I propose that the Committee ask for the matter to be taken up at the British-Irish Council. OFMDFM is constantly saying that it does not have many agenda items for British-Irish Council meetings. This would be a clear point for discussion. If Scotland, Wales and England were all operating together, that would at least constitute some attempt to tighten the net. However, if the net is left as wide as it is, then "move to Northern Ireland" will be the prescription that we are writing. 141. Mr Reid: The NSPCC and the Department carried out an audit and looked at where the gaps are. In many ways we are probably better off than anywhere else at present. The major loophole is the Irish Republic, which is a major flaw in the system. The Republic does not have a consultancy index; therefore, someone could move from the Irish Republic up to Northern Ireland without our being able to vet him or her. 142. The Chairperson: Ms McWilliams's proposal is good because it takes in both legislatures. 143. Ms Ramsey: Ms McWilliams raised an important point, but the North/South dimension is also an issue. Could we have a brief update on the situation? 144. Mr Reid: At present, Northern Ireland is going one way - our standards are improving - and the Irish Government are going the other way - their standards are decreasing. The situation is very serious. In the Irish Republic, statutory agencies, such as health boards, can have a police check carried out on their staff. There is no equivalent of a consultancy index in the Irish Republic. The voluntary sector has been getting employers to use the Data Protection Act 1998 to check people - you go to the gárda station, present your data protection form and get your police reference, which is a back-door means of checking. The Irish Government have announced that they are going to outlaw that system. This may sound perverse, but, to be frank, if I were an employer in an organisation in the South I would recruit Northern-based staff, because at least they can be vetted. 145. The Chairperson: We should ask the Minister to write to Micheál Martin, her counterpart in the South, on the issue. 146. Mrs I Robinson: You gave a fairly good example of the adverse implications on the Bill if Part V of the Police Act 1997 were not enacted. Are there counter-arguments against enacting the Bill? 147. Mr Reid: The Committee needs to take that matter up with the NIO. The Police Act 1997 applies to the UK, so I do not understand why it is not being applied in one part of the UK. This Bill has been allowed to develop without clear directional guidance from the NIO. References are made in various documents to the fact that the NIO is debating what is going to happen, but the Bill is seriously weakened by the absence of clear direction as regards Part V of the Police Act 1997. 148. Mrs I Robinson: Are they playing on the human rights issue to halt the process? 149. Mr Reid: Given that it is established practice in England and Wales, I would find that hard to believe. 150. Mrs I Robinson: I cannot understand it either. 151. The Chairperson: The NIO will be giving evidence to the Committee soon. 152. Mrs I Robinson: I will raise this issue with them then. 153. Mr J Kelly: You stated in your comprehensive submission that the Bill seems to establish a floor and not a ceiling. What changes would you suggest that would bring the Bill closer to the ceiling? 154. Mr Reid: It depends how the Department will implement the accreditation aspect. Accreditation could be viewed as a very minimal scheme, with the result that to gain accreditation an organisation has to have a child protection policy and carry out vetting - that is one level. On the other hand, the Bill could say that to be accredited an organisation has to have a comprehensive child protection policy, a child policy on child friendliness, a whistle-blowing policy, and must allow auditing and inspection. The proof is in the pudding. Accreditation could be comprehensive and significant. 155. The NSPCC has a child protection sport unit, which advises sporting organisations. Few sporting organisations are registered with the Department for vetting. Of the 82 sporting organisations, few are registered. If a broad system of accreditation were established, parents will ask organisations why they are not accredited, which would be very significant. 156. The Chairperson: We will stop the discussion there. I thank Mr Reid and Mr Elliott for their helpful presentation and documentation. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE Wednesday 18 September 2002 Members present: Witnesses: 157. The Chairperson: I thank Brian McCaughey, Paul Doran and Val Owens from the Probation Board for Northern Ireland for coming to make presentations to the Committee on the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. I hope that you do not mind keeping your presentations short, so that my Colleagues can ask the relevant questions. 158. Mr McCaughey: On behalf of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, I thank you for the opportunity to give oral evidence on the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. I am Brian McCaughey, and I am director of operations. Paul Doran is assistant chief officer; he has operational responsibility in the Probation Board, at a senior management level, on all our work on child protection, supervision of sex offenders and policy development on risk and danger. Val Owens is a middle manager based at the Alderwood centre; she is leading on the development of the assessment and management of our work with sex offenders. 159. I will highlight briefly the relevance and importance of the Bill in relation to the work of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. We have five main points that we wish to make, as highlighted in our submission on the Bill. No doubt you will have questions for us, and we will deal with those, individually and collectively, as they arise. 160. The primary aim of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland is to prevent further victims - that is to reduce crime and the harm it inflicts. We do that through the assessment and management of risk posed by offenders, which is especially important with those who have committed sex offences. In all our work we strive to evidence our commitment to partnership, public protection and professionalism. The Probation Board welcomes the introduction of the Bill and supports its objective of strengthening existing arrangements to ensure that appropriate checks are carried out as to the suitability of those seeking to work with vulnerable adults and children. 161. As an employer of 340 staff, the Probation Board obtained category A clearance for all its employees at all levels including volunteers, which ensures that they have all had a criminal record check and a Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS) check. 162. Our child protection procedures state that a child's welfare must be paramount in any intervention and, as such, thus overrides all other considerations and social work principles. Where there is conflict, a child's interests will always come first. The emphasis of our work on public protection, and our relation to the Bill, is specifically on children and vulnerable adults, and that will continue to be our emphasis 163. Mr Doran: There is confusion in the community about registers for dangerous people. For example, there is some confusion between the sex offender register, the PECS register, and a register for those who are convicted of other serious offences. There must be an overarching public safety strategy to deal with that issue, because there may be people who are on the PECS register but not on the sex offender register, and vice versa. 164. The Probation Board is aware that a PECS awareness group has been set up recently. The board welcomes the setting up of the group, which will address some of those issues. The board believes that it would be useful as part of an overall strategy, which highlights the responsibility of parents. No register can, by itself, protect children. We do not want to lull the public into a false sense of security. However, as Mr McCaughey said, the board firmly welcomes the introduction of the Bill. It believes that a public advertising campaign - explaining who can access the register, and in what circumstances - would be of value. 165. In the proposed legislation, only those people who are convicted of an offence that leads to a sentence of 12 months imprisonment or more are eligible for disqualification orders. However, that is not apparent from an initial reading of the Bill. When the Bill is studied in more detail, it becomes clear that it is designed only for people who are sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment or more. The Probation Board supervises people who are on probation - who may never have gone to prison - or people who have been in jail for less than 12 months. It might assess certain people in those categories as posing a risk to the public. The board, therefore, wants to deal with clause 23, which states that the qualifying sentence must be 12 months or more. Perhaps it should be extended to include those who are serving community sentences, because - since they must serve their sentence in the community - they pose a potential threat. 166. Sometimes criminal records do not identify the victims of certain offences, such as abduction or kidnapping, of which kidnapping may be more relevant. The Probation Board believes that it is important that criminal and court records clearly identify whether the victim was a young person or a vulnerable adult, because there may be child protection issues surrounding the conviction for abducting a child, which may not be the case with kidnapping for financial gain. There needs to be clarity in criminal records. 167. I mentioned briefly that the board has acknowledged the work of the PECS awareness group, which has flowed partly from the work of the Committee and the Assembly. There are issues emanating from that, especially with regard to employment, the ability to access the register, and accreditation, which my colleague, Ms Owens, will address. 168. Ms Owens: I want to talk briefly about the accreditation process. Other submissions have also dealt with that issue. The Probation Board welcomes a system of accreditation for organisations and groups that work with children. Part of the difficulty with the system is that it does not regulate the many individuals who work with children; that may have been pointed out to the Committee by other groups. I am not sure whether that can be overcome by legislation. The board is concerned that an unintended consequence of the Bill might be to encourage more people into that area. 169. A range of occupations often involve one-to-one contact, which is a high-risk situation for adults who work with children. Such people would include tutors, music teachers and ice-cream vendors. Those people work in an unregulated area. Through the Probation Board's work with offenders, it has come across situations in recent years in which people have been convicted while they were employed in such an occupation. It is difficult to regulate that, and I am not sure whether the legislation could. However, it may be possible to include, if not the individuals themselves, the agencies that those people may have to go through in order to procure work of that nature. Children's entertainers, for example, are often signed up to agencies. An effect of the legislation is that agencies that procure employment for people who are disqualified from working with children could also be subject to prosecution. I am not sure how that could fit in with accreditation. Agencies, such as those that represent children's entertainers, also need to be accredited. It is important that that be considered. 170. It is important that there is parity with the Republic of Ireland's legislation about vetting arrangements, because it is likely that people will seek employment in both jurisdictions in organisations that work with children. The discussion may raise other issues, but those are the main points that I wanted to mention. 171. Ms McWilliams: You have extensive experience of working with offenders and a body of knowledge that many of the witnesses do not have. It is, therefore, important for the Committee to hear your views. 172. I am interested in the inclusion of community orders. The Northern Ireland Office (NIO) has not declared an intention to extend Part V of the Police Act 1997 to Northern Ireland. Therefore, criminal records are the only hard evidence of a successful prosecution. However, prosecutions are not always successful. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) provided a scenario of a case in which the child was deemed to be incompetent to give evidence, hence the prosecution was unsuccessful. Yet, had that case been prosecuted in England, there would have been sufficient evidence to issue an enhanced criminal record certificate. That cannot happen here. Will you tell us your views about that? 173. We are trying to get the NIO, and perhaps police officers, to give evidence. However, in the absence of Part V, or even alongside it, would you favour the inclusion of community orders? 174. Mr Doran: The principle of child protection is paramount. We are often faced with a dilemma about sharing information with employers. We would rather worry about the risk of proceedings further down the line than put a child at risk. That is the course of action that we have taken in the past, and we have shared information on people about whom we have had concerns. 175. Having said that, we must respect the rights of the individual and his or her family. We must remember that the majority of sexual offences are committed by people who know the victim. It is never a straightforward matter of the child being attacked by the bogeyman who lives around the corner. Unfortunately, the bogeyman is often someone whom the young person knows. He might be the school caretaker, or whatever. 176. I support the inclusion of community orders. The courts and the public want to see more effective sentencing, and they want to see that the Probation Board is committed to public protection. The board may be supervising ex-prisoners whom it would not have supervised in the past. It wants to enjoy the confidence of the public and politicians in carrying out that task. 177. Mr McCaughey: Ms McWilliams referred to hard and soft evidence. All evidence should be considered, if a person is deemed to be a risk to children or vulnerable adults. 178. Ms McWilliams: Will you elaborate on that, Mr McCaughey? 179. Mr McCaughey: Ms McWilliams said that in England, if a conviction or a court hearing breaks down because the child is unable to give evidence, the police could provide information about the accused's background or behaviour. That evidence should be a contributory factor in deciding whether a person should be disqualified from working with young people. 180. Ms McWilliams: I have been told that the police are reluctant to go down that road, because it might be seen as gathering intelligence for other reasons. It all comes back to the troubles. 181. Mr McCaughey: We do not view this matter in the context of the past 30 years in Northern Ireland, but in the context of child protection. It comes back to our original statement that the welfare of the child is paramount and should override everything else. 182. Ms McWilliams: In contrast with probation officers in the rest of the UK, probation officers here felt that their role was affected by the troubles. It is good to know that you have no difficulty with that aspect. 183. Mr McCaughey: We have no difficulty at all with that aspect. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland works in and with communities in Northern Ireland, and those communities support that work. 184. Mrs Courtney: The protection of children is always at the forefront of our minds, but even more so in the light of recent high-profile cases. In dealing with the legislation, we must bear that in mind that other families may endure similar abuse. 185. I wanted to know more about disqualification in other jurisdictions. Ms Owens mentioned parity with the Republic of Ireland and I agree that such parity is necessary. How does the Probation Board access information on nationals from other EU states who are working with children here? 186. Mr Doran: With difficulty. Our job is to assess and manage risk. We want to be satisfied that a person would pose a risk to children or vulnerable adults. Therefore, we must have confidence in the system in the country of which the person is a national. We have contacted the Conférence Permanente Européenne de la Probation (CEP), a European network of probation services. A recent case involved a person living in Northern Ireland whose first language was not English and who planned to return to their country of origin. With some difficulty, we tried to make contact with the equivalent probation service in that person's country of origin to pass on our assessment that that person was a risk to children. We have also received similar information from other countries, but on an ad hoc basis. The system only applies when we know that the person plans to leave the country. 187. I do not want to move into a political arena, but we may not have access to information on soldiers in Northern Ireland who have been convicted or court-martialled in England. They could be involved in duties that may give them access to children or vulnerable adults. Attention must be given to that issue, even within the UK. As regards Europe, we are keen to become more involved with the CEP because it has carried out much work on the management of dangerous people. 188. Mrs Courtney: Clause 30 states that "section 28 shall apply in relation to an individual falling within subsection (2) as it applies in relation to an individual who is disqualified from working with children." 189. Can that clause be tightened up? England and Wales are not included because it is assumed that we are all part of the same jurisdiction. It will be difficult to access the relevant information. How can you ensure that probation officers will be able to contact probation services in a person's country of origin? Did you succeed in contacting the probation services in the case that you mentioned earlier? 190. Mr McCaughey: Yes, we did. 191. Ms McWilliams: You said that information from other European countries is relayed on an ad hoc basis. There is the Criminal Records Bureau in England, a disclosure body in Scotland and PECS here. Do similar organisations exist in Europe, other than the CEP? 192. Ms Owens: Perhaps I should not be speaking on behalf of the police, but I imagine that they would have connections in Interpol and could access information in that way. However, that information would probably be as a result of a criminal conviction, and I am not sure whether that would include people who had been investigated but not convicted. 193. Mr McCaughey: We have phone networks and contacts in related agencies. However, we would have to go through the police for a definitive version of someone's criminal record. 194. Ms Owens: Several cases have reached the courts, where foreign nationals who come here to seek employment, or who have been recruited, have been convicted. Some of those people have now returned home, and we try to pass on that information and our assessment. 195. Mr McCaughey: There will be more and more movement across borders in Europe. 196. Mrs Courtney: We cannot access the registers. There are times, even on holiday, when I am concerned about young children being around adults and nothing is known about the history or background of the adults, and yet intuition tells me that those people cannot be trusted. However, nothing can be done about it. 197. Ms Owens: People who leave Northern Ireland for more than eight days, or who return to the same location twice a year for a total of eight days, are required to tell the police service where they are going. The difficulty lies in what to do with that information, and whether it should be shared automatically with child protection agencies. 198. Mr J Kelly: Ms Owens said that there is no parity between this part of the island and the rest of the island, and Mr Doran said that there are circumstances that presume that there is parity with England, Scotland and Wales, yet there are exceptions, such as court-martialling, where there is no access. What is meant by parity? Can a paedophile come from Dublin to Belfast without anyone knowing? 199. Ms Owens: There are systems of communication, but they are still informal and ad hoc, and based on procedures that individual agencies have developed. I was referring to the ability to access an equivalent of PECS and criminal records in the Republic for people who come to Northern Ireland and vice versa, so that if someone from Northern Ireland goes to the Republic, the Republic can access PECS and criminal records here. We must ensure that there are no loopholes. 200. Mr J Kelly: Does that not happen at present? 201. Ms Owens: It does happen, but it is not completely foolproof. It happens when people are aware of a change of location, but that does not happen in all cases. 202. Mr J Kelly: Mr Doran made a point about not being able to access information. 203. Mr Doran: Soft information refers to the police having concerns about an individual. For example, the PSNI may not be able to bring charges against a soldier who had been court-martialled in England and found not guilty. In England there is still a question about the power to put that person on a register. However, that power does not exist in Northern Ireland unless a person is employed by an agency that has grounds to dismiss him. 204. I want to emphasise one point: The register itself will not protect children. The parental responsibility remains with regard to holidays and so on. The register should never be seen as the panacea for child protection. 205. Mr McCaughey: No piece of legislation could, or should, absolve parents from responsibility. Equally, however, parents must be supported in that responsibility. 206. Mr J Kelly: On the question of downloading child pornography, is there a distinction between those who download it, perhaps for distribution, and those who commit an offence against a child? 207. Ms Owens: Not in the sense of a child protection agenda. 208. Mr J Kelly: Is one less culpable than the other? 209. Ms Owens: We do not go into culpability or league tables. The bottom line is whether the person presents a risk, and the answer is yes. That is linked to a point concerning legislation on disqualification. I understand that there is a process, through a social care tribunal, where someone who was a young person at the time of disqualification can be reviewed after 10 years. 210. Comments were made in that process, but not in the legislation, about the risk having passed. I am not happy about that. In no situation could it be said, in respect of that type of behaviour, that the risk had passed with the passage of time. People are convicted at pensionable age for sexual offences. It might be important that any review procedure make it clear that if an individual applies for a review there should be an update of the risk assessment. 211. Mr J Kelly: Do you mean across the board? The reason I asked the question was because an individual in my own area was arrested and sentenced for downloading child pornography. The debate locally was that downloading child pornography was not as bad as participating in it. 212. Ms Owens: It is not possible to know the risk until details are known of how long someone has been engaging in that behaviour. Sometimes what appears at the surface is not everything that has gone on. 213. Mr J Kelly: No one will ever know how long it has gone on. 214. Ms McWilliams: There is a concern regarding clause 21. In respect of an offence committed when someone is under 18 years of age, a person will be disqualified only if there appears to be a likelihood of further offences being committed by the individual. "An order shall not be made under this section if the court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it is unlikely that the individual will commit any further offences against a child." 215. The words "it is unlikely" concern me. Should we consider deleting them because they allow a wide-open interpretation? How is that decided, when there is already a behaviour pattern? 216. Mr McCaughey: It could, perhaps, be reversed to read: "An order will be made in this case unless it is proven". 217. Ms McWilliams: That puts it into the negative. 218. Ms Owens: It is very difficult. Such a judgement could not be made at that stage of the court procedure, because the assessments carried out will not have reached the court. 219. Ms McWilliams: Could we perhaps consider drafting something of that sort when we come to it? 220. Ms Armitage: Where entertainers are concerned, the situation is not as bad; usually a group of children is present. Home tutoring, however, concerns me. That is dangerous. Children go for home tutoring after school to a house where perhaps only the tutor is present, and are there for two hours. Although that situation is on our own doorstep, we seem unable to check it. 221. Ms Owens: Oliver Brannigan, the chief executive of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, has discussed this issue recently, and he suggested that self-employed people could carry a licence. 222. The Chairperson: Without that, parents have no way of knowing about that person's credentials. 223. Ms Armitage: Perhaps such people should register as a tutor. Tutoring is popular, and dozens of children receive it. That problem has been left wide open. 224. The Chairperson: Ms Armitage has made a good point. 225. Mr McCaughey: Parents are aware of tutors who have criminal convictions for offences against children, and they continue to send their children for music lessons and so forth. It is known in the community that that individual served a period of imprisonment for those types of offences. When the Committee is considering legislation, I urge it to remember that the behaviour of parents and others must match their knowledge. 226. Ms Armitage: That is very difficult, because when the child goes home, he or she may not discuss what happened in the previous couple of hours, because children often do not do that. 227. Mr McCaughey: People's involvement in, and conviction for, such crimes and their subsequent release is well-known in communities. Others are informed through word of mouth and the local newspapers. Parents make choices based on that information. 228. Ms Armitage: That is correct if those people have been convicted, but they may continue to commit offences. Parents have responsibilities, but this could be a problem. Tutoring is very common, and the children go in and shut the door and are out again in two hours. 229. The Chairperson: We shall wind up the discussion. I should like to thank the Probation Board for Northern Ireland for their documentation and presentation and for answering our questions. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE Wednesday 18 September 2002 Members present: Witnesses: 230. The Chairperson: I welcome Ms Maggie Smith from Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (SSAFA) Forces Help. Please make a presentation about SSAFA and the Committee will then ask you some questions. 231. Ms Smith: Thank you for inviting me. 232. I am here because there are gaps in the protection of children who are from military backgrounds, and I am interested in the impact that those gaps have on Northern Ireland. I began social work late in life, when I did a diploma in social work aged 42. At that stage I had four children, who were aged from two to 18. I count myself as one of the lucky people who managed to have three children at first, two girls and one boy, and, ten years later, I had one of life's little surprises. That gave me a good lead into the field, as I had a real interest in the protection of children and a desire to improve their situations. 233. I worked in childcare in east Belfast for five years, then moved to SSAFA in 1994 as a social worker, and I have been managing the association's social work department here for four years. 234. Not a lot is known about the SSAFA social work service in Northern Ireland. The organisation was established in 1885 because families of soldiers who joined the Egyptian Expeditionary Force needed support. It continued as a volunteer group until 1892 when a health visiting service was introduced. It is interesting to note that the first health visitor, under the SSAFA umbrella, was employed in the Curragh Camp near Dublin. The organisation continued to grow from strength to strength, until social workers were introduced in 1963. That was the forerunner of a very strong social work service throughout the world, in Germany, Cyprus and Gibraltar. My employment with the association in 1994 introduced the current network to Northern Ireland. 235. In my letter, I outlined the difficulties that we face. I am here to see whether we can resolve some of those difficulties. I am interested in the Committee's views and will try to answer any questions. 236. Mrs Courtney: The Bill has raised issues about how you can employ people when you know nothing about their backgrounds. You referred to the serious gap in provision in the Bill as regards members of the armed forces. From your work, you may know that certain people are unsuitable for employment, but is it correct to say that their record is not available to any organisations here? 237. Ms Smith: Yes. The SSAFA social work service keeps records of people known to it. The difficulty is that people in Northern Ireland employing dependants or military personnel may not know that they can access those records through me. We are trying to bridge that gap in knowledge. 238. Mrs Courtney: Do you want the Committee to let employers know that they can access your service if they want to check someone's background? 239. Ms Smith: Yes. 240. Mrs Courtney: That is good to know. We will consider the matter further. 241. Ms McWilliams: When I had read your submission, I contacted an organisation to see what happens in cases such as this. In the UK alone, there are three different operations. In England and Wales, the Criminal Records Bureau carries out the relevant checks. The Central Registered Body in Scotland, or Disclosure Scotland, does not have a statutory register such as the one we are about to introduce, but it does incorporate Part V of the Police Act 1997, which makes it different again. In Northern Ireland, the Pre-employment Consultancy Service (PECS) will have a statutory register, but does not incorporate Part V of the Police Act 1997. 242. Ms Smith: We are not registered with PECS as yet. 243. Ms McWilliams: I suggest that the Committee writes to the three-bureau implementation group, which is apparently going to take on the co-ordination of these bodies and Maggie's work. As I understand it, if a member of the armed forces has a criminal conviction, your organisation would hold that information. However, if a serious offence is committed, the armed forces have their own procedures. 244. Ms Smith: That does not happen in all cases. Any member of the armed forces can come before a civilian court, and, in such a case, proper records would be kept. The court martial system is different, and I am not convinced that there is a way of tracking it. For example, I do not know whether there is a link between the records of members of the armed forces convicted in Germany, and the records of members of the armed forces who serve here. 245. Ms McWilliams: Apparently, there is no link. If an offence has been committed against a child outside the armed forces and the parent takes a prosecution to the criminal courts, the accused will receive a criminal conviction in our criminal courts that will ensure that he or she is registered on the sex offenders register, and, later, I assume, on the Pre-employment Consultancy Service's register. Please explain what happens if the same offence occurs within the armed forces. 246. Ms Smith: I can give one example. Allegations were made against a male babysitter after an offence was committed in Germany. That person was tried by court martial and found to be not guilty even though the evidence suggested that he might have been guilty. He was then posted on to the next place. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland mentioned "soft evidence" in their evidence. There would have been soft evidence in that case, but there was no way to pass that on. There is no problem if there is a conviction. This week, there was a successful conviction by a court martial in Aldergrove. 247. Ms McWilliams: Let us take the example of a successful conviction. 248. Ms Smith: If there is a conviction, the person's name is added to the sex offenders register in the normal way. It is the non-convicted person who would not be registered. 249. Ms McWilliams: So, if a case internal to the armed forces is tried by a court martial, the convicted person's name is automatically put on the sex offenders register? 250. Ms Smith: I am not sure if it is automatic, but that has happened. The non-convicted person concerns me. 251. Ms McWilliams: It would also concern me if registration is not automatic. 252. Ms Smith: I cannot answer that; I do not know. I may be able to find out more about that. 253. The Chairperson: How effective are the current liaison arrangements between your organisation, the Social Work Service, and local health and social services trusts in relation to child protection? Could they be improved? 254. Ms Smith: The system works well when people apply to become childminders or nursery school staff. All of our offices work well alongside social services offices. A system is in place whereby anyone applying to become a childminder who is part of the military population has a separate form to complete for our records. All social services offices are aware of that. The only way the system could fall down is if the applicant did not disclose that they were part of the military community. 255. Mr Berry: Thank you for your presentation. Your submission refers to local residential and/or day care facilities not asking for SSAFA Forces Help for background checks on childminders. In what ways could the public be better informed about the advice and information available from SSAFA Forces Help? 256. Ms Smith: We are currently trying to think of ways to advertise. We do not advertise externally. Perhaps we could communicate with each of the residential homes in the garrison areas and make them aware that they can apply to us for records. I would welcome the Committee's advice on that matter. 257. Mr J Kelly: Thank you for your presentation. What is the position in respect of members of the forces serving abroad who are tried overseas by court martial? Are such records maintained? What form of liaison exists with social services? 258. Secondly, how can SSAFA Forces Help contribute to improve co-ordination of tracking potential abusers in that mobile type of community? 259. Ms Smith: There is no direct link between the court martial system and social services. There is no mechanism for that. SSAFA want to improve that, and the ways to do so are being considered continually. This is a starting point. 260. Mr J Kelly: How would you remedy that? How could we contribute to resolving that? 261. Ms Smith: The Committee can help by highlighting the nature of the problem and supporting us in the advancement of our initiatives. We want to think of some links. We need the support of the Assembly and the Government to carry that forward. 262. Mr J Kelly: On the last question, how can SSAFA Forces Help contribute to improve co-ordination of tracking potential abusers? 263. Ms Smith: We contribute as much as we can through our own records. Beyond that, we look for hints and support to carry it out. What would you like me to take away so as to consider the next step? 264. Mr J Kelly: It is a gap in the system that has to be addressed. 265. The Chairperson: Perhaps you would write to the Committee on that point. 266. Mrs Courtney: From my experience I know that sometimes when people from the local forces apply for a position in hospitals they would be employed before a local person, because their record would be clear. It is not always so, but there is no doubt that it happens. Perhaps the Committee could inform hospital trusts about the gap in the system so that checks can be made. An amendment could be made to the Bill. 267. I have singled out hospitals because I know that service personnel and their families are posted here for three months and are then transferred elsewhere and that ends their employment. I doubt if any checks are carried out on their background. That happens a lot. 268. Ms Smith: We sent a letter to each of the boards for the family and childcare section. It may be wise for us to send such a letter to each of the hospitals. 269. Mrs Courtney: We could recommend that suggestion in our report. 270. The Chairperson: I agree that that would be helpful. 271. Ms Smith: Is there a central point from which such a letter would emanate for distribution? 272. Ms McWilliams: The letter should go the family and childcare section of the Department, which should send it to every trust. 273. Ms Smith: We have already done that: I was thinking of the hospitals. 274. Mrs Courtney: You should send it to the chief executive of each board. They should be told that the matter has been brought to our attention and should be remedied. 275. Ms McWilliams: We can assume that they have already got it. 276. The Chairperson: We can incorporate that into our findings. 277. Ms Smith: Would the letter also be passed to private residential homes or daycare facilities? 278. Ms McWilliams: Yes, via their inspection facilities. 279. Ms Courtney: It should, but they are not all registered. 280. Mr J Kelly: Are you suggesting that Ms Smith should write to the Committee? 281. The Chairperson: Yes. 282. Ms Smith: Are you referring to the point about courts martial? 283. Mrs Courtney: It would be better for the Committee if you cover all of the issues. 284. The Chairperson: Please address the letter to the Clerk of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Peter Hughes, and it will be passed on to Committee members. Thank you, Ms Smith. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE Wednesday 2 October 2002 Members present: Witnesses: 459. The Chairperson: Welcome Det Chief Inspector William McAuley, the care co-ordinator for Northern Ireland. We are interested in hearing about the Police Act 1997 with regard to what is known as, soft information. We understand that Part V of the Act does not apply in Northern Ireland yet. Would you please tell us a bit about that? 460. Det Chief Insp McAuley: The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) would welcome the enactment of Part V of the Police Act 1997 as it feels handicapped by the fact that it does not have that piece of legislation. At present, we have the ability, under the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS) arrangements, to disclose criminal convictions in relation to people applying to work with children or vulnerable adults in the long term. However, the legislation limits information to criminal convictions: it does not include soft information or soft intelligence. 461. We have a process of disclosure based on stated cases - in other words, on stated law - in how we disclose further information that could be included in the category of soft information and soft intelligence. It is a lengthy, convoluted procedure that could be easily resolved by the enactment of Part V of the Act. There will be nothing new as regards the amount of information that would be disclosed, but the disclosure of the information would be much more time effective and detailed in content. 462. The Chairperson: Thank you, that is very helpful. Part V of the Act has come into effect in England and Wales. Has that been advantageous to your colleagues there? 463. Det Chief Insp McAuley: Yes, especially regarding the timing of the disclosure of information. As people are applying for employment, time is of the essence as regards disclosure because of application and interview procedures. Part V of the Police Act 1997 allows that process to happen very quickly. Information can be disclosed speedily. Without the legislation in Part V, it takes a long time to reach a decision about whether to disclose information. 464. The Chairperson: Is the implementation of Part V crucial to the effective operation of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill? 465. Det Chief Insp McAuley: Yes. 466. Ms Armitage: The Committee has been alerted to the fact that cross-border vetting is difficult, as the system in the Republic of Ireland is not as advanced as that in Northern Ireland. A person unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable people could move from the Irish Republic and take up employment in Northern Ireland. What checks would be appropriate? Could the vetting system be difficult or non-existent due to the inadequacies in the Republic? 467. Det Chief Insp McAuley: There are difficulties. If a PECS application were made to the PSNI about someone who has been previously resident in the Republic of Ireland, we would communicate with the Garda Síochána as regards criminal records and intelligence held. That information tends to be limited because of the systems that exist in the Republic. 468. Ms Armitage: Is there a good relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána over vetting procedures? 469. Det Chief Insp McAuley: I have worked in child protection for a long time, and the relationships are excellent, particularly in the area of child protection. 470. Ms Armitage: Do they have the same procedures? 471. Det Chief Insp McAuley: The Republic of Ireland is behind us in relation to its legislation and procedures for trying to protect children. It enacted its Sex Offenders Bill two years ago, whereas the Sex Offenders Act was enacted in Britain in 1997. The Republic of Ireland is catching up. 472. Ms Armitage: What steps could be taken to enhance procedures? Is there much movement across the border? 473. Det Chief Insp McAuley: There is a significant movement of sex offenders. There was a great deal of movement prior to 1999-2000. We assumed that it was because people were not required to register in the South and felt that moving there freed them from restrictions or mandated imposition by the Garda Síochána or anyone else. The situation changed with the introduction of the Sex Offenders Act 2001, and we have found that many of those people have now come back to the North of Ireland. 474. Ms Armitage: If someone from Northern Ireland flees to the Republic, would it be difficult to get that person back? Would we go so far as to use an extradition order for a child sex offender? 475. Det Chief Insp McAuley: Yes. We have to meet the same criteria for extradition as for any other criminal offence. We have had no significant difficulties using the extradition process for serious sexual crime and child abuse offences. The only difficult case involved the now notorious Fr Brendan Smyth. That had repercussions, and since then, our ability to secure people, who flee to the Republic of Ireland, for prosecution in the North has improved greatly. 476. Ms Armitage: Is that quite a quick process? 477. Det Chief Insp McAuley: No. 478. Ms Armitage: Are those people free to move around while you are waiting for them? 479. Det Chief Insp McCauley: It is difficult to say, but I think they move quite freely. There is provision for the prosecution of people who have committed serious sexual assaults or child abuse in both jurisdictions. We can prosecute citizens of the UK for offences committed in the South of Ireland. That happens on the odd occasion, and avoids the necessity for extradition. The difficulty arises from the process of extradition, which is long and complicated. We must be able to show sufficient evidence to a court in Northern Ireland to make the initial application for extradition, which is sometimes difficult. 480. Ms Armitage: Do you have to send people back to the Republic who flee to Northern Ireland? 481. Det Chief Insp McAuley: Yes. The extradition process works in both jurisdictions. 482. Mrs Courtney: The schedule of the Bill lists many offences. The PSNI has suggested an amendment to paragraph 3(d). Would you expand on the reason for the amendment? I am thinking about the kidnapping of a young boy in Germany on Monday. The public were not told: the family kept it quiet and paid the ransom. However, the boy's body was found later and it is thought that he was probably murdered on the day that he was kidnapped. That is a dreadful case. However, it could happen here. 483. Det Chief Insp McAuley: The idea behind the schedule is to list the offences to which the rest of the legislation applies. Other offences need to be included. For example, I would include offences under the mental health legislation, such as sexual intercourse with people who have been statemented. 484. It is difficult to say whether it is an effective method of providing protection. The list of offences is fairly exhaustive, though there are a few others that we would like to see included. If we were to include the offence of kidnapping, it would be necessary to identify some connection between that offence and child protection. If the offence involved the abduction or kidnapping of a child, it should be included in the list. However, with regard to offences in the UK, a person who kidnaps a child would normally be prosecuted under abduction, which carries a capital penalty of life imprisonment. The preference is always to prosecute for the most serious offence. 485. Mrs Courtney: There is an offence under section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 of abduction of girl with intent to have carnal knowledge. That is a very specific offence towards a girl. I wonder why the offences listed apply to some people but not to others. 486. Mr Hamilton: Perhaps I might return to the vetting procedures, in particular those of a cross-border nature. You said that the relationship between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána regarding cross-border vetting procedures was limited. What do you mean by "limited"? What type of information is available to you, and what is not? 487. Det Chief Insp McAuley: The information generally available is post-conviction. Someone will have been tried before a court, convicted, and a sentence will have been imposed. That information is easily available; getting beyond that information is difficult and limited because of procedural difficulties. 488. In Northern Ireland, specialist care units investigate child abuse and serious sexual offences. Those units are easily identified and information made available. The Garda Síochána does not have that type of structure in their investigative methods. Very often, serious offences are investigated by local uniformed gardaí, and it is sometimes difficult to make the necessary contacts with those who know the ins and outs of an offence. It is limited because of the existing structures rather than by intent. 489. The Chairperson: A representative from SSAFA gave evidence concerning regiments moving between Northern Ireland, Germany and other places and the impact of that on child protection. Is there any link between the PSNI and the armed forces as regards child protection? 490. Det Chief Insp McAuley: Yes. I have a counterpart in the Office of the General Officer Commanding Land Forces (GOC) at Thiepval who takes the military lead on child protection and we meet frequently. We also have a contact in SSAFA. All criminal convictions, whether in a civil court or a result of court martial, are available on the police national computer, so I have access to that type of information directly. 491. I can make further enquiries with organisations such as SSAFA. The PSNI offers a place for military welfare staff to train so that they can have the same provisions and protocols applied in military jurisdiction as in civil jurisdiction. When a case of child abuse is investigated in a military jurisdiction - in other words in an army barracks or camp - the same protocols and procedures are applied as would be applied in the rest of the Province. 492. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE Wednesday 2 October 2002 Members present: Witnesses: 285. The Chairperson: Welcome Mr Clarke and Ms McDaniel from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Do you have any comments to make on the remarks of Det Chief Insp McCauley? 286. Mr Clarke: No. His explanation of North/South relationships and with regard to the armed forces concurs with our understanding. The commencement of Part V of the Police Act 1997 would be of great assistance. Clause 1 (Duty of Department to keep list) 287. The Chairperson: Clause 1 imposes a duty on the Department to keep a list of individuals who are considered to be unsuitable to work with children. It also enables the Department to remove a person from the list if it is satisfied that they should not have been included in it. The Committee received no comments on this clause from the various bodies consulted. 288. Mr Clarke: An issue will be raised later as regards the two lists, so the clause may be changed slightly. 289. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to. Clause 2 (Inclusion in list on reference following disciplinary action, etc) 290. The Chairperson: Subsection 2 details the conditions that must be fulfilled before an organisation can make a referral. Definitions of childcare organisation and childcare position are given in clause 18. Barnardo's, the Children's Law Centre, the Nexus Institute and the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust suggested that the Department's definition of organisations with a statutory duty to refer individuals found to be unsuitable to work with children was too limited due to the discretionary nature of the referral for non-childcare organisations. 291. The Children's Law Centre recommended that all organisations employing staff and/or volunteers who have regular contact with children and young people should be obliged to carry out regular checks and to make referrals. It stated that institutions in the criminal justice system, such as juvenile justice courts, attendance centres, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and PSNI should be included. Its suggested amendment is that, in clause 2(1), the words "A child care organisation shall, and any other organisation may," 292. should be replaced with the words "All organisations shall". On first reading, that seems to be a reasonable amendment. What is your opinion, Mr Clarke? 293. Mr Clarke: Not unexpectedly, this is a big issue. I would advise the Committee that equivalent legislation is currently before the Scottish Parliament. 294. I am only mentioning it now because the same issue will be debated almost in parallel in Scotland. England already has the Protection of Children Act 1999, and equivalent legislation is to be introduced in the Scottish Parliament. I was recently at a meeting, and this is one of the big issues in both pieces of prospective legislation. 295. You asked whether all organisations should be required to carry out checks. The amendment raises several difficulties. The first fundamental difficulty is the meaning of "all organisations", and linked to that is how such a requirement would be enforced. There are powers to exert pressure on childcare organisations and others governed by regulation if they fail to comply. If we included the phrase "all organisations" in the Bill, we would have to invent a completely different system to enforce the requirement, which may result in a criminal sanction for failing to make a referral. 296. I do not want to say too much about that now, but I can say something about the practical implications of adopting such an approach. Changing the legislation to read "all organisations" would not be an effective amendment: essentially it would be unenforceable. 297. The Chairperson: If you include the phrase "all organisations", the question of accreditation for organisations is hardly necessary. 298. Mr Clarke: Yes. The idea of accreditation was a means of addressing the fact that we cannot identify every single circumstance in law under which a group of people might be involved with children. The childcare organisations were always going to be limited to regulations. The idea of accreditation was to allow organisations to approach the Department voluntarily. That would not be necessary if the Bill includes the phrase "all organisations". 299. The Chairperson: That is very helpful. 300. Ms Ramsey: I take your point, but the difficulty is that we are not dealing with decent people: we are dealing with predators. Most, if not all, organisations involved in protecting children issues say that the clause is currently too wishy-washy. Can we find a compromise that takes their issues and the concerns of this Committee on board? 301. Mr Clarke: The accreditation scheme was the compromise. It was the only scheme put during the consultation period that we thought practical. As a member of the unit responsible for child protection, I understand what you are saying about the loophole whereby people can move into other areas. We highlighted that issue in the consultation document on the legislation, and it is worth remembering that this Bill operates in relation to the vetting of people: it does not give people certificates of clearance to work with children. 302. The issue of unsuitable people working with children and the circumstances under which people can get unsupervised access to them must be dealt with alongside this legislation. We are open to suggestions, but the accreditation scheme was our response to the concerns. 303. The Chairperson: Would it be helpful to return to that point next week? I understand that inserting "all organisations" would make the legislation unenforceable, but, as Ms Ramsey said, the legislation needs to cover all organisations working with children. I understand your point about accreditation. 304. Mrs Courtney: Mr Clarke, are you suggesting that inserting "all organisations" would make the legislation unworkable? 305. Mr Clarke: Yes. The phrase "all organisations" will create problems. A lot of thinking has gone into the clause. If we include all organisations, in which someone has substantial or regular access to children, and try to enforce that through the law, we will run into difficulties about regularity. It will create serious problems, especially for the person who is given the statutory duty to enforce the Bill. 306. Clause 2 referred for further consideration. 307. Clause 3 agreed to. Clause 4 (Power of certain other authorities to refer) 308. The Chairperson: Subsection (1) confers powers on certain authorities to refer an individual who has not been referred under clauses 2 and 3. It is not clear why the only registration bodies covered in subsection (2) are the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Northern Ireland Social Care Council. The subsection gives the Department the power to designate other persons by Order. The proposed amendment is to replace "may" with "shall" at clause 4(1). 309. Ms Ramsey: I suggest that clause 4 is referred until next week when we will know the outcome of the referral on clause 2. 310. Clause 4 referred for further consideration. 311. Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to. Clause 7 (Reference by authority making direct payments in respect of services) 312. The Chairperson: Subsections (1) to (3) provide that an authority carrying out an inquiry under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 may refer an individual to be included in the list. The Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust is of the opinion that clause 7 should be more specific, with trusts being required to refer. The proposed amendment is to replace "may" with "shall" at clause (1). 313. Ms Ramsey: I suggest that we leave that until next week and deal with it with clauses 2 and 4. 314. The Chairperson: Yes. It is better to consider clause 7 in the context of changes to clauses 2 and 4. 315. Clause 7 referred for further consideration. 316. Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to. Clause 11 (Conditions for applications under section 10) 317. The Chairperson: The Committee received no comments on this clause. 318. Ms Ramsey: Why was the figure of five years selected? 319. Mr Clarke: The figures of five years and ten years are arbitrary, but the intention is to avoid repeated applications. 320. Question, That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to. Clause 12 (Restoration to list) 321. The Chairperson: The Committee received no other comments regarding clause 12. 322. Mr Clarke: The comments refer to ensuring that executive directors of social work in trusts are covered. I am not sure whether that needs to be put as an amendment. 323. The Committee Clerk: Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust referred to the executive director of social work. Having looked at the Bill, they asked that it be mentioned specifically. In clause 49, there is a definition of "director of social services", and they wished to confirm with the Committee that it covered the other title. 324. Mr Clarke: It is an issue to be taken on board or at least thought about. It could remain at the level of director of social services; it is a matter of whether you want to extend the powers to make an application apply to trusts as well as boards. We can certainly consider an amendment. 325. The Committee Clerk: Perhaps Mr Clarke might clarify something. Clause 49 of the Bill states that "director of social services" means: "(a) a director of social services of a Health and Social Services Board; or (b) an executive director of social work of a Health and Social Services trust". 326. Does that not meet your point regarding clause 12? 327. Mr Clarke: The legislation works at director of social services of a health and social services board level. It is not crucial to the operation if it is not put forward as an amendment. 328. The Chairperson: Would it be helpful to have an amendment? 329. Mr Clarke: The wording is probably sufficient as it is, but we can take it away and think about it. It would not be a huge policy shift to ensure that the legislation covered both positions. 330. The Chairperson: Perhaps we should seek clarification and return to the clause next week. 331. Clause 12 referred for further consideration. Clause 13 (List in connection with prohibiting or restricting employment in schools, etc.) 332. We may need to defer clause 13 because we need to involve the Department of Education. 333. Mr Clarke: Colleagues from the Department of Education, who are involved in such issues, are in a better position to talk about the detail of clause 13. 334. Clause 13 referred for further consideration. Clause 14 (Effect of inclusion on either list) 335. The Chairperson: "Either list" in clause 14 refers to Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety list and the Department of Education list. The Committee has not received any oral or written comments on clause 14. 336. Mr J Kelly: Will clause 14 be considered in conjunction with clause 13? 337. The Chairperson: Yes. There could be a consequential amendment. If amendments are made to clause 2, it may be necessary to make a subsequent amendment. With that exception, is the Committee is content with Clause 14? 338. Mr J Kelly: Yes, if there is a consequential amendment. 339. Ms Ramsey: Would it not be better to defer clause 14 until next week's meeting? 340. The Chairperson: Yes. 341. Clause 14 referred for further consideration. Clause 15 (Access to lists) 342. The Chairperson: Subsection (2) covers arrangements for carrying out checks to establish whether an individual is included on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety list, or the Department of Education list. There is a suggested amendment. Barnardo's has called for the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS) eligibility checks for staff, volunteers, carers and any others who are determined by an organisation, to be extended to include ongoing checks. It suggests that that could form part of a renewable license. 343. The suggested amendment to clause 15 is after "position" insert "of". 344. The Committee Clerk: The first suggested amendment to clause 15 is to amend the clause to cover "all individuals connected to an organisation". 345. The Chairperson: That is the proposed amendment from Barnardo's. I mentioned the NSPCC's proposed amendment, which applies to a different clause. 346. Mr Clarke: I am unsure about where the Barnardo's amendment is supposed to be made to the clause. 347. The Committee Clerk: Barnardo's made that suggestion with regard to all organisations. There is no specific place to insert that amendment. If the Committee were to adopt the suggestion by Barnardo's, it would have to draft an amendment that meets the requirements of the Bill. I understand that it would affect subsection (2). If all the individuals who are connected to organisations were covered by it, it would affect how relevant individuals are covered. 348. Mr Clarke: Two matters must be mentioned. First, it is a transitional provision, which will fall if, and when, the Police Act 1997 comes into operation. If the Committee amends it, it must bear in mind that it is amending a provision that is intended to be transitional before the full system kicks in. Secondly, with regard to widening access to lists, I would be merely speculating as to where the amendment was supposed to be made. 349. The Chairperson: Can you explain the transition process? I am unsure about it. 350. Mr Clarke: As the Department has placed a requirement on certain organisations to carry out checks, must provide them with access to the lists. The provision is necessary because we have neither the longer-term policy nor has the Police Act 1997 commenced. The Act means that records would be processed here through a body equivalent to the Criminal Records Bureau. Therefore, in the meantime, the Department must provide access to records, which it is doing. 351. The Chairperson: Is it, therefore, unnecessary to insert the words "all individuals" although we have - 352. Mr Clarke: The amendment is to a transitional arrangement; therefore, if all individuals connected to an organisation are supposed to gain access to records under the Bill, they will not have access to them when the Police Act 1997 comes into operation. The amendment is to a transitional provision. 353. The Chairperson: When will the Act commence? 354. Mr Clarke: We are waiting for an answer to that. 355. The Committee Clerk: Members may want to leave clause 15. The NIO has been invited to give evidence to the Committee as to when part v of the Police Act 1997 will be commenced. 356. Ms Ramsey: Will we come back to clause 15? 357. Clause 15 referred for further consideration. Clause 16 (Accredited organisations) 358. The Chairperson: Clause 16 brings us back to the argument on clause 2 about the inclusion of "all organisations". The Committee has suggested amendments. Do you have any comments to make, Mr Clarke? Have you seen the proposed amendments? 359. Mr Clarke: Yes. Changing "may" to "shall" is a drafting point; it does not make much difference. We are in total control of the commencement of each provision. I am not sure when we will make Regulations. However, there is no doubt that we will have to do that to establish an accredited organisation. The usual form of words is "may make Regulations". I have, however, no doubt that we will make Regulations. 360. The Chairperson: Will the Regulations be laid before the Assembly? 361. Mr Clarke: Of course, we want to consult on many issues before bringing the Regulations to the House, which include how the accredited system operates and what charges may be imposed in connection with it. 362. Ms Ramsey: The problems are due to clauses 2 and 4. 363. The Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and the Mater Infirmorum Hospital Health and Social Services Trust suggested that trusts should be included because of their contact with children. 364. Mr Clarke: That is a misunderstanding because, whereas we are a childcare organisation, trusts and the relevant parts of hospitals are regulated. The accreditation would never be relevant to them, so we would never accredit them. As it stands they are compelled to remain as childcare organisations. 365. The Chairperson: Are there any more questions on clause 16? Ms Ramsey suggested that we leave it until next week. 366. Ms Ramsey: We should come back to clause 16. 367. Clause 16 referred for further consideration. Clause 17 (Whistle-blowing by employee or member of child care organisation) 368. The Chairperson: Mr Clarke, you have seen the suggested amendments for clause 17. Several amendments may be necessary if the Committee accepts the argument of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). 369. Some organisations, spearheaded by NSPCC, have suggested that amendments should be made to clause 17 to allow organisations to blow the whistle on other bodies in cases in which they know that the requirements in clause 2, in connection with referrals of individuals, are not being met. Therefore, several issues that are associated with the provision of whistle blowing must be considered, including how that would work in practice; the difficulties that employees face; and the degree of protection that the Bill and other employment legislation give to the whistle blower. 370. Mr Clarke: The whistle-blowing provision is about people feeling comfortable about coming forward to blow the whistle on another person. That implies that there should be whistle-blowing procedures in organisations. It is a long-standing issue in child protection, which stems from the Waterhouse report in Wales on encouraging the development of whistle-blowing arrangements in all organisations. 371. The protection that can be afforded in law to an individual who wants to, or feels that he or she must, blow the whistle on a colleague was taken up with counsel at the time. The view was that the general protection already exists and that the Bill is taking us to an extremely dangerous area. There are human rights issues if extensive protection is afforded outside the general law to people who whistle-blow on child protection issues. It puts the rights of the person on whom the whistle has been blown into stark relief. The view was that that was best left to the general law that exists on a wide variety of circumstances. 372. The idea that one organisation should be able to blow the whistle on another has been discussed with the NSPCC for some time, and the proposal was mentioned at a previous Committee meeting. We are interested in that area, but we can see certain drawbacks. We face the same dilemma others in seeing why that provision should be included. To say that one organisation may report on another organisation because it failed to make a referral makes organisations look like policemen. Whistle blowing is currently contained in organisations. However, if it works across organisations, we are effectively saying that organisations should act as policemen. 373. Having said that - as I have said to the NSPCC in the past - the idea has a certain attraction. It would mean that someone could take action if they clearly see and know that an organisation is not doing what it should in relation to someone about whom they have personal knowledge. However, it is a finely judged issue, as is the whole whistle-blowing area. It depends how far we want to push the line. 374. The Chairperson: Is it not overstating it to say that to allow one organisation to blow the whistle on another is giving them the role of police? Surely it is just one organisation reporting to the relevant authorities on another organisation? It is not policing. 375. Mr Clarke: In the provision, as it is currently drafted, whistle blowing can apply not only to an organisation, but to a named individual. I have some concern because we have had to consider that following the Bill's introduction. I have a slight reservation about the present wording, which states that once an organisation complains about another organisation not making a referral, the discussions and the communication flow is between the two organisations and the Department and the individual, who is at the centre of it, is cut out of the loop. 376. I suspect that the Department will have to rethink that aspect. It is more than just a complaint about an organisation; it is a complaint about an individual. That is possibly where the NSPCC's suggestion also gets into difficulty. There are no substantial hurdles to be jumped by the organisation that is making the referral, but something must be done about the person under clause 2. 377. Mr J Kelly: Are you suggesting that whistle blowing might be open to abuse? 378. Mr Clarke: Yes. I am concerned that the legislation must not lead to a situation in which it could be challenged because of unfair operation and openness to abuse. That it may be open to abuse may be more theoretical than real; however, with regard to human rights, it must be ensured that the legislation it is not open to challenge for that reason. If one organisation is reported by another, it is unavoidable that the finger is pointed at an individual, who will go to court. It will not be theoretical, and human rights issues will be a potential challenge. 379. The Chairperson: We should perhaps return to clause 17. 380. Mr Clarke: We shall go to counsel for legal advice. It is a wider issue than is covered by the amendments suggested by NSPCC. 381. The Chairperson: Perhaps the proposed amendments could be improved. 382. Mr Clarke: That amendment was one of the most difficult to draft, because of the concerns. 383. Clause 17 referred for further consideration. Clause 18 (Interpretation of this Chapter) 384. The Chairperson: Clause 18 defines several terms used in chapter 1. The Children's Law Centre recommended that all organisations that employ staff and/or volunteers and who have regular contact with children should be obliged to carry out checks. An amendment has been proposed that clause 18(1)(b) and (c) should be left out and replaced with "Childcare organisation means an organisation - (b) which is concerned with the provision of accommodation, education, social services, healthcare services, personal social serfvices, leisures services, advice and representation services, criminal justice services to children or care or supervision of children." 385. Ms Ramsey: Does the Department see any problem with that? 386. Mr Clarke: The main problem might be similar to that which arises when a prescribing provision is replaced with a list. The list must be kept in tune with what is happening. In this case, the prescribed provision could be retained and the text of the amendment added, but that becomes over-elaborate. I doubt whether any of the items on the list is not covered by a statutory provision in some shape or form. As in all legislation, the danger lies in being certain that the list is complete when it is compiled and whether it will remain complete. 387. Mr J Kelly: The list itself becomes prescriptive. 388. Mr Clarke: Yes, and people run down it and it becomes exclusive. Bear in mind that a list is an exclusion of everything that does not appear on it. My objection is not to that, but replacing a prescribing power with a list. 389. The Chairperson: The proposed amendment is to leave out clause 18(1)(b) and (c) and replace with "Childcare organisation means an organisation (b) which is concerned with the provision of accommodation, education, social services, healthcare services, personal social serfvices, leisures services, advice and representation services, criminal justice services to children or care or supervision of children." 390. Would that improve the provisions? 391. Mr Clarke: No, because it runs the danger of excluding something. It is a fairly comprehensive list, but my concern is that even if that is so today it may not be at some time in the future. 392. The Chairperson: Do Colleagues agree with that? 393. Mr J Kelly: I agree. By its nature it becomes prescriptive. 394. Mr Clarke: I can only suggest that, if the list is included in the Bill, some power to prescribe should be retained. That would always be required, but to put them both in would be to go too far. 395. Ms Ramsey: Depending on what agreement we come to on clauses 2 and 4, I would be concerned about making a decision on this now. 396. Clause 18 referred for further consideration. 397. Clause 19 agreed to. Clause 20 (Meaning of "offence against a child") 398. The Chairperson: Nexus has queried the drafting convention that we must refer to "he". It suggests that the only reference to female perpetrators, which is under-reported, is at clause 20(1)(c), and that relates to intercourse only. Many unreported instances of abuse, such as inappropriate touching, do not go as far as intercourse. Nexus claims that the clause also stereotypes non-intercourse sexual abuse as 'male'. Nexus believes that the clause should be expanded to refer to any inappropriate sexual contact. 399. That is a fair point. Nexus suggests an amendment incorporating the phrase "and any inappropriate sexual contact" into the clause, bearing in mind the references in the schedule to the legal standing of offences committed against a child. 400. Ms Ramsey: Let us win one, John. 401. The Chairperson: It seems to be a reasonable amendment. 402. Mr Clarke: The offences listed in the schedule are those that a court would depend on in order to decide whether to make a disqualification order. Is Nexus clear about that? It comes down to identifying the offences in the statutes. That is what a court would look for. 403. The Chairperson: They are making the point that using the word "he" is a problem. 404. Ms Ramsey: All they are asking is that the phrase, "and any inappropriate sexual contact", be included. 405. Mr Clarke: What is inappropriate sexual contact for the purposes of the High Court making an order? 406. The Chairperson: It may be a legal convention to use the word "he". I do not know if that is correct or not. However, in the particular context of sexual abuse, one has to be more specific. 407. Mr J Kelly: We could argue about semantics, but what is inappropriate sexual contact? 408. Mr Clarke: The issue is that it would be the sentence of a senior court. Courts do not impose sentences, in this case a disqualification order, unless an offence is on the list. Courts do not operate on phrases such as "inappropriate sexual contact". 409. The Chairperson: Mr Kelly made a point about what would be inappropriate. Any touching would be inappropriate. 410. Mr Clarke: I would not argue about the intention. I know where people are coming from. I am talking about the practicality of a senior court having to make a disqualification order on the basis of something that was as loosely phrased as that. Courts would not find that easy to deal with. 411. Ms Ramsey: I would like to discuss this matter in more detail. 412. Mr J Kelly: I am not sure either. I am not happy with it. 413. Mr Clarke: We have been examining the new Scottish legislation, which introduces a concept that is different from disqualification orders. In our case, it would give the courts a power to make referrals directly to the Department, and avoid the difficulty with disqualification orders. 414. It may be that a slightly different approach might address the problem that the Chairperson has raised more easily. A preliminary look at the Scottish legislation suggests that it has a bit more flexibility. As things stand here, the offences would have to be listed. 415. The Chairperson: Are you going to look at this and come back to us? 416. Mr Clarke: As regards the amendment, it would not be practical to include anything other than a specific offence. We can certainly look at the Scottish alternative to disqualification orders in detail. The principle is that, rather than having disqualification orders, courts would make referrals to the Department. This has a certain attraction because it is a lot simpler. It pulls things together. 417. Clause 20 referred for further consideration. Clause 21 (Disqualification of adults from working with children) 418. The Chairperson: Clause 21 provides that, when an individual is convicted of, or charged with, an offence against a child, a court must impose a disqualification order to prevent the person from working with children when released. 419. The Probation Board suggests that the qualifying sentence should include community orders, and that courts should record whether the victim of an offence was a child. There is also the question of suspended sentences. The Probation Board suggests the words "all convictees" to cover that. 420. Mr Clarke: I agree in principle. I am just checking whether suspended sentences are already covered. Clause 23(2) states that "references to a sentence of imprisonment or order for detention include references to a suspended sentence or order." 421. Sentences are suspended for a variety of reasons, but that does not lessen the threat to children. In principle, we would want that. 422. Ms Ramsey: Does clause 23 not deal with young offenders? 423. Mr Clarke: Clause 23(2) states: "In this Chapter references to a sentence of imprisonment or order for detention". 424. The words "order for detention" relate to young people. However, "sentence of imprisonment" is in this chapter and it includes suspended sentences. 425. The Chairperson: Is it worth amending clause 21? 426. Mr Clarke: To be honest, and I think the Committee would agree, we want to see a disqualification order whenever a court considers that someone is a risk to children. If there are any loopholes in the Bill as drafted, we will certainly want to plug them. 427. The legislation is couched in terms implying offences of certain seriousness. People might have concerns about that. The Scottish provision, which we have not studied in detail as yet, may allow a court to be more flexible when it considers someone a threat. I am sure that people feel that courts do not award very high sentences for a variety of reasons. However, linking a disqualification order to the length of a sentence is potentially problematic. 428. The Chairperson: We will come back to that again. 429. Ms Ramsey: In fairness to the Probation Board, I do not think that it is linking disqualification order to sentences. It is linking disqualification orders to the people who get off: it is not linking them to sentences of 12 months or more. It is linking it to the people who get community orders or suspended sentences. That is the Probation Board's concern. 430. Mr Clarke: I take the point about community orders. 431. The Committee Clerk: Ms McWilliams has suggested a possible amendment to subsection 5. The current wording is: "An order shall not be made under this section if the court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it is unlikely that the individual will commit any further offence against a child." 432. Ms McWilliams suggested that that should read: "An order shall be made under this section unless the court is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that it is unlikely that the individual will commit any further offence against a child." 433. Mr Clarke: That is clearer. We shall take that up with the draftsman. It does not change the meaning. 434. The Chairperson: So that is acceptable? 435. Mr Clarke: It basically says that they must make an order unless they are satisfied that it is not necessary. 436. Clause 21 referred for further consideration. Clause 22 (Disqualification of juveniles from working with children) 437. The Chairperson: Barnardo's raised concerns about the clause and the position of those under 18 who have not been convicted. Barnardo's would like to see the provision strengthened. A person under 18 would only be disqualified if he were likely to re-offend. The danger that such a person could disappear from the system and pose a risk also needs to be considered. 438. Nexus raised the issue of qualifying sentences. The disqualification should apply to all convicted perpetrators, not just to those receiving sentences of 12 months or more. It should also refer to suspended sentences, if not already covered. Possible amendments to clause 22 should be considered together with clause 23, which defines the terms "qualifying sentence" and "relevant order". Have you anything to say about that? 439. Mr Clarke: One of the points made relates to qualifying sentence. Why should a disqualification order only apply when a sentence is for 12 months or more? The risks could be just as great when a lesser sentence is involved. 440. If we are going to adopt a different approach, and a court may make a referral to social services directly, then some of the concerns may be addressed. We would not be linking disqualification orders directly to the length of a sentence. We would still be linking them to the offence, but not to the length of the sentence. In other words, a court would have formed a judgement and even if it imposed a sentence of nothing, because of the nature of the offence, the person has posed a threat to children and it could make a referral to the Department. 441. The Chairperson: Clause 23 follows from clause 22. Would it be helpful to come back to that again? 442. Mr Clarke: As I said in relation to the issue of the disqualification order, this will all change. It is another "clause 2" situation. If you change that, you start to change so much on the foot of that. 443. Ms Ramsey: The Probation Board and Nexus have made a valid point here. Mr Clarke said earlier that sometimes there are not sentences of over 12 months. That needs to be looked at. 444. Mr Clarke: The issue is about the arbitrary nature of the sentences that people get. Two people might commit the same offence, yet their sentences could be completely different. We must accept the court's decision, and there may be reasons why the sentences were different. To link disqualification orders with the length of sentence would be a concern. A court could decide, for some perfectly legitimate reason, to give different sentences to people who committed exactly the same offence. By linking, you are not directly addressing the threat that each person poses to children. 445. Ms Ramsey: Based on the evidence that we have received to date, why are we sticking to 12 months? 446. Ms McDaniel: If we planned to go with the Scottish system, for example - and I am not saying that we will - the 12-month period would be abolished and would not come under consideration at all. 447. Mr Clarke: That is what I am saying. If we take the Scottish system, or what we understand it to be - and we cannot decide policy on the hoof - one of the most attractive points is that they have given the courts the power to make referrals to the Department, which is a way around this difficulty. The court would assess a person's threat and act as referrer. There are other advantages. It would simplify parts of the Bill, particularly as regards appeals. We would have a single list of those disqualified, rather than having disqualification orders and a list. 448. Clause 22 referred for further consideration. Clause 23 referred for further consideration. 449. The Chairperson: Clause 24 clarifies that a disqualification order is to treated, for the purpose of appeals, as a sentence imposed by a court. 450. The Committee Clerk: It may have an impact on other clauses. 451. The Chairperson: We will have to come back to that. The same applies to clauses 25 and 26. 452. Mr Clarke: This is about simplifying the legislation. If we decide to go down a different road, many of these provisions would not be necessary. This is illustrating the point that I was trying to make. Adopting the Scottish model would simplify this matter considerably. Everything would go into our list and subsequently to a tribunal. 453. The Chairperson: We have covered a fair bit today. 454. Mr J Kelly: Can we adopt the Scottish legislation? 455. Mr Clarke: Scotland is greatly interested in ours, particularly with regard to the provisions on whistle blowing. 456. The Chairperson: Mr Clarke, you have our document showing the suggested amendments. I know that this is difficult for the reasons you have given, but it would be helpful if you could indicate which amendments would be useful or otherwise. 457. Mr Clarke: I will prepare as brief a paper as possible. 458. The Chairperson: That would apply to the clauses that we have not come to yet, as well. Thank you. LIST OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS Ards Borough Council Barnardo's Northern Ireland Belfast Education and Library Board Children's Law Centre Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust Foyle Health and Social Services Trust Guardian Ad Litem Agency Health and Social Services Councils Homefirst Health and Social Services Trust Mater Hospital Trust Mencap NI Nexus Institute North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust Northern Health and Social Services Board Northern Ireland Women's Aid Federation NSPCC (NI) Police Service of Northern Ireland Probation Board for Northern Ireland Royal College of Nursing Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health Southern Area Child Protection Committee Southern Education and Library Board Southern Health and Social Services Board Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Services Trust SSAFA Forces Help The Church of Ireland Board of Education Northern Ireland Ulster Community and Hospitals Trust WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 18 September 2002 I refer to your letter dated 11 July 2002 and Explanatory Memorandum about the above. These documents were considered by the Council at its meeting in August at which time it was agreed to welcome the Bill. However in doing so the Council sought an assurance that the necessary resources would be provided to allow its full implementation. I trust this is of assistance. A BORELAND WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 1 Barnardo's Vision. "The lives of all children and young people should be free from poverty, abuse and discrimination." Barnardo's is working towards a society where children and young people are free to grow and develop their potential, without fear of violence, abuse or exploitation. Within such a society children and young people would be valued and their rights to protection and physical integrity fully respected. Certain core principles underpin our work on keeping children safe:
Barnardo's Northern Ireland welcomes this opportunity to respond to the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. 2 Barnardo's Northern Ireland Barnardo's Northern Ireland works with seven thousand children and their families every year in Northern Ireland. We provide over twenty-nine distinct services in localities and communities right across Northern Ireland. We aim to provide excellence in service and maximise influence to affect change for children and young people. Our work is based on the six building blocks that we believe are essential for every child in order to build a positive future. These are:
We provide a wide range of services, projects and support for children, young people and their families. These include After Schools and Pre School Education Programmes, Family Group Conferencing, Domestic Violence Outreach Schemes, support for young people leaving care and services for disabled children and their families. We must stress that we very much welcome the new Bill and believe it will make a positive contribution to protecting children and vulnerable adults. We also appreciate the opportunity for the Voluntary and Community Sector to contribute to the Bill's creation and thank the Department for including some of the ideas we raised in the new legislation. However we would like to draw your attention to several issues which we feel would strengthen the Bill even further by closing those avenues open to exploitation by the small minority of extremely dangerous people who would seek to make contact and harm children and / or vulnerable adults. 3 New Arrangements for Pre Employment Consultancy Service We welcome the proposal to move the PECS register onto a statutory footing. By imposing duties on child care organisations to carry out checks on prospective employees and making it an offence to knowingly offer or procure work [in a child care position] to a disqualified person the child protection system is much improved. However we are concerned by the following limitations to the scope of PECS and wish to reiterate the following recommendations. A. We consider the range of jobs / positions eligible for PECS within organisations too narrow to adequately ensure the protection of children and vulnerable adults. PECS criteria of checking only those individuals who are employed / volunteering in a child care position is too narrow. [Clause 15 (2)] All staff and volunteer positions within Child Care organisations can provide a gateway to make contact with and seek to harm children. It also facilitates an individual to establish a reputation as a 'safe' person who can be trusted. There is also the risk that members of the public will make assumptions regarding an individual's suitability to have contact with children [e.g. as a baby sitter] based on their connections, however loose with a Child Care organisation. The sophistication of 'grooming' cannot be underestimated and PECS must be extended to combat these opportunities
B. We would also urge that PECS eligibility for existing staff, volunteers and carers [and others as determined by an organisation] is extended to include checks on an on-going basis. Regular and thorough checks will contribute to and reinforce the child protection procedures in place within an organisation. Without continued assurance of the suitability of staff, volunteers and other people connected to the organisation to work with children and vulnerable adults, internal protection procedures are seriously weakened.
4 Duty to Refer We still find limitations with the Department's definition of those organisations who have a statutory duty to refer those individuals found unsuitable to work with children. [Clause 2 (1) A child care organisation shall, and any other organisation may, refer to the Department (.)] We are concerned about the discretionary nature of referral for non-child care organisations. This is particularly serious in relation to organisations such as uniformed youth organisations, which work with large numbers of children and young people, including residential youth work. It also sends an inconsistent message to the public.
5 Accreditation We very much welcome the introduction of accreditation for organisations which do not fall within the legal definition of a Child Care organisation. However given the voluntary nature of applications for accreditation it is important that every effort is made to highlight the value and importance of such accreditation. We also hope that the monitoring and awarding of accreditation is as rigorous as possible.
6 Disqualification We would again like to draw your attention to our work with children and young people who display sexually inappropriate behaviour. As outlined in our original submission, in our work with these young people we have had situations where the young people have not been convicted of an offence but have clearly harmed other young people through their behaviour. When we acted upon our concerns and attempted to place the young people on the PECS register we were unable to do so. It is vital that information is shared if we are to work together with other organisations to protect children. The Bill [Clause 22] states that young people convicted or charged for an offence committed when aged under 18 years will only be disqualified 'if there appears to be a likelihood of further offences being committed by the individual'. We are concerned that as many young people (including those we work with) are not convicted, they will 'disappear' from this system and continue to pose a risk. We would like to see this provision strengthened and would welcome a debate on how best to share this information. 7 Cross Border Vetting Arrangements Hopefully this new legislation will encourage debate and action to improve cross border vetting and how the movement of individuals between jurisdictions is monitored. Urgent attention is needed to address these differences, as it is currently possible for individuals to exploit the situation by seeking employment in another jurisdiction. We recommend that the Department now build on this Bill towards the harmonisation of cross border arrangements for the management of sex offenders and the vetting of relevant staff and volunteers. We also have examples of problems encountered when tracking people's movement between Northern Ireland and GB indicating that these current arrangements also require attention. 8 A Strategy for Safeguarding Children As we stated in our response to the Inquiry into Child Protection Services in Northern Ireland it is important that we have a regional strategy for safeguarding children. The safeguarding and protecting of children should be a crosscutting theme in the new Northern Ireland Strategy for the Rights and Needs of Children. We believe that this would be consistent with the concept of putting safeguarding and protecting into a wider context of children's well being. This strategic statement would set out what we are trying to achieve as a society in terms of safeguarding children. Although Social Services have a statutory responsibility for child protection Barnardo's Northern Ireland believes that all organisations working with or otherwise involved with children should have as a primary purpose a commitment to safeguarding and protecting children and young people. It is important to recognise that the protection of children is a paramount concern for many more organisations than those formally involved in the child protection system. WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 24 July 2002 This paper has been written in consultation with the Designated Officers Child Protection in Education Group (DOCPEG). The Belfast Education and Library Board welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety of the Northern Ireland Assembly regarding Child Protection Services in Northern Ireland. The Department of Education will be submitting more detailed evidence giving the over arching structures for Child Protection within the education sector. A Designated Officers for Child Protection in Education Group (DOCPEG) was established a number of years ago to ensure consistency across the education sector in child protection matters. The strategic objectives of the Group are: -
As the Designated Officer for Child Protection in the Belfast Education and Library Board I would wish to comment on the following key areas:- 1.1 Case Work I would wish to endorse the introduction of a number of clauses in the draft Education and Library Bill, aimed at strengthening the current child protection arrangements within education. 1.2 Communication There is a need to promote a greater emphasis on the prevention of significant harm to children and young people. A useful forum already exists within a number of schools, where a multi agency team meet regularly to develop a co-ordinated approach to pastoral care issues. Members are drawn from education, health and social services. In this way early identification and prevention of significant harm is promoted, furthermore the provision of a named social worker for each school encourages positive working relationships, where education staff feel confident in discussing potential child abuse cases with colleagues in the statutory sector. On occasions school staff do not feel they have been given adequate feedback on cases they have referred. As teachers are probably the only professionals to see children on a daily basis, it is essential that they have sufficient information to allow them to monitor vulnerable young people. They must be made aware of children who have been placed on the child protection register. This is not always the case. General Practitioners have a particular role to play, therefore strategies need to be developed to ensure their participation in inter-agency meetings and child protection case conferences. 1.3 Linkages Some of the Health and Social Services Trusts have adopted a pro-active approach in providing "user friendly" information leaflets and videos for parents and young people, explaining the child protection process. This partnership approach is to be welcomed. Within education, schools are being encouraged to provide information to parents on an annual basis regarding pastoral care and child protection procedures. It is essential that there are close linkages between the local Health and Social Services Trust Panels and the Area Child Protection Committee (ACPC). A number of schools have experienced parental aggression following child protection referrals being made. It is imperative therefore that liaison takes place between the designated teacher in the school and the social worker prior to informing parents about the school's duty to refer. 1.4 Workforce Issues Currently Education and Library Boards provide training annually for Designated Teachers for Child Protection and other employees in the Boards. There are also opportunities for education personnel to attend multi-disciplinary training offered by the ACPC. In order to support the Designated Teachers in their training of staff, a video was produced and issued to every school in Northern Ireland. This training would be enhanced if there was closer consultation and linkage between the uni-disciplinary and the multi-disciplinary training. 1.5 Resources It is widely recognised that current resources across sectors are not adequate. There are concerns that social workers are only dealing with the most critical child protection referrals. This leads to frustration for school personnel, who are concerned that, when a referral is made there can be a delay before the case is dealt with. The recent inspection of the Education Welfare Service by the Education and Training Inspectorate has highlighted the need for the role of Designated Officer within the Board to be reviewed, because of the volume of the work. The majority of Designated Officers carry out this role in addition to being the Head of Service eg. Chief Education Welfare Officer. 1.6 Lessons Learnt In general terms it would appear that when there is an inquiry into case management, concerns are raised around multi-disciplinary working and lack of communication. As stated earlier schools have a major role to play in relation to reporting and monitoring potential child abuse cases. It is essential that arrangements are in place to allow them to feel confident about passing on concerns to social services and indeed commutating concerns to parents which minimise potential parental violence/aggression. 1.7 General Comments There are concerns that a growing number of children, who do not reach the threshold of significant harm may be falling through gaps in agencies provision. It is hoped that implementation of the common assessment framework for children in need will address this concern. MAXINE DEVENNEY WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: August 2002 INTRODUCTION The Children's Law Centre is an independent non-governmental organisation, which helps children and young people parents/carers and professionals work with and understand the law relating to children. We carry out the following work; 1. Research on children's rights. 2. Training and seminars on children's rights and the law relating to children and young people in N Ireland. 3. We run a Youth group called Youth @ clc. 4. Legal advice service - we have a free phone number for young people. 5. Policy work. 6. Casework service in accordance with casework policy. 7. Information service. Our work involves day-to-day contact with children and young people. Our response to the above proposals will be in relation to the implications for children and young people. We agree that children have the right to be protected from harm by a comprehensive seamless system and we would very much welcome the creation of a "one stop shop" in terms of vetting. Our ultimate goal as required by The United Nations Convention On the Rights of The Child must be to protect as many children as possible from harm. Article 3 ECHR as incorporated by The Human Rights Act 1998 also requires states to provide effective legal mechanisms to protect children from inhuman and degrading treatment. Case law has demonstrated that child abuse can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment and therefore if the State does not implement a coherent and comprehensive system of protection, the State could be potentially liable for harm caused to children as a result. For this reason it is essential that the following matters are addressed before legislation is implemented in this jurisdiction. CLAUSE 1 DHSSPS Statutory List We agree with the proposal to establish a statutory list containing the names of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with children. CLAUSE 2 Definition of "childcare organisation" We note that childcare organisations are defined as follows: Section 18(1) Childcare organisation, means an organisation (a) which is concerned with the provision of accommodation, social service or health care services to children and supervision of children; (b) whose activities are regulated by or by virtue of any prescribed enactment; (c) which fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed (including organisations which may be licensed or controlled under a prescribed enactment). We recommend that all organisations who employ staff and/or volunteers who have regular contact with children and young people should be obliged to carry out checks and to make referrals through the new system. This should include all voluntary organisations/charities where there are post holders who have regular contact with children and organisations such as the Brownies/Scouts/Guides. It should also include those who advise and represent children such as barristers and solicitors and members of the judiciary/lay panellists who adjudicate in children's cases. Institutions within the criminal justice system such as Juvenile Justice Centres, Attendance Centres, Probation Service and PSNI in the context of employees who have regular contact with children and young people should be included. Therefore we recommend that clause 18(1) (b) and (c) are deleted and that the interpretation clause at Clause 18(1) (a) is amended to state as follows: "childcare organisation means an organisation - Definition of Childcare Position Childcare position is defined as a position which (a) is a regulated position for the purposes of chapter 2; but (b) is not a position employment or further employment in which may be prohibited or restricted by regulations made under Article 70 (2) (e) or 88 (A2) (b) of the Education and Libraries (NI) Order 1986. "Regulated position" is defined under Article 29. We recommend that amendment of the definition of regulated position under clause 29 is widened to expressly include reference to the detention of children in juvenile justice centres. We would also seek clarification as to whether members of PSNI, for example in the CARE units, would be included under the definition of "childcare position". In respect of Article 29 (4) we are unclear as to why this exclusion is incorporated in relation to children who are in employment. We would suggest that this clause is deleted. We would recommend that clause 29 (1c) is amended to include the word "advising" and "counselling". CLAUSE 16 Accreditation In the event that amendments are not made to the definition of "childcare organisation", we support the introduction of the accreditation system, which is an innovative scheme. We recommend that this should be a mandatory requirement for organisations, which include post holders who have regular contact with children in the course of their duties, with sanctions against organisations, which do not seek accreditation. This should apply to voluntary and paid posts. Clause 16 should be amended as follows: (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, the Department shall, by regulations provide for the accreditation by or on behalf of the Department of any organisation which is not a child care organisation where any position allows the post holder to have regular contact with children. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall EDUCATION SECTOR/CROSS DEPARTMENTAL REFERRALS We note that the definition of childcare position excludes those who fall under regulations pursuant to Article 70 (2) (e) or 88A (2) (b) The Education & Libraries (NI) Order 1986. This effectively means that education authorities are not required to refer teachers and non-teaching staff to the list held by the Department of Health and Social Services under this Bill. These articles have in fact been substituted by Article 8 and Article 9 of The Education (NI) Order 1987 respectively. These provisions relate to the prohibitions and restrictions on the employment or further employment of teaching and non-teaching staff in grant-aided schools. At present the regulations enable the prohibition or restriction of employment of teachers on medical grounds, in cases of misconduct and on educational grounds. Article 13 of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill amends these Regulations to include the grounds of "unsuitability to work with children" and also where the person is listed under section 1 of The Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. This is obviously a significant improvement on the enabling legislation, but we have concerns in relation to the operation of a dual system. It would be our view that ultimately the DHSS PS and the DE should be working towards a one-stop shop system whereby all referrals should be made to the list kept under the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. Independent Schools Furthermore, the staff of independent schools do not at present seem to be covered by either the education regulations or the present bill. In respect of teaching staff we would suggest an amendment, which could be inserted under Article 13 Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill as follows: In Article 70 (4), insert "(c) teachers in independent schools" In respect of non-teaching staff we would suggest the following amendments: In Article 88a (3) insert after voluntary school "or independent school" Delete "other than a maintained school" Institutions of Further Education Non-teaching staff in institutions of further education are not covered by either the education regulations or the present Bill. We suggest the following amendment: In Article 88A insert new (4) "This article applies to persons employed in institutions of further education." Standard of Proof There are two different standards of proof therefore in operation. In respect of defined "childcare organisations" the standard of proof under The Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill is whether the individual has been guilty of misconduct that harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm. In respect of education, the requirement is that the individual is unsuitable to work with children, or that they are listed under The Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. It remains to be seen how the operation of the two lists works in practice under two different standards of proof. Ultimately we would seek the removal of the exception under the definition of childcare position at 18(b) in respect of education and the development of a uniform one-stop-shop system under the current Bill. LINK WITH POLICE ACT 1997 We note that Section 8 of The Protection of Children Act amends Section 113(3) Police Act 1997 in England. Our view is that Part V of the Police Act and an establishment of a Criminal Records Bureau needs to be expedited alongside the current legislative proposals contained in The Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill for the protective mechanisms to be effective. Part V of The Police Act 1997 extends to Northern Ireland but has yet to be commenced here. We would support the establishment of a one-stop-shop system and a mechanism whereby the registered users can gain access to enhanced criminal records certificates as well as information from the DHSS PS and Department of Education statutory lists. ARRANGEMENTS IN RELATION TO THE SOUTH We believe that there needs to be a comprehensive system of vetting in place in the North and South of Ireland. This will involve close co-operation to ensure that systems are compatible and easily accessible. We endorse the position of NSPCC in this regard. FEES We note that the legislation allows for the imposition of fees and we would welcome the Department's assurances that these fees will be waived for voluntary organisations/charities. CONCLUSION We very much welcome the introduction of The Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill, which has the potential of providing a comprehensive statutory framework in which much wider protection is afforded to our children and young people. In summary the key points raised in our submission are as follows: 1. We would recommend a wider definition of "childcare organisation". 2. We recommend a wider definition of childcare position. 3. We recommend certain amendments to Article 13 in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff. 4. We recommend the enactment of Part V Police Act 1997 in conjunction with this legislation. 5. If the definition of childcare organisation is not amended, we support the introduction of accreditation, but we have suggested that this should be a mandatory requirement on certain organisations accompanied by appropriate sanctions for non-compliance. 6. The need for cross-border mechanisms for vetting and referrals. WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 28 August 2002 Thank you for your letter of 11 July 2002 inviting comments on the above Bill and on the accompanying explanatory memorandum. We were pleased to note that a number of suggestions made by this Trust following the publication of the Consultation Document have been included in the Bill. I enclose a copy of our submission on the Consultation Document for ease of reference. In general we warmly welcome the publication of the Bill and the proposals to increase the protection of children and vulnerable adults. We would wish the provisions to be as widely applied as possible to provide the fullest possible protection to these vulnerable people. In relation to particular clauses we would comment as follows: Clause 1 We welcome the fact that the list of individuals who are considered unsuitable to work with children will be placed on a statutory basis. Clause 2 We note that child care organisations will be required to refer individuals who fulfil certain conditions to make a referral to the Department but that other organisations will be permitted to do so. As outlined in our response to the consultation document, we would suggest that all organisations whether statutory, voluntary or commercial employing people in child care positions should be required to refer individuals to the Department for inclusion in the list if they meet the conditions outlined in this clause. Clause 3 We welcome the duty to refer which is placed on employment agencies, nursing agencies and employment business. Clause 4 We note that bodies such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Northern Ireland Social Care Council may make referrals to the Department of individuals under certain conditions. We would suggest that they should be required rather than permitted to do so. Clause 7 We welcome the provision that an authority (in effect a HSS Trust) may make a referral of an individual child care worker funded through direct payments who meet certain requirements. We would suggest however that this should be a requirement rather than a permissive power. Clause 12 We note that the Chief Constable or a Director of Social Services may apply to the High Court to have an individual restored to the list. We also note that a Director of Social Services is defined as either a Director of Social Services of a Health and Social Services Board or an Executive Director of Social Work of a Health and Social Services Trust in Clause 49 of the Bill. As Trusts have the delegated statutory responsibility for child protection, we would suggest that the Executive Director of Social Work should be specifically included in the text of Clause 12 of the Bill. Clause 16 In view of our earlier comments about the provisions of the Bill being available to as wide as possible range of organisations, we welcome the proposals in respect of the accreditation of organisations which are not childcare organisations. We would hope that these proposals will be applied as widely as possible and that all organisations employing people to work with children will be expected to apply for accreditation. Clause 17 We welcome the proposals to receive reports from individuals that organisations have failed to make a referral or to carry out a check when required to do so. We would welcome reassurances that provisions are in place to protect such individuals when such referrals are made in good faith. Clause 29 We welcome the comprehensive range of regulated positions outlined in this Clause. We would suggest that further consideration may need to be given to 3(a) in that while part of a premises may not be those in which children are looked after, children may nevertheless have frequent access to them. In relation to 6(b) our comments on Clause 12 above would also apply. Clause 30 We welcome the provision whereby the offences set out in Clause 28 will apply to a person who is subject to an equivalent prohibition or disqualification in another jurisdiction. It is not clear however how such prohibitions or disqualifications will be notified to the Department. We would suggest that provisions are required to enable organisations outside this jurisdiction who wish to employ people to work with children or vulnerable adults to make checks in this jurisdiction if necessary and that the Department should if necessary be enabled to make checks in other jurisdictions in respect of people wishing to work with children and vulnerable adults in this jurisdiction. Clause 33 We note that the provisions in respect of vulnerable adults largely mirror those in respect of children and our comments above also refer to the provisions in respect of vulnerable adults. Explanatory and Financial Memorandum Paragraph 22 We note that the Bill includes a power to permit the Department to impose charges in respect of access to the proposed system and that the existing system is provided free of charge. We would urge that the status quo should be maintained to reduce disincentives to accessing the new system. Explanatory and Financial Memorandum Paragraph 23 We consider that the provisions of the Bill strike the correct balance between the human rights of employees and the protection of vulnerable people. We hope that the above comments are of assistance to the Committee. We would emphasise our welcome for the Bill in general subject to the comments above. We would be happy to provided clarification of any of the above comments if necessary. JOHN COMPTON 20 December 2001 Down Lisburn Trust welcomes the publication of the Consultation Document in respect of the proposals for a Children & Vulnerable Adults Bill. We also welcome in general the proposals which will greatly improve the current systems which we accept are themselves in advance of those in most jurisdictions including England and Wales. Our comments on specific proposals follow the order and the letters contained in the summary on pages 27-29 of the consultation document. (a) This Trust welcomes the proposal that the DHSSPS will draw up a statutory list based on referrals to the Department of those deemed suitable to work with children. We also welcome the criteria for referral had the circumstances been known at the time of their resignation, dismissal or retirement. (b) We welcome the requirement on a number of statutory bodies to make referrals. We would suggest that the NI Social Care Council should also be included in the requirements as should the Medical and Nursing regulatory bodies. It is not clear what the relationship between the proposed arrangements and the various regulatory bodies will be. (c) This Trust is strongly of the view that the requirement to refer should be imposed on all organizations regulated or not regulated in relation to individuals employed by them who meet the conditions set out in paragraphs 4.3-4.4. We recognised that this requirement to refer would be more difficult in non regulated organizations but the consequences of not complying with a legal requirement to do so in terms of the organization's public reputation should be sufficient to ensure that this requirement is complied with. We are also very strongly of the view that all organizations that employ people to work unsupervised with children should be able to access the register. We do not feel that the ability to do so should be confirmed to "exceptional circumstances". We are of the view that any restriction in access to the register can only make the system less effective and that therefore non-childcare organizations wishing to employ someone to work unsupervised with children should be able to access the register in all circumstances. We see no grounds for restricting this access to child care organizations only or to exceptional circumstances and see grave dangers in doing so. (d) We accept the requirement to register when making a referral or requesting checks and this requirement should overcome any concerns about widening access as suggested in (c) above. We also accept that registration may have to take place at the same time as a referral but would hope that wide publicity about the requirements among relevant bodies would keep this to a minimum. (e) This Trust accepts the proposals for a provisional list. We strongly support the measures to be taken to remove legal liability provided the listing was reasonable as this could remove the fear of litigation leading to under or non reporting. (f) The ability of those referred to make representations to DHSSPS and to appeal to an independent tribunal against being listed is an important counter balance to the provisions of the proposed Bill in terms of the protection of the Human Rights of the individuals concerned. As such these provisions are welcomed. The Trust is of the view that care needs to be taken to ensure the correct balance between the human rights of staff and the protection of vulnerable people. (g) The Trust welcomes the intention that the list will also apply to all those working in schools including teachers and ancillary staff. (h) We welcome this provision but are unclear as to why it is restricted to child care organizations. We are of the view that this requirement should apply to all those offering individuals employment requiring unsupervised access to children. In relation to employment agencies we would suggest that the 12 monthly checks suggested in the draft strike the correct balance. (i) We note that the proposals will be such as to permit the development of new arrangements following the commencement of Part V of the Police Act 1997. (j) This Trust welcomes the statutory basis being given to the proposals in the Bill in that the courts will be able to make disqualification orders where a person commits a specified offence against a child. (k) We are of the view that the fact that it will be an offence for a disqualified person to apply for work which includes unsupervised access to children and that it will also be an offence for a person to offer work to such a person will greatly strengthen the provisions of the proposed Bill. We would suggest that this provision could be widened to include all posts in all organizations where the person has unsupervised access to children. (l) In the interests of protecting as many children as possible this Trust would be of the view that organizations outside this jurisdiction, whether in Britain or the Republic of Ireland, who wish to employ people with unsupervised access to children should be able to make referrals and to have checks carried out in Northern Ireland if they so wish. This would be especially relevant in relation to staff with a work history in Northern Ireland who move to other jurisdictions or staff with a family history in Northern Ireland. (m) We also welcome the proposal to retain a list of individuals considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults. (n) The Trust accepts that definition of vulnerable adults as outlined in 6.2. (o) The Trust agrees that organizations providing care services should be required to check that prospective employees seeking to work with vulnerable adults are not on the statutory list and that they must refuse such work to those on the list. (p) We welcome the legal requirement placed upon employees not to work or to seek work with vulnerable adults while on the list. (q) The Trust is of the view that the proposed legal requirement not to offer work with vulnerable adults to those on the list coupled with the legal requirements on employees outlined in (p) above will greatly strengthen the effectiveness of the system of listing those who are unsuitable for such work. (r) See comments at (f) above. (s) We accept that provision should be made for an individual to appear on lists in relation both to children and to vulnerable adults should the circumstances warrant this. (t) We note that checks will be made for statutory and voluntary organizations. We would suggest that this provision should be widened to include commercial organizations providing services to vulnerable adults also. (u) The Trust agrees that it is important to guard against misuse of the system by requiring organizations seeking information to register with DHSSPS. I hope that the comments above are of assistance. You will note that while we welcome the proposed Bill that in a number of instances we wish its scope to be wider to provide the fullest possible protection to children and vulnerable adults. JOHN COMPTON WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: I refer to your letter of 11 July 2002 and I would make the following comments. Foyle Trust welcomes the proposed legislation which will make the current Pre-Employment Consultancy Service a statutory requirement and believes the creation of statutory lists of those deemed unsuitable to work with children or vulnerable adults will strengthen the existing arrangements. The Trust also believes there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that only unsuitable people will be kept on the lists. In particular, the Trust welcomes the decision to introduce the accreditation of organisations working with children, but which fall out of the legal definition of a child care organisation. In due course, I think the Trust will want to consider whether all organisations with whom we have contracts should have accredited status. I trust these comments are of some assistance. ELAINE WAY WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 7 August 2002 Thank you for your correspondence of 11 July 2002. The Northern Ireland Guardian ad Litem Agency welcomes the inclusion in the provisions of the Bill of the main points made in our submission of 12 December 2001. We have no further points to make. STEPHEN KNOX WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 22 August 2002 Thank you for your letter of 11 July 2002 inviting comments on the Department's proposals in relation to this Bill. The Health and Social Services Council have responsibility for monitoring the full spectrum of health and social care services and therefore have a generalist rather than a specialist interest in the field of child protection services. We do however have a number of comments to make on the proposals and welcome the opportunity to share our views with your Committee. The Health and Social Services Councils take the view that the provisions of the Bill are sound and have been arrived at after consideration of responses through a consultation exercise. The Bill has the potential to improve the levels of protection offered to both children and to vulnerable adults and will ensure that Northern Ireland, in some respects, provides a lead in relation to child protection practice. We particularly welcome the concept of 'accreditation' which will mean that protection measures will apply to a wide range of organisations which bring adults into contact with children. We note the provision for prohibition or disqualification on working with children arising from another jurisdiction to be applied in Northern Ireland and this is a measure we fully support. However, the success of the Bill in achieving its policy objectives of protecting children and vulnerable adults will depend on its implementation in practice. The Committee may wish to examine the measures the Department plans to ensure that compatible arrangements are in place for suitability checking across both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland, and what progress is being made in this respect with the Department of Health in Dublin. We are aware that the NSPCC has raised the issue of the implementation of Part V of the 1997 Police Act in NI to allow for the sharing of information in instances where a conviction has not been achieved. While we are conscious that police issues are reserved to the NIO we would like to voice our support for the NSPCC stance on this issue. We trust that our comments are helpful to the Committee in its task of considering the Bill. DELIA VAN DER LENDEN WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 22 August 2002 Thank you for your letter of 11 July 2002 and for the opportunity to comment on the memorandum. We welcome the Bill which is very comprehensive and places the existing good practice on a statutory footing. I would, however, make the following points.
I trust these comments are helpful. Christie Colhoun WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 1 August 2002 1. The Trust welcomes the proposed strengthening of existing arrangements under which checks are carried out as to the suitability of those seeking work with children or adults with a learning disability. These are some of the vulnerable members of society and deserve our protection. 2. The Trust concurs with the approach taken which balances the rights of children and vulnerable people with those of individuals. The Trust is also reassured by the approach taken in paragraph 10 with regards to staff who may resign before investigations or disciplinary procedures have been finalised. 3. With regards to the definition of 'Child Care Organisations', This Trust provides a service for a significant number of children and their families through the Accident and Emergency Department and day surgery unit. It is the opinion of the Trust that Clause 16 of the Bill should ensure that organisations such as HPSS Trusts are included in the accreditation process, both Acute and Community Trusts. While children are not this hospitals 'core' business the contact levels are such, as in other Trusts, that we feel the issue of the protection of vulnerable people and child is a key part of the delivery of a safe quality service. 4. I hope these comments are helpful. The Trust will continue to work with Social Services and other colleagues in protecting and safeguarding the most vulnerable members of society. MISS E P GORDON WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 30 August 2002 Please accept our apologies for Mencap NI's late response. Mencap welcomes the introduction of this Bill into the NI Assembly. It is hoped that the Bill will be high on the legislative agenda. Mencap welcomes the strengthening of the existing arrangements which will put PECS onto a statutory footing. Mencap, a user of the current non-statutory PECS checking system, is concerned that the Department may impose a charging system to cover costs. This would add a financial burden to our already overstretched budget. MARGARET COPELAND WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 1 August 2002 Part 1 Chapter I 2 (1) 'A childcare organisation shall ...' We suggest this be reworded, 'All organisations shall refer to the Department an individual.' Failure to extend this may mean that some organisations would not make critical referrals, and consequently the under-reporting of individuals considered unsuitable for working with children, would still occur. Chapter ii disqualification from working with children 21 & 22 Qualifying sentence refers to twelve months or more. We are not clear if this refers to suspended sentences but should. Disqualification of adults from working with children The first condition is that- (b) a qualifying sentence is imposed by the court in respect of the conviction. Disqualification of juveniles from working with children (b) a qualifying sentence is imposed by the court in respect of the conviction. We believe that disqualification should apply to all convicted perpetrators and not only those receiving twelve months or more. We know that it is often very difficult to secure a conviction of sexual assault against a child and adult who are usually traumatised by the experience and unable to make full and robust disclosures in court. We are also aware that in many cases the perpetrator is offered plea bargaining resulting in some cases not being proceeded with or/and some cases being discounted. This can result in low or suspended sentences being handed down and can allow some perpetrators to slip through the net. 2. The establishments referred to in subsection (1) (a) are - NEXUS suggests an addition to the list, a catchall name for children's leisure and after school establishments. These would include, for example, youth clubs, scout movement and facilities run by religious groups. Part iii Miscellaneous and Supplementary 1 Interpretation of this Act Schedule: meaning of 'Offence against the child' 3 A person falls within this paragraph if - The only reference to female perpetrators is at (c) and refers to the female 'allowing a child to have intercourse with her'. NEXUS, over eighteen years of working with victims of sexual abuse, has substantial experience of female perpetration of abuse being significantly under-reported. We also know that, in general, the majority of sexual abuse does not involve sexual intercourse but is more likely to be about inappropriate 'touching'. This section stereotypes non-intercourse sexual abuse as 'male' and ignores the reality that many children are sexually assaulted by females but not necessarily through sexual intercourse. We believe, consequently, that this section should be expanded to include any inappropriate sexual contact. Comments, where relevant, should be applied to both children and vulnerable adults. Thank you again for the opportunity to make comment. DOMINICA McGOWAN WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 4 September 2002 With reference to your correspondence dated 11 July 2002 regarding the above, the Trust would wish to make the following comments. The Trust has carefully considered the draft proposals in respect of the above-mentioned and broadly welcome them as a means of ensuring the added protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults within our society. The Bill in broad terms will provide an equivalent to the "Protection of Children Act 1999" and Part VII of the Care Standards Act 2000 in England and Wales. The proposed legislation will effectively put our current PECS on a statutory footing and with the added appeals mechanism should ensure that individual human rights are adequately protected. The proposed Bill will impose duties on Child Care Organisations to carry out checks on prospective employees against new statutory lists of those deemed unsuitable to work with children. It will also be an offence to knowingly offer or procure work for such a position for a disqualified person. There has been belated recognition of the potential for abuse of vulnerable adults and often those adults who are abused share profiles in respect of intellectual and emotional development similar to established profiles of abused children. There is however, a clear issue of civil liberties involved where legislation points to restrictions on individuals who have not been subject to due process. It is important therefore that judgements are made on the basis of the abusive behaviour and/or negligence of individuals and are non-speculative. Given the intention to widen considerably those organisations who may make a referral to the proposed DHSSPS statutory list it would be important that clear guidance on making judgements is made available to new referees. It is noted that the introduction of an appeals mechanism allows for unsound listing to be contested. Para 6.2 defines vulnerable adults in terms of the elderly and people with a disability who are in receipt of one or more of listed specific services. This may be too prescriptive. The general definition in terms of the elderly and individuals with a disability would be more permissive and afford greater protection. Para 6.4 concerns the listing of individuals who have been convicted or adjudged through disciplinary proceedings. This may exclude individuals where there has been no adjudication perhaps because they were not in current employment when the 'abuse' took place. This may result in many individuals not being registered despite sound intelligence held by agencies eg PSNI, Health and Social Services that points to their culpability. Obviously, this needs to 'balance' protection and civil liberty. Para 6.8 indicates there will be a provision for a person to be referred to both the vulnerable adults and children list. It is difficult to foresee a situation where someone should be included in one list and not the other given that abuse is an exploitation action, generally involves an abuse of trust and is based on an unequal power relationship. There are always exceptions of course but would the appeals system not be a safeguard for these exceptions. The Trust totally endorses and welcomes the main thrust of the proposed Bill and feels the Bill adequately balances the need to protect Children and Vulnerable Adults while ensuring human rights are respected. The establishment of an accreditation scheme will ensure that those organisations and groups which are not Child Care organisations also have access to the lists. R G BLACK WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 22 August 2002 I refer to your letter dated 11 July 2002 regarding the above Bill. I believe that this Bill will make an important contribution to the protection of children by seeking to prevent unsuitable people from gaining employment in positions of trust with children and vulnerable adults. This is a progressive and balanced piece of legislation which needs to be taken forward within the context of a wider strategy to protect children. MARY B WILMONT (Mrs) WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 8 August 2002 Thank you for your letter of 11 July in relation to the above legislation. Here are some very brief observations on behalf of NIWAF. The legislation is welcome in broad terms. The only point we would take issue with concerns the carrying out of vetting checks. Women's Aid groups have used the PECS service for many years for both paid and voluntary staff. While we welcome the accrediting of organisations (Clause 16), it could pose severe financial constraints on local Women's Aid groups if charges were levied on the vetting of volunteers in particular. I understand that under both English and Scottish legislation no such charges are applied. I wish the Committee every success with its scrutiny of the Bill in the interests of maximising protection for children. ANGELA COURTNEY WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 5 August 2002 Thank you for your letter regarding the Department's proposals in relation to the above Bill. As you know NSPCC (NI) has been closely involved in campaigning for the legislation and for improvements to our system of suitability checking those who work with children. NSPCC feel that the provisions in the Bill are very sound, the product of a constructive consultation and indeed in some respects take us beyond current practice in other jurisdictions. In particular, the concept of 'accreditation' (clause 16) deals imaginatively with concerns we had around the lack of obligation in the 1999 Westminster Protection of Children Act on non-childcare organisations to refer those dismissed for harming children or indeed carrying out checks against the DoH Register. Accreditation is in our view, a proactive measure that will result in improved child protection standards in non-regulated organisations. This Bill it would seem establishes a 'floor not a ceiling' and the challenge will actually lie in its implementation and outworking. We would still have a number of questions about the policy intent of the Bill, as distinct from the actual technicalities of the legislation, and most of these have already been spoken to in the course of the Second Reading on 3 July. The Committee may find it helpful to tease these out when meeting with Departmental Officals during its Committee Stage. In particular: -
You had asked about proposed amendments and NSPCC has had lengthy discussions with the Department regarding clause 17 and the adequacy of the proposed whistleblowing arrangements, another unique feature of the Bill. There is a complex balance of considerations in this clause, set within the context of human rights issues. We understand that in many ways clause 17 will interface with accreditation and other regulatory requirements and over time, be reflected in the development of whistleblowing policies in organisations. NSPCC would however propose one slight amendment to clause 17, which we understand may be supported by the Department. The Committee may wish to consider a provision to allow organisations to whistleblow on other bodies where they are aware that the requirements in clause 2 are not being fulfilled. For example when a person is dismissed for harming children listed by the Department and moves to another child care organisation to work with children and requirements are not followed. It should be remembered that the Martin Huston case[1]involved an individual who moved from one voluntary organisation to another to further his abuse of children. We would suggest a slight amendment to the wording of clause 17 as follows:- 17.- (1) This section applies in the following circumstances- (a) Where a person connected with a child care organisation reports to the Department that the organisation has failed to comply with section 2(1) or 14(1)(a); or (b) Where an organisation reports to the Department that a childcare organisation has failed to comply with section 2 (1) or 14 (1) (a) in relation to an individual named in the report. It may also be necessary to change 17 (3) to read 17 (3) On receipt of such a report as in section 17 (1)(a) or 17 (1)(b) the Department shall invite observations from the organisation concerned on the information submitted with the report. Finally there is another matter which we would advise the Committee to urgently examine in relation to the operational context of this Bill relating to the 1997 Police Act, Part V of which extends to NI but which has yet to be enacted [enclosed]. The Police Act is part of UK wide measures, which run in tandem with the provisions of both the Westminster Protection of Children Act 1999 and the DHSSPS Bill. Part V of the Act effectively allows for the provision of 'soft' police intelligence [e.g. allegations, unsuccessful convictions etc] in an enhanced criminal record check, which is required for work with children. The failure to enact Part V of the Police Act is potentially very serious in terms of the interface with the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill and the position in Northern Ireland will be left different to that in England and Wales. It may be better to give you an example of how the failure to implement Part V of the Police Act may impact here. Adult X has 6 very serious allegations of sexual abuse made over a period of time and one unsuccessful prosecution due to the fact that the child was too young to give evidence. The individual is regarded as a serious risk to children by the police and social services. He has however no convictions and has not been dismissed from a post where he has harmed children. He applies to work in a youth club in Belfast, falsifies references but a check is carried out by the organisation [which is accredited] as is required in the Bill. X appears to have a clean suitability check, with PSNI having no legal basis on which to advise the DHSSPS of their soft intelligence and no provision for the production of an enhanced criminal record certificate. X gets the job and access to children. If the individual lived in England or Wales information in regard to his past would become apparent under an application for an enhanced certificate through CRB. X would not be employed. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs, is damaging to the operation of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill and NSPCC would suggest that the Committee ascertain as a matter of the utmost urgency from the Minister of State Jane Kennedy MP when Part V will be enacted in Northern Ireland. We would suggest that the Committee may wish to invite NIO Officals to explain current Departmental intentions in relation to the Part V of the Police Act and its interface with the Bill. I hope this is helpful to the Committee in its deliberations. NSPCC would be very happy to present aural evidence on these matters should the Committee find it useful. COLIN REID WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 22 August 2002 ACC Raymond White has recently retired and I am replying to your letter of 11 July on his behalf. 1. The Police Service very much welcomes the introduction of a Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Act. Officers have had the opportunity of giving comments at earlier stages of the consultation and a number of points have been taken on board. 2. If a person has been found guilty of an offence against a vulnerable adult it should have the effect of placing them on the list of persons unsuitable to work with children, and vice versa. There needs to be a linkage between all elements in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Bill. 3. Also some of the offences listed seem overly narrow. For example, a person may be placed on the list if they have been found guilty of entering a building with intent to rape a child. Surely if a person has been found guilty of such an offence against an adult it should also render them unsuitable. Similarly with threats to kill and supplying drugs; a conviction should also be relevant if the person concerned was, say, 19 rather than 15. I hope these comments are useful. We will be happy to clarify any points if you so desire. R DRENNAN WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: The Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) welcome the introduction of this Bill and support the objective of strengthening existing arrangements to ensure that appropriate checks are carried out as to the suitability of those seeking to work with children or vulnerable adults. PBNI believe the public need to be given clear and accurate information about the Pre Employment Consultancy Service (PECS) and also clarity that it is a different register from the sex offender register and is also different from a criminal record. It is important that the public recognise that because a person is listed on the sex offender register they may not necessarily be on the PECS register. Therefore, it may be useful to produce an information leaflet highlighting who can access the PECS register, in what circumstances and what information can be expected from the register. PBNI note the absence of a system for the courts to notify PECS following a conviction for an offence against a child. We welcome the proposal (clause 21) to place a responsibility on courts to consider the imposition of "disqualification orders" on individuals charged or convicted of certain offences against children. However, we note that these individuals must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and would point out that many offenders who would be unsuitable to work with children receive lesser sentences than this. Therefore we recommend that the qualifying sentence should include community orders in addition to custodial orders. Furthermore we recommend that courts must always clearly record whether the victim of an offence was a child as this may not always happen. PBNI is aware that NSPCC has highlighted the lack of comparable vetting arrangements for people who are deemed unsuitable to work with children in other EU states including the Republic of Ireland. Clause 30 of the Bill suggest that those people prohibited or disqualified from working with children in another jurisdiction may also be suitable for inclusion in the PECS register in NI. We suggest that this clause needs to be further defined in order to clarify the exact position regarding nationals from other EU states who have been disqualified from working with children by an equivalent system of vetting. PBNI particularly welcomes the proposal to introduce a system of accreditation for organisations working with children (clause 16). PBNI welcomes this proposal and would want to ensure that community and voluntary organisations receive support from government to introduce these safeguards. PBNI is committed to the principle of partnership work in order to protect the public and therefore works extensively with community organisations who do not have the infrastructure available to statutory organisations. Therefore it would be appropriate for these organisations to receive guidance and training to introduce the principles of accreditation. Additionally, we would not wish to see excessive fees for smaller organisations to access the PECS register. WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 21 August 2002 THE NEW PROPOSALS Whilst we welcome the proposals to place the PEC's Register on a statutory basis as it is clear that the present system does not work, we would have to urge some caution in this matter. Clause 2 Inclusion in the list following disciplinary action: It is our experience as a professional organisation that some qualified nurses (mainly in the private and independent sector), have apparently been dismissed for misconduct, which relates to abuse of a patient/client. On further investigation the case against the individual is at best "weak", and at worst a "witch hunt". If that nurse is placed on the list, it may lead to them being removed from the Nurses and Midwives Register, and never being able to apply for re-instatement. If the case which lead to dismissal and subsequent removal from the professional register proves to be "unsafe", this could result in a breach of an individual's Human Rights. Because of this issue, we would welcome the right to appeal to a Tribunal (Clause 9), but would also urge the DHSSPS to have systems in place to ensure that procedures leading to dismissal for misconduct are fair and transparent, and in keeping within the Human Rights Act 1998. ACCREDITATION The RCN welcomes the proposal to introduce a system of accreditation. We believe that all organisations involved in working with children and young people, should be required to gain accreditation. The organisation should be inspected annually and ongoing audit carried out to ensure they are meeting the standards laid down for accreditation. It is important however, if this is to be done that resources be made available. The Royal College of Nursing supports the view that employment checks must be stringent and kept up-to-date. We also believe that the system requires to be "speeded up", as the time delays in the past have often been detrimental to organisations who have lost excellent potential employees. To ensure the system is more efficient will also require better resources. VULNERABLE ADULTS Clause 46 - Subsection 6 Whilst we recognise that there may be a requirement to define "vulnerable adults", we believe it is important to ensure that adults who may become temporarily vulnerable, because of illness etc, are also protected. Therefore, the Royal College of Nursing believe that all staff in all care settings should receive pre-employment checks. We hope that our comments will be useful to the Committee, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information MAUREEN SCOTT WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 13 September 2002 The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health welcomes the opportunity to respond to the above consultation document. The College's response was developed following comments received from Dr Jean Price, Chair of the College's Standing Committee on Child Protection and Dr John Jenkins, the College's Officer for Ireland. The College's response is attached. We would point out that there are a number of paediatricians in Northern Ireland with particular expertise in this area, in particular, Dr Moira Stewart who not only has much experience but is also the College's regional representative for Northern Ireland on the Council. The Committee may wish to contact Dr Stewart to receive further expert advice. Dr Stewart's contact details are attached. I hope this is helpful. Please contact me if you require any further information. DR PATRICIA HAMILTON cc: Professor David Hall September 2002 GENERAL COMMENTS: We would point out that there is a general lack of resources for both further specialist Paediatric manpower, facilities in which examinations can take place in a child friendly setting, and equipment (such as that for specialised examinations in cases of suspected child sexual abuse). There is always the possibility of better communication between involved parties, and this often links to shortage of manpower as people do not have the time which is necessary to attend multidisciplinary meetings, or indeed to contact others who might have a relevant interest. There is a particular need for further development of the relationships with forensic medical services, and for linkages to provide prompt access to information, not only to Paediatricians but also to staff in Accident & Emergency Departments regarding current and previous child protection decisions and concerns. SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 1. Casework Professional judgement and analysis of information is referred to. There is a need to consider how this will be measured and what it will be measured against. 2. Lessons Learnt Have recommendations from previous enquiries actually been activated? There should be a monitoring system in place to ensure that they work. 3. Clinicians Support facilities should be in place for clinicians? For example, two doctor examination, photo-documentation for child sexual abuse and peer review. 4. Consent There should be a standardised consent form and consent should be sought for examination, photo-documentation and its uses, and sharing of information. 5. Consumer Views These should be routinely sought and be subject to a periodic review. 6. Provision of Information from Health This should be provided to Strategy Discussions and/or Case Conferences? Paediatricians or doctors should play a part in the decision making. 7. Training Designated health personnel, particularly Designated and Named Doctors, should understand their roles and feel they are adequately resourced to carry them out in an appropriate fashion. We note that under the Terms of Reference, the Inquiry will consider the quality and allocation of resources to Child Protection services in Northern Ireland, with reference to the provision of similar services in Great Britain and other selected countries. In our view, whilst there could be some value in this, it might be helpful to other countries for Northern Ireland to consider what they think adequate resources are for such a high profile and risky service. WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 5 August 2002 Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill I refer to your letter of the 11th July 2002 and have attached a copy of the response which was made to the consultation paper on the Bill. The Area Child Protection Committee is very welcoming of this new piece of legislation as it will clearly afford a greater degree of protection to children and vulnerable adults. It will be important that there is widespread understanding of the Bill and the requirements which it places on employers. The Bill calls for gross departmental and cross jurisdiction collaboration and co-operation which is also to be welcomed. The Memorandum (Para 8) indicates that the decision to employ an applicant remains a matter for prospective employers. It would be hoped that this will apply to a vast minority of circumstances and I would suggest that if an employer decides to proceed with the employment of an individual whose name is on the register they should require to notify the Department to ensure that monitoring of these actions takes place. Paragraph 11 refers to an individual's name being placed on a provisional list whilst they are afforded opportunity to make representations. Will the same stipulations apply to the provisional list and is the representation process to be time limited. It remains important that all those working with children and vulnerable adults are aware of their responsibilities and that smaller organisations in the voluntary and community sector are facilitated in the development and applications of their child protection policies. TONY RODGERS (MR) WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 2 September 2002 The Southern Education and Library Board welcomes the opportunity of responding to the Department's proposals in respect of the above legislation. 1. The SELB endorses the proposal that the PECS register will be put on a statutory basis for childcare organisations. It understands that 'child care organisations' are defined as concerning "the provision of accommodation, health services or personal social services to children or the supervision of children." As has been made clear, this definition does not include the education sector which is governed by the regulations contained in the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, Articles 70 and 88A of which are due to be amended. Whilst it is recognised that education and social services are governed by different legislation and regulations, nevertheless it is difficult to justify the proposal to continue to maintain 2 lists of adults disqualified from working with children and vulnerable adults. There may be less chance of errors being made if there is one centrally held list to which both departments contribute names and have access as and when required. 2. Whilst welcoming the proposal to require PECS checks be carried out on all individuals who have access to children, the board also welcomes the enhanced right of the individual to appeal to a tribunal where s/he feels an injustice has been done. 3. The proposals also deal with the recording of offences committed in other jurisdictions. How this will operate has not been clarified as yet, nevertheless the SELB feels that this is very important and needs to be an effective mechanism for protecting children. If the committee requires clarification of points raised in the response, the SELB would be willing to send a representative/s to discuss the issues further. WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 11 December 2001 Consultation Paper on Proposals for a Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill The Consultation Paper correctly outlines the limitations of current systems. The proposals outlined should result in the PECS Register being a much more important and effective instrument to offer greater protection to children and vulnerable adults. I am aware that additional work is progressing to raise awareness of the current PECS system whilst also ensuring greater understanding of the limitations of the system. This is obviously an important piece of work. As regards the proposed arrangements the proactive element of including persons on the register where previously the individual may have sought to circumvent this process by resigning or retiring.
The preferred position would be that all organisations should be required to make referrals although it is agreed that this would be very difficult to enforce. It would however be preferable to alert all providers to the need for referral. This could be part of the publicity at the time of enactment. In addition most providers are likely to have some contact with either Education, Social Services, Local Councils or NIVDA/Community Sector Training. At the point of contact information could be made available to the provider regarding the need for referral. It would also be important for non childcare organisations to be able to access the register in exceptional circumstances although this may require to be done in consultation with a registered agency.
Clarification on who is likely to make up the tribunal would be of assistance.
The possibility of moving to a 'one-stop shop' as outlined is seen as a positive development.
There have always been concerns relating to persons who have moved from one jurisdiction to the other where there have been child protection concerns. The potential for child care organisations in the South to make referrals and have checks carried out would be significant advancement.
The suggested definition of vulnerable adults is a helpful one as it relates broadly to the categories of people being identified in relation to the Board's policy and procedures for the protection of vulnerable adults. However, there are circumstances where people on the list may become involved in other services, such as clubs, on a voluntary basis. It would appear that there is no provision for referral or screening in such circumstances.
One of the most common forms of abuse being identified through the application of vulnerable adults policies is financial abuse. It would seem that this is excluded from consideration here and this should be re-considered.
This recommendations takes account of the common situation where someone is transferred to another position, for example, from domiciliary care service to a nursing home and is an important proposal.
This makes an important provision for referral to both lists and is a welcome development.
The proposed legislation relates only to employees. However, the potential for someone to accept a position on a voluntary basis when they are not suitable to work with vulnerable adults remains a concern. It is difficult to take enforcement action in these circumstances but the extension of the ability to refer to and check the list would be useful.
This intention relies solely on the timing of the legislation. Currently, not all the services identified receive inspection visits. Overall, the proposals outlined in the consultation document are to be welcomed. MR BRIAN DORNAN WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 1 October 2002 I am writing to you regarding the above matter and your letter to Mr Bolton dated 11 July 2002. On review of the documentation I have nothing to add in terms of the comment except to add that this is a valuable development which adds to our existing procedures which serve to protect children and young people. The practicalities of how where and who has responsibility for maintaining the register requires careful consideration as well as the issue of accessibility. I hope you find these comments useful. VINCENT RYAN WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 22 August 2002 1. Having read the above document I am aware that no specific reference is made for arrangements to conduct background checks on persons serving with the Armed Forces and their families. This group of people represent a sizeable portion of the Northern Ireland population. They are also a highly mobile community, any of whom could pose a threat to children or vulnerable adults because there is no existing links between PECS and SSAFA Forces Help Social Work Department or with Military Records. 2. Members of the Armed Forces Community world wide can apply to become childminders, day-care staff, residential staff, classroom assistants, family support workers, volunteers with youth organisations or have contact as instructors or drivers with cadet clubs and youth camps. My office at Headquarters Northern Ireland already conducts background checks into SSAFA Forces Help Social Work records and military police records for those who apply for employment organised within the Forces Community. For those who apply for carers employment in the wider community my records are unchecked (except for childminding registration). 3. Gaps may occur under the following circumstances: (a) Members of the Forces Community could be deemed unsuitable to work with children during overseas postings and subsequently move to Northern Ireland where nothing is known about previous offences or concerns. (b) Similarly offences against children may be tried overseas by Courts Martial and therefore an individual's record may not be accessible to civilian sources. (c) Whilst Social Service offices ask SSAFA Forces Help for background checks on childminders, local residential or day-care facilities do not. Yet wives and dependants of forces personnel seek employment as carers. (d) Local youth organisations may not be aware of the need to check military records or SSAFA Forces Help Social Work records. 4. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss this further with a view as to how best these gaps can be covered. Please contact me if you feel a meeting would be helpful. M L SMITH
WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 22 August 2002 1. We welcome the intention of this Bill to strengthen and advance the existing arrangements for PECS. We support the proposal that anyone who is included on the list will commit an offence if he works or seeks work in specified positions, and that it will also be an offence to knowingly offer work to a disqualified person. 2. We support the proposal that individuals guilty of misconduct which harmed a child, or placed a child at risk of harm or who have been dismissed for misconduct, or suspended or transferred to another non child care position, resigned or availed of redundancy in circumstances in which the organisation would have considered dismissing him, can be referred to the Dept's register. 3. We see that those noted on the register may appeal inclusion. If the appeal is upheld, is the organisation that referred the person protected in law or could it be held to have defamed the individual? 4. We note that only accredited organisations may access the list, however will this be possible in the case of an individual wishing to employ someone as a care worker on a private basis e.g. as a nanny or child minder? Would an individual employing someone who is the subject of a disqualification order, be committing an offence? 5. We think that the requirement to carry out checks and make referrals should be extended to all organisations where there is unsupervised access to children - ie churches and voluntary agencies. 6. In relation to organisations working with children it is proposed to introduce a system of accreditation. We support this principle of setting standards of good practice in child protection. We agree that in order to keep accreditation, organisations must carry out checks of the statutory lists on individuals they propose to offer a position, and refer individuals whom they consider to have harmed a child or placed a child at risk. We ask that there will be support for such organisations to maintain their standards with appropriate training. 7. In view of the fact that churches and voluntary agencies have limited financial resources we feel that referrals to the register should be free of charge. 8 We agree with the proposal that disqualifications should apply across jurisdictions, however it is not clear if RI child care agencies will be able to make referrals and have checks of the register completed? Also note the Sex Offender's Register in RI is compiled only on the basis of convictions, cautions or bound over orders. An employee, who is dismissed or paid off for any child protection reason, would not appear on it. 9. Neglect does not seem to be included in the schedule of offences appended to the Bill. IAN W ELLIS (REV) WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 14 August 2002 I refer to your letter dated 11 July 2002 regarding the above-mentioned subject and would comment as follows: INTRODUCTION Generally the proposals to create a system of statutory requirements for Child Care organisations to make referrals in respect of people deemed unsuitable to work with children is to be welcomed. Also to be welcomed is the removal of discretion on the part of the Child Care organisation to employ someone who is listed as being unsuitable. Both these measures greatly strengthen effectiveness of the vetting system. On the specific issues raised under 4.6:
Other Points: It is to be welcomed that there is the creation of a right of appeal against inclusion in the list for the sake of fairness and providing a safeguard against the challenge under Human Rights Legislation. VULNERABLE ADULTS: Generally, the proposals are welcomed in that it very substantially enhances the safeguards for adults receiving health and social care services, particularly by making it a requirement that organisations providing care across the Independent, Statutory and Voluntary Sectors take appropriate action. We would concur with the opinion that organisations have been somewhat reluctant to use the current voluntary mechanisms for fear of litigation and the proposed legislation with its in-built appeals mechanism improves the situation substantially. We would recognise that the issue of who is potentially vulnerable is not a straight forward one and would feel that the proposal to include all those in receipt of health and social care as potentially vulnerable is best available. There is a query as to whether points (a) to (d) under 6.2 are inclusive enough; ie do they include people in receipt of District Nursing PAMs or Social Work services? Would it cover everyone with dementia? A specific query has been raised in regard to whether persons who have, through vulnerable adults investigations been identified as having harmed or placed another adult "at risk" (but not in the course of their employment) would be included on the list. If not, then there is a weakness in that such persons may be known to Trusts, but would not be precluded from being employed in positions which would provide unsupervised access to vulnerable adults and children. If there is a mechanism for inclusion of such persons, it is not clear from the consultation document as to how that would work. I trust the above comments are helpful. JIM McCALL [1] An Abuse of Trust The Report of the SSI Investigation into the case of Martin Huston DHSS 1993 |
| Home| Today's Business| Questions | Official Report| Legislation| Site Map| Links| Feedback| Search |