I have listened carefully to all points made by Members during this debate. The breadth of those comments illustrates the range of issues dealt with in the Bill. I have noted the comments about constraints on the Committee for Social Development, but our first priority as Members must be the needs of our constituents, rather than ourselves. I am conscious of the efforts that the Committee is making on this. While it is a lengthy Bill, many of the provisions are not contentious. They have been sought for a long time and will be widely welcomed. We should not judge the amount of work required by the size of the Bill - that would be naive. Sometimes the most contentious Bills, which take the greatest length of time on legislation and policy, are quite small.

I want to deal with issues that have arisen, though clearly I will not be able to deal with them all. If other issues arise, I will follow them up. There will be further opportunity in the remaining stages of the Bill to go into more detail, and I look forward to considering these matters further at a later date. I welcome the Assembly's support for the Second Stage.

Several Members talked about how long it has taken to get to this stage, and I share those concerns. I put them to others outside my Department who were delaying this day. Mr Morrow, the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who dealt with this matter previously as Minister, and other interested Members know that the timescale would have been shortened had issues that were not central to the Bill not been raised by others. That delayed it considerably. That is in the past now, and, as people are fond of saying, let us draw a line under it. However, we should not be critical of those who were pushing to have the Bill introduced much earlier. For instance, if OFMDFM had expedited the Bill, perhaps we would have dealt with this three months ago, and the Consideration Stage would almost be complete. That is a matter for others. I am keen to ensure speedy progress.

I am disappointed that more Members did not take part in the debate. I read the newspapers and comments from party Colleagues across the Province of Members who have spoken. By and large, the comments from all sections and all parties represented here have been welcoming. I will be extremely interested to hear how some of Mr ONeill's comments on antisocial behaviour are received by his party Colleagues who have warmly supported the measures introduced in the Bill as long overdue and much needed. Sir John Gorman quite rightly referred to "neighbours from hell" and the difficulties they cause, and other Members made comments about certain housing estates, so I think Mr ONeill's comments will come as a surprise, not least to some of his party Colleagues.

Some Members wondered if the Committee will have sufficient time to give proper consideration to the Bill. I know that the Committee has a fairly busy programme of legislation, never mind other issues. I also know that this will require much hard work.

I appreciate the efforts that the Committee will make to ensure that this Bill and the Housing Support Services Bill reach the statute book; indeed, it behoves us all to work hard to achieve that outcome. After all, that is what we are sent to the Assembly to do. There is no point in complaining about hard work; let us roll up our sleeves and do it.

The criticism has been made that the Bill is simply a catch-up with legislation in England and Wales, rather than a consequence of trying to find local solutions to local problems. While some provisions may reflect policies and legislation elsewhere, it is not fair to suggest that we are merely following suit for the sake of it. Naturally, developments elsewhere must be given consideration; it would be madness to ignore them. However, it is only if they are considered appropriate for Northern Ireland that my Department decides to adopt policies locally and to legislate if necessary.

It is clear from responses to policy proposals and consultation on the Bill's provisions that, for example, there is broad support for a discretionary grants regime. There was little mention of that issue today. That surprised me, because many Members, particularly those from rural areas, have raised the issue of unfit housing. This instrument is critical to allowing the Housing Executive to deal with the problem. I am sure that it was widely welcomed, though it was not mentioned often. It is one of the Bill's main issues. That is why I, and all those seeking such policies - to tackle antisocial behaviour and so on - would have been staggered at any notion that somehow the Bill might have been voted down.

There is broad support for the discretionary grants scheme, and the Housing Executive itself has observed that such a scheme will provide flexibility to develop local solutions to local problems. That is why we are introducing this change. The Bill will grant the Housing Executive's request for that authority and power.

There is also broad support for the package of measures that seeks to deal with antisocial behaviour as it occurs in Northern Ireland; for the extension of tenants' rights, as proposed by the Bill; and for a single authority to deal with travellers' needs. I was impressed by the general welcome given in the 250 responses received during the consultation period after the Bill's publication.

Sir John Gorman asked whether I would take account of the significant changes that are occurring in social housing across the United Kingdom. That is a relevant point. I can give a categorical "yes" to that. My Department and I will monitor closely any changes and will take those on board.

Homelessness is of great importance, and I welcome the fact that it has been given such attention in the Assembly and wider afield. It is a critical issue that does not only require legislation; it requires an accompanying strategy and funding. I am glad to say that we are making progress on both those fronts. Most of the Bill's provisions are necessary so that Northern Ireland's position on homelessness under asylum and immigration law is consistent with the remainder of the United Kingdom.

As Members well know, the Housing Executive has recently carried out a homelessness strategy and services review to help develop a more strategic approach to homelessness. In addition, the Committee for Social Development has just finalised its report into homelessness. The Department is also to take the lead in a cross-departmental, cross-sector review of homelessness, which will build on the Housing Executive's strategic review and the Committee's report. Legislation did not have to be passed to do that; that work is happening now. Some Members must remember and focus on that. These issues are being addressed and taken seriously. It is envisaged that all the necessary strategies, plans and programmes will evolve from these initiatives without the need for statute.

In the final analysis, my Department can invoke existing powers of direction on the Housing Executive to bring about any desired outcomes, without the need for specific provisions in the Bill. Members should study the powers that we already have, look at the fact that the Housing Executive is introducing a strategy and recognise that the Department is taking a lead in the cross-departmental initiative. They should also recognise that we have been successful in securing an extra £5 million for dealing with homelessness only this week. To get up and say that there should be more in this particular Bill is not the be-all and end-all of the matter; far from it.

As he frequently does, Sir John Gorman raised the issue of house sales and the impact on new building. I dealt with a similar question at Question Time on Monday. Mr Morrow stressed the value of tenants' being able to purchase their own homes. The importance and value for those tenants and for society in general in Northern Ireland has been broadly welcomed.

We should consider whether social housing providers are hindered from meeting housing need by the policies on house sales and the new-build programme. New build and the number of re-lets are key factors. Those in housing distress are still being housed in a reasonable time, although we should always be trying to improve that situation. We could build more houses if we had unlimited funds.

Members have referred to tenants' purchasing their own homes, saying that that takes those homes out of the stock for re-let. However, the people who purchase those homes would remain as tenants if they did not purchase their own homes. Those homes would not be on the market for re-let if they were not purchased: the vast majority of people who purchase their homes would have remained in those houses as social tenants.

Mr ONeill and other Members talked about the antisocial behaviour provisions in the legislation, especially in relation to introductory tenancies. The Council for the Homeless in Northern Ireland has lobbied on that, and I recognise that Mr ONeill's arguments correspond with those of the council.

The provision for introductory tenancies was included at the request of the Housing Executive, and I am satisfied that there are circumstances in Northern Ireland in which the use of the facility to terminate an introductory tenancy without delay would be entirely justified. If it is justified in certain circumstances, it is right that, as a last resort, provision be made for people to be evicted from a home for serious antisocial behaviour, and it makes sense that we should have a provision that allows that to happen quickly when such behaviour comes to light. We would not have to go through a long, drawn-out process, and that was widely welcomed in correspondence and responses we had on the Bill. Some of the comments made today are very much at odds with the feedback that many of us hear all the time in our constituencies.

People want action to be taken against serious antisocial behaviour in housing estates, and we must respond to that. Sir John Gorman rightly mentioned that private Members' legislation was being introduced in the House of Commons to deal with that sort of issue. We do no service to tenants and to our constituents by turning a blind eye, or saying that the problem cannot be tackled in the way that the Bill suggests.

I share Ms Lewsley's concern about the termination of introductory tenancies for rent arrears, as happens in England. I intend to advise social landlords who choose to operate such a scheme that introductory tenancies should be terminated only in cases of serious antisocial behaviour. I hope that the Member is reassured that, unlike in England, introductory tenancies will not be terminated simply on the grounds of rent arrears. That is important and shows that we intend to deal with the serious problem of antisocial behaviour. We are not seeking to act in a punitive way, if there are other means at our disposal. The question of rent arrears must, of course, be dealt with as well, but we should reserve the proposed powers as a last resort against antisocial behaviour.

Mr Shannon referred to the time taken to deal with some of those issues. I do not want people to get the idea that there will be a raft of evictions, come what may. The powers outlined in the Bill are a measure of last resort. Where an order of possession is sought, there may be a risk of harm to individuals until the order is granted. It is important, therefore, that a court has the discretion to expedite the granting of an order in such cases. There is no evidence that that proposal would have an adverse impact on vulnerable people. Mr Shannon also asked about timescales with regard to several other issues, and I shall write to him on the details of those matters.

With regard to introductory tenancies, the fundamental point is that social landlords currently have to award secure tenancies without any knowledge as to whether the tenant is likely to prove suitable. If a person subsequently proves to be unsatisfactory, the landlord faces a lengthy process to gain possession of the dwelling. Introductory tenancies will allow social landlords to award new tenancies on a trial basis. If, during that time, a tenant proves unsatisfactory for the reasons I have given, repossession can be obtained quickly through the courts. Introductory tenancies are in no way detrimental to the rights of those who keep to their tenancy obligations. They will have the same rights as those with secure tenancies. I hope that I have dealt with that point and emphasised the need for it.

Mr ONeill asked whether specialist housing for the elderly or the disabled would be covered by the house sales schemes. He knows that the Housing Executive has undertaken a review of its house sales policy, which has been submitted to the Department. Mr ONeill and other Members will be aware of the details of that review. I accept that the right of tenants to buy must be balanced against the expectation of others to be able to rent such accommodation. It is proposed that registered housing associations should follow closely the Housing Executive scheme that is currently with the Department for consideration.

General comments referred to "an opportunity wasted". I said to Colleagues that I wondered how long it would be before that phrase was used in the debate - I have heard it many times before. As I said in my introductory speech, having been the Minister for Social Development for some time now, I recognise that there will be a need for further policy initiatives and, probably, legislation.

Members should not regard the Bill as the be-all and end-all of housing legislation or the only opportunity for such legislation. It is a major piece of legislation because it deals with important issues that affect social landlords, tenants, et cetera. Not everything can be done at once. If the Department had introduced some of the more radical measures that were suggested, and which cannot be introduced because it has not carried out the necessary consultation, complaints about the Committee's workload would be stronger than they are now. However, I am determined to involve the Committee and Members in that process which will lead to further legislation. The Bill should not be viewed as a one-off or the only opportunity to deal with housing matters.

Ms Lewsley, Mr ONeill and others referred to the accommodation needs of travellers. The Housing Executive will have sole responsibility for meeting all travellers' appropriate accommodation needs. There is already considerable pressure on housing budgets, and extra funding will be needed to enable the Housing Executive to meet its new responsibilities, so I hope that Members will remember that - particularly those who have spoken so eloquently about travellers' needs - when a request for extra funding comes before the Assembly. The Department will need Members to vote in favour of the extra resources if the Housing Executive is to meet its obligations. The Housing Executive is carrying out a travellers' needs accommodation survey. That will determine the need for various schemes, including group housing, service sites and transit sites, and play an important role in helping to identify and prioritise them.

In response to Ms Lewsley's question, there will be a statutory duty on the Housing Executive to provide such sites as appear to it to be appropriate for the accommodation of travellers' caravans. Unauthorised campsites is an important issue, and reference has been made to legislation on the subject in other jurisdictions, particularly the Irish Republic. The Department for Social Development, in conjunction with other relevant Departments, including the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of the Environment, is considering ways of dealing with unauthorised campsites, and I undertake to bring forward proposals on this.

There may be little difference between a transit site and a service site, since both are likely to have services and facilities. Transit provision could be made on a section of a service site where travellers could spend a few days before moving elsewhere. The Bill provides for the Housing Executive to provide such sites as appears to it to be appropriate to accommodate travellers' caravans, and that will enable the Housing Executive to provide whatever type of site is required.

Mention was also made of the lack of consultation with local authorities. Local authorities and district councils across Northern Ireland were in contact with the Department for Social Development during the period of consultation on the Bill, and most of them are satisfied with it and with the Housing Executive's taking on responsibility for meeting the social housing needs and other accommodation requirements of travellers. I am conscious of the time, but I want to deal with as many of the points that were raised as possible.

Ms Lewsley asked why the wider definition of disabled persons cited in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was not being used. I will consider carefully her point. The thinking is that in deciding what facilities and help can be provided to a person with a disability, the Housing Executive works closely with, and is guided by, social services departments. Those departments operate according to the definition of disabled persons used in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The Housing Executive follows suit; otherwise, social services departments would not consider to be disabled everyone that the executive refers to them. I hope that explains the rationale behind our position.

Sometimes issues appear straightforward at first glance. However, we want to make life easier for people with disabilities. We do not want to get into a situation in which some Departments recognise people as being disabled while others do not - that would lead to a worse situation. I will consider Ms Lewsley's point, but I hope that she will understand the reason for our position.

Although there is no provision for the representation of disabled people on the board of the Housing Executive, the Bill requires me, as Minister, to ensure that, as far as practicable, the Housing Executive is representative of the community in Northern Ireland. Therefore there is no need to identify any component group within that definition, and we have not done so. However, people with disabilities are already included in the term "representative of the community." I think that I am right in saying that there has been - and may still be - someone on the board of the Housing Executive who has a disability. Mr McKee from Larne has served with distinction on the board. I hope that that reassures Ms Lewsley.

I thank Members for their contributions and, in spite of their reservations and concerns about detail, they have stated unanimously that they are content to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading. They have said that issues need to be examined in more detail - I am happy to do that. However, Members should recognise that the Bill is a major building block in housing legislation. We should examine it constructively and positively along with the announcements made earlier this week for securing extra funding to deal with homelessness, supported housing and fuel poverty. This has been a positive week for dealing with issues that affect the most vulnerable and needy people in society.

I thank Sir John Gorman for his warm remarks about my role. I also thank other Members who have spoken about the Department's commitment to social housing. I am committed to ensuring that the needs of tenants and the most vulnerable people in society are met, but I need the help and support of Members. It cannot be done alone, and the Department for Social Development should not do it alone. It needs the help and co-operation of others. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Social Development.

Housing Support Services Bill: Second Stage

TOP

The Minister for Social Development (Mr Dodds):

I beg to move

Supported housing is an effective and valuable service for many people in Northern Ireland. It helps them to live independently and often complements community care provision. Many people depend on it, the two most obvious examples being the elderly and those with learning difficulties. However, there are many others, such as victims of domestic violence, vulnerable young people, including those who are homeless, and those who suffer from alcohol or drug addiction.

Support comes in many different forms. It may be practical support, such as helping someone to set up and maintain a home or develop domestic and practical skills, or simply giving advice on financial management, such as paying bills or making benefit claims. Equally, it could be personal support, such as helping someone to develop social skills, giving emotional support and advice, or simply befriending someone who is lonely. It could be aimed at ensuring that vulnerable people feel safe in their homes by helping them to establish personal safety and security or providing community alarms.

A wide range of groups depend on housing support services and, equally, a wide variety of support services is available. Therefore, it is important to remember that not everyone has the same needs, so support must be tailored to meet individual requirements.

Needless to say, it costs a lot of money to provide support services, and a major source of income for the providers of the services is housing benefit. However, the courts have decided that, from 1 April 2003, housing support services will no longer be an eligible charge under housing benefit. Unless it is addressed, that situation will create a major reduction in the level of funding available to the providers of supported housing schemes. It could result in the closure of some schemes or, at least, force providers to reduce significantly the level of service available to vulnerable residents. For that reason, my Department is taking the lead in establishing a new fund that, primarily, will fill the void left by the removal of housing benefit as a source of income for housing support services.

Rather than deal with the issue in isolation, it was decided that we should adopt a holistic approach. The current funding arrangements are complex and fragmented, as funding comes not only from housing benefit, but a variety of other sources. In some cases, that has helped to create a situation where the type of service provided has been determined by the funding available and the source of the funding, rather than the need of the resident. Therefore, it was proposed that all sources of funding for housing support services should be combined in a single fund to be operated centrally by the Housing Executive.

Our proposals were developed by an interdepartmental working group, comprising representatives from the Department for Social Development, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, area health boards, and the Housing Executive. They have been endorsed by an external reference group that includes representatives of interested bodies, including voluntary organisations, which play an important role in delivering services at the coalface. The proposals have been subject to widespread consultation in the document 'Towards Supporting People' and have been broadly welcomed.

The new arrangements that the Bill will allow us to introduce will bring many advantages. They will allow the Department to impose conditions on those receiving financial assistance for providing housing support services. They will allow us to place greater emphasis on the quality of service provision, ensuring that those providing it are properly accredited, and thereby ensuring that vulnerable residents receive the level of service that best meets their specific needs.

The arrangements will eliminate fragmentation of funding, improve the quality and effectiveness of housing-related support services, and allow the Department to place the future of the supported housing sector on a more secure and co-ordinated basis. It is an important Bill that many people want to see enacted.

For the second time today, I acknowledge on behalf of the Committee for Social Development, the introduction of housing legislation. Once again I place on record that the Chairperson, Mr Fred Cobain, is unable to be present for today's proceedings due to business elsewhere. He sends his apologies to the House.

The Housing Support Services Bill has just eight clauses. Therefore, it may appear insignificant compared to the Housing Bill debated earlier, which has 150 clauses. The Minister said that the size of a Bill does not matter, and I agree with him. However, any differences between us may take a long time to iron out, or be agreed upon. The Bill is a significant piece of legislation. Members should not, therefore, be deceived by its size. The intentions behind it are serious.

The Committee for Social Development sponsored a debate in the Assembly on 19 March 2002 to draw attention to the planned introduction of the Bill. It will have far-reaching consequences for those who rely on supported housing - the most vulnerable and needy in society. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that the Committee is concerned about the financial effects of the Bill, and the fact that finances are no longer ring-fenced, as the Committee believes they should be. The Committee will consider that issue carefully when considering the Bill.

It is unfortunate that the Department chose not to publish the Bill for public consultation, though I readily acknowledge that proposals for the Bill were subject to consultation in May 2001 by virtue of the consultation document 'Towards Supporting People'. However, the Committee finds itself in an invidious position. In my speech during the Second Stage of the Housing Bill I referred to the time pressures faced by the Committee in completing its scrutiny of legislation. I also said that the Assembly is obliged to be open and transparent in conducting business. However, I repeat my concern that in our determination to legislate, we may rush through law that we will later regret.

The Committee Stage is important. However, the Committee needs time to do its job properly. The Minister said that we have a duty to the people, and I agree. However, we also have a duty to bring in proper legislation for the next generation. Introducing legislation so late in the life of the Assembly will undoubtedly cause problems. However, on behalf of the Committee for Social Development I assure the House that it will take its role seriously. It is committed to exercising the powers delegated to it as regards the consideration of primary legislation. We look forward to the Committee Stage of the Bill.

There is much to recommend in the Bill as regards efficiency and the service that it might provide. However, there are always concerns about how provisions will be administered and whether sufficient preparations have been made.

Given the diverse nature of the funding from different sectors that has made up the "pot", and the demands that might be made of that funding, I ask the Minister whether sufficient thought will be given to ensure that it will be big enough to provide for the potential growth of needs. During the recent debate on homelessness, it was generally recognised that there would be an increased need for additional support for people, from the social development and health and social services standpoints. Both Departments will have to contribute money to the funding pot. Will enough thought be given to planning ahead to ensure that there will be sufficient resources so that the pot is large enough? If the pot is not big enough to cope with such development, we will encounter problems. Once the pot runs out, so does the benefit support, and the scheme will be in serious trouble. We must be assured from the outset that the pot is large enough.

Charging for support services is an interesting side element. Charges currently exist in the system, especially in sheltered accommodation, where people can, and do, pay for services. What will happen under the Supporting People scheme is that, because we do not charge for domiciliary care, the pot may be short of the desired amount by around £2 million. That must be included when the size of the pot is determined.

Those are cautionary comments about how we decide what will be put in the pot at this stage. If we do not get it right now, all the efficient operational benefits that might come from this scheme could be in jeopardy. We must mark at an early stage how that will be done. There have been complaints about parity, as the Minister knows. The Bill could be an opportunity to reap some benefit. It is very much in the interests of our people to ensure that the pot is of maximum size.

I want to raise a couple of points on the administration of the scheme so that the Minister can amplify them more clearly. There is a need for detailed advice notes. There seems to be a big gap between the Bill and the Housing Executive's current practical approach to the administration of the scheme.

Will the Minister ensure that, when the regulations are drawn up, there is sufficient detail to reflect what is already in place in the Housing Executive? That may seem a moot point but, because of transitional housing benefit and so on, much good work has been done in preparation for the scheme, and good practice should be supported. I want the Minister to give an undertaking that that will be the case. Drawing up those regulations should involve the external reference group to which the Minister referred.

Quality needs to be considered in the regulations and advice notes. I hope that that will be assured. If this were to come before the Committee, it would help to overcome some of the problems that the Deputy Chairperson mentioned - time elements and so on. If the Committee received the regulations early, it might placate some of its bigger concerns.

I have watched the introduction of this Bill with interest. As Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, I led the Committee Stage of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, which addresses the needs of young vulnerable people leaving care and covers their need for adequate support and financial assistance, including housing support.

The Health Committee's inquiry into residential and secure accommodation for children highlighted many of the problems of those vulnerable and inexperienced young people, who must establish independent living early in their lives. I therefore welcome the Bill, especially if it improves the availability and ease of access to funding for housing support for that group of young people. I await with interest the Social Development Committee's report on the Bill.

I, too, shall be brief. I thank Members who contributed to the debate. The Bill may be short, but it is important. I realise that Members have concerns about the details to be finalised before it becomes law, and I assure them that my Department, the Housing Executive and other interested bodies are dealing with that.

The Committee made the point that the Bill was not subject to consultation; however, it is recognised that it is closely based on 'Towards Supporting People', on which there was consultation. In this instance, consultation on the Bill's provisions could have been perceived as overkill.

I accept that funding is a crucial issue which we must get right. For that reason the Housing Executive works closely with providers to ensure that they accurately assess their housing support costs, and my officials provide their counterparts in the Department of Finance and Personnel with the information necessary to facilitate their discussions with the Treasury.

The Housing Executive has been preparing providers for the implementation of the new arrangements. Seminars have been held, and funding is available to allow the voluntary sector to appoint new staff to work specifically to prepare the providers for the changes. The Housing Executive, as mentioned earlier, has established a large Supporting People team, which includes secondees from the voluntary sector, to work on such issues as supply- and needs-mapping.

Mr ONeill's point concerned the amount of work to be done by the Housing Executive prior to the implementation of 'Towards Supporting People', and I am aware of that. Most of the work so far has been done with no additional resources, and I was pleased to secure this week an additional £1·6 million for the Housing Executive to ensure that it completes the project. I spoke to the chairman and the chief executive on this, and Members will not be surprised that they are very pleased.

The new arrangements enable the Housing Executive to work with the health boards, trusts and voluntary agencies to assess the need for specific schemes in Northern Ireland. A major exercise is already under way, the aim being to develop a comprehensive database which will set out the details of available schemes and services and where they are situated. That will ensure that there will be no gaps in the provision of service.

Mr ONeill raised the need to take growth into account when determining the size of the funding pot. As I said earlier, supported housing has a vital role. Each year, a certain percentage of the new build programme is reserved for schemes of that type, and it is important that that is taken into account when determining the future demands of the fund. I assure Mr ONeill that that will be so.

I welcome the support and interest of Members in this very important issue, which will be pursued vigorously. We have no choice but to act on foot of court decisions that made it impossible to continue with current funding arrangements. We decided to act rather than allow schemes to go to the wall, or not allow funding to go to the right people at the right time and in the right place. In acting, we have taken the opportunity to bring all the funding sources together to create a better service for the most vulnerable and needy in society.

The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Social Development.

Point of Order: Minister of Health,
Social Services and Public Safety

TOP

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to clarify a point raised by Ms Patricia Lewsley during Question Time [AQO 1694/01] on Monday 1 July. Ms Lewsley named me in the course of a supplementary question to the Minister for Employment and Learning, Ms Hanna. Is it possible for me to do that at this point?

Please make the point, Minister.

Ms Lewsley was asking a supplementary question. Minister Hanna had explained that she would be meeting Martin McGuinness and me. Ms Lewsley told Members that, some weeks ago, she had asked me whether I would take that matter forward. She went on to say that the Minister for Employment and Learning is now taking it on. For the information of Ms Lewsley and other Members, the meeting was arranged through our respective private offices. There may have been a mistaken impression that the Minister of Education and I had not taken the matter forward, but I assure Ms Lewsley that that is wholly incorrect.

The Minister's point is on the record.

Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill: 
Second Stage

TOP

The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún):

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Molaim go dtugtar a Dhara Céim don Bhille um Chosaint Páistí agus Aosach Leochaileach.

Tá cuspóir an Bhille soiléir. Is é is aidhm dúinn páistí agus aosaigh leochaileacha a chosaint, agus déanfaimid sin trí na coimircí a neartú a ceapadh le daoine mí-oiriúnacha a chosc ó bheith ag obair leis na grúpaí leochaileacha seo. Tá na coimircí seo, faoin tSeirbhís Chomhairliúcháin Réamhfhostaíochta, nó SCR mar a ghairtear di fosta, ag feidhmiú le fiche bliain. Bhí SCR ina cheannródaí ar mhórán dóigheanna, ach is léir go bhfuil bearta i bhfad níos láidre de dhíth orainn a bhfuil cumhacht an dlí leo. Caithfimid a chinntiú go bhfuil daoine atá ag iarraidh oibriú le grúpaí leochaileacha faoi réir seiceálacha lena chinntiú nach baol iad dóibh sin atá faoina gcúram. Caithfimid ceanglais a chur ar eagraíochtaí seiceálacha a dhéanamh agus an Roinn a chur ar an eolas fúthu sin a d'fhéadfadh a bheith ina mbaol. Caithfimid a chinntiú fosta go bhfuil pionóis éifeachtacha ann dóibh sin ar baol iad.

I beg to move

The Bill's purpose is clear. It is our intention to protect children and vulnerable adults by strengthening the safeguards that prevent unsuitable people working with those vulnerable groups. The existing safeguards, in the form of the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS), have been in operation for 20 years, and although PECS was ahead of its time in many ways, it is clear that we need more robust measures backed with the force of law.

We must ensure that those who seek to work with vulnerable groups are subject to checks to confirm that they do not pose a risk to those entrusted to their care. We must place requirements on organisations to carry out checks and to alert the Department to those people who may pose a risk. We must also ensure that there are effective penalties for their employment.

The protection of children and vulnerable adults is a duty of the highest importance. Issues relating to the protection of children are highly emotive. Like other Members, I am determined to do all that is possible to improve current arrangements. The Bill will make a significant contribution to that. However, it is not intended to provide solutions for all the problems faced by vulnerable groups, and the Department is considering other measures that will address some of the difficult issues associated with the protection of children.

The Bill is complex, and some of the issues are difficult. Although the subject matter is emotive, I urge Members to take a considered approach to the issues. We must ensure that our legislation not only addresses the real concerns of parents, relatives, carers and others involved with those vulnerable groups, but provides effective and practical safeguards. In that regard, the Bill strikes the right balance.

To explain the need for the changes that will be brought about by the Bill, I will say a few words about PECS. The service is operated by my Department, and it enables prospective employers to check the suitability of those applying to work with children or with adults with a learning disability. On the basis of information provided about those seeking to work with children or with adults with a learning disability, several checks are carried out, including checks against criminal records and the PECS register.

The PECS register is maintained by my Department. It is compiled from the names of people referred by voluntary and statutory organisations as posing a risk to children or to adults with a learning disability. To be referred, an individual must have been dismissed, transferred to other work or have resigned, in circumstances in which it is considered that he or she posed a risk. If an organisation requests that a check be carried out on a prospective employee, and the person's name is on the PECS register, the organisation is advised to contact the body that made the referral. The decision to employ a listed individual is entirely a matter for organisations; there is currently no prohibition on employing a listed individual.

There are four basic weaknesses in the present arrangements. First, there are no duties placed on organisations to carry out checks; secondly, there are no requirements placed on organisations to make referrals; thirdly, it is not an offence to work with children or vulnerable adults while on the PECS register. Finally, people whose names are on the PECS register have no clear right of appeal against the Department's decision to place them on the register. The Bill addresses all of those issues.

As the Bill contains 50 clauses, I shall simply outline the main provisions. Childcare organisations will be required to carry out checks on prospective employees seeking childcare positions. Those checks will be carried out against a new statutory list of those who are deemed unsuitable to work with children. Childcare organisations will also be required to make referrals to the list, which will be maintained by my Department. For a referral to be made, the individual concerned must have harmed, or placed a child at risk of harm, and have been dismissed, or have resigned or retired in circumstances in which he or she would have been dismissed. Other grounds for referral will include cases in which the individual has been transferred to a non-childcare position, or has been suspended pending a decision on dismissal or transfer.

I said that organisations are not prohibited from employing individuals who are on the PECS register. The Bill provides that it will be a criminal offence for an individual to apply for work in a childcare or other regulated position while on the new statutory list. It will also be an offence for a listed person to offer to work in such a position. Employers who knowingly offer work in a regulated position to a listed individual, or who fail to remove such a person from a regulated position, will also commit an offence. In broad terms, a regulated position will be one that involves work with children or the management of children's services.

In addition, the Bill introduces disqualification orders, which will also prohibit an individual from working in a regulated position. Courts will be empowered to make disqualification orders in cases where an individual has been detained or convicted on indictment of certain offences and has received a specified sentence or term of detention.

The Bill also makes provision for the Department of Education to make Regulations that will prohibit an individual from working as a teacher, or in certain other education-related employment, if he or she is on the list maintained by my Department. The Department of Education will also be able to make Regulations prohibiting an individual from working in teaching or in other education-related employment in which the individual is considered to pose a risk to children. A person subject to such a prohibition under Regulations made by the Department of Education will also be prevented from working in a regulated position.

Although the primary purpose of the Bill is to afford greater protection to vulnerable groups, extensive provision is made to safeguard the rights of listed individuals. Before a person is placed on the new statutory list, he or she may make representations to the Department, and will have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

The Bill has been the subject of extensive consultation. Two measures have been included in response to comments received.

First, provision is made for a member of staff or other person associated with an organisation to report any failure of that organisation to carry out a check or make a referral where it ought to have done so.

Secondly, provision is made for an accreditation scheme to allow organisations that do not fall within the definition of a "childcare organisation" to apply for voluntary accreditation. To achieve that, an organisation will be required to carry out checks, make referrals where appropriate, and have child protection policies in place. The Department intends that that accreditation, alongside better public information on child protection, will provide greater assurance for parents and other carers.

The Bill is also intended to pave the way for greater collaboration with England, Wales, Scotland and the South. Attempts to place restrictions on individuals who pose a risk to vulnerable groups will be undermined if those individuals can evade detection by moving to another jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Bill is designed to ensure that, for circumstances in which prohibition or disqualification from working with children has been imposed elsewhere, the Department will have the power to apply the prohibition or disqualification here. It is also intended that my Department will facilitate checks against the new statutory lists by organisations in England, Wales, Scotland and the South. In advance of the legislation, the Department will provide checks against the existing Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS) register for organisations in the South and elsewhere, where that is necessary to protect children.

Everything that I have said so far essentially relates to work with children. With reference to vulnerable adults, many of the same principles will apply. For example, the Department will maintain a list of individuals who are considered to be unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults, compiled from referrals from employers, employment agencies and certain other bodies. Where a provider of services to vulnerable adults proposes to offer an individual employment in a care position, the provider will be required to carry out checks against the list held by the Department. Providers will also be required -

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it proper for Members to conduct conversations while the Minister is speaking?

Thank you for drawing that to my attention, Mr Murphy. I was about to speak to Mr Roger Hutchinson. Minister, please continue.

Providers will also be required to make referrals where an individual poses a risk to vulnerable adults and has been dismissed, or retired or resigned in circumstances where he or she would have been dismissed.

Additional grounds for referrals will include cases in which the individual has been transferred to another post, or has been suspended pending a decision on dismissal or transfer. It will be an offence for a person to work in a care position while listed. It will also be an offence to offer work in a care position to a person on the list, or to fail to remove a listed person from such a post. Provision is made for an individual to have a right of appeal against listing to an independent tribunal.

Although the provisions relating to work with children and vulnerable adults are similar in many ways, there are particular issues to be addressed in relation to vulnerable adults. For example, what positions should be subject to checks and referrals? Which adults are to be considered vulnerable, and thus afforded the protection of the new legislation?

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>