Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Bichard Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bichard]

50: Clause 64, page 51, leave out lines 22 to 24

[Lord Bichard]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 53 and 54 in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who has kindly allowed me to lead on this issue. Everyone in this House understands that one of the most difficult responsibilities for any Government is to manage risk, whether that risk is the security of our nation or the safety of the most vulnerable members of our society. It is one of the most difficult responsibilities because very few risks of any significance can be entirely eliminated, and decisions must therefore be made about what is an acceptable—sometimes an unavoidable—level of risk, and what action is proportionate in seeking to minimise that risk.

That is why I emphasised two things when I published my report on the deaths of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman at the hands of Ian Huntley in Soham: first, that we cannot create a risk-free society; secondly, that the steps we take to minimise risk should be proportionate. For those reasons, I very much sympathise with and support the Government in seeking to strike the right balance in this very difficult area. Some reduction in the level of bureaucracy associated with vetting and barring is necessary and achievable, and I welcome the Government’s attempts to do so. However, I cannot agree that these clauses strike the right balance, even with the amendments tabled by the Minister or by other noble Lords in this House. That is why I am moving this amendment.

To be clear, these clauses relate to those who train, supervise, teach or instruct children outside a specified place, such as a school or a children’s home, or to those who are unpaid volunteers in whatever setting. In such circumstances, a person will not in future need to be CRB checked if they are under the supervision of another person who is engaging in a regulated activity and is therefore subject to CRB checks. We can, and probably will, debate how close or intensive that supervision should be. My contention, inconvenient though it may be for those of us who want to reduce the level of bureaucracy, is that no amount or quality of supervision can be sufficient to prevent someone developing a bond of trust with a child that he or she can then exploit at a time when they are free of that supervision. That is how grooming takes place.

The internet provides enhanced opportunities for the bond of trust, once established, to be inappropriately exploited. Therefore, the focus of our concerns should be not on the quality, intensity or nature of the supervision but on whether the person involved in training, instruction, teaching or supervision presents a risk to the child. They should therefore continue to be subject to checks that can help establish whether they are a risk to children. This will hold out some hope that we can prevent them gaining privileged access to children.

We know that checks cannot be foolproof, but surely we owe it to our children to take reasonable and quite simple steps to prevent those whom we know are a risk from gaining privileged access to children, even if they are subject to supervision. They must do that because children assume that adults who are trusted to offer guidance or instruction to them can be trusted—not just in limited circumstances such as the youth centre or playing field but wherever they are encountered. That is why supervision can never be enough, and why sometimes we have to place the safety of our children before our desire to minimise regulation and bureaucracy. I hope that that is what we will do this evening. If we do not, I fear that we will very quickly find that dangerous adults will realise that there are some settings and some ways in which it will be easier in future for them to gain access to vulnerable children. The people we are talking about are manipulative and clever. They will take advantage of those opportunities.

Finally, I hope that the Minister will at least be able to confirm this evening that the Act will do nothing to prevent organisations, with their local knowledge, making checks where they think they are required. For example, a school with its local knowledge will be able to carry on checking volunteers if it believes that that is necessary and good practice. I beg to move.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I should advise the House that if Amendment 50 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 50A and 51 for reasons of pre-emption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not know whether it will be next Wednesday when we come back to this. I remind the House again that we are on Report not in Committee, and I think I have been interrupted and intervened upon more than one would expect. I will try to write to my noble friend before the next day on Report on this Bill. Whether it will be next week, I do not know.

[Lord Bichard]

My Lords, I very much welcome the tone of the Minister’s response. I respect his position entirely and we have known each other long enough for me to be able to say that. I particularly welcome his confirmation that schools, if I understand it right, and organisations that want to carry on with checks will be able to do so. I assume that that means that they will have access to the intelligence that those checks would normally disclose. That issue might well need to be looked at, but I very much welcome that assurance.

I welcome the sympathetic way in which the Minister has responded to the debate. However, let us be absolutely clear, this is not for me, or I think for other noble Lords who have spoken, a question of bureaucracy and whether we need less of it. We all agree that we need less of it. The report that I produced after Soham was not implemented in full. Checks, for example, are not routinely updated, which is why we have the bureaucracy that we have. I said specifically in the Soham report that I wanted a system that was proportionate, and I do not think that we have ever achieved that.

This is therefore not a question of whether we need to reduce bureaucracy or of supervision. The core of the argument and of my contention is that we should be concerned about risk and not allow people who are a risk to have privileged access to our children—and it is privileged access. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, we have to draw a distinction between access that someone has in a school or a club and a chance encounter. If people build up trust in a school, it is a much more powerful relationship than it would be through some serendipitous or irregular meeting and much more likely to lead to secondary access, and to secondary access being exploited. I do not think it fair to say that we should expect parents to be able to monitor those kinds of situations. Parents expect schools, clubs and centres to be places where they can leave their children with some confidence. That is why we need to make sure that in those places we do not have people who are a risk having access to our children.

I welcome the tone of the response, as I said, and the possibility of further discussions, but let us never underestimate the importance of this issue. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that it is unfortunate—it is no one’s fault—that we had this debate without a larger number of noble Lords present, because this is a really important issue. Had I not heard the Minister’s assurances at the end about further discussions and about schools and other organisations being able to carry on with the checks as they do now, I would have had to withdraw the amendment—I have no alternative but to do so—with a heavy heart and a great deal of apprehension. The reassurances that we have received enable me to withdraw the amendment with more optimism, and I look forward to those further discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 50 withdrawn.