Mr.
Dhanda: I will come to that in greater detail, both in
discussing this clause and throughout our discussions on the Bill. I am
sure that the hon. Lady will be aware that, during the course of a
year, the IBB will be making up to 2 million applications, and about
40,000 discretionary decisions. With an IBB board of about 10 members,
we obviously have to rely on the IBB to set up those processes and to
make those difficult decisions. It is an expert body to do just
that.
Mrs.
Miller: The Minister brought up capacity in terms of
40,000 discretionary decisions. I have done a little research into some
of the numbers of discretionary decisions made by other regulatory
bodies and found that they fall well short of that figure. Is he happy
that the number of staff and the structure of the organisation can cope
with that level of discretionary decisions
required?
Mr.
Dhanda: These are things that we must continue to consider
and discuss with stakeholders, and then set out in regulation. At
present, we are looking at having about 10 people on the board and 100
staff, but we will have to examine these things closely. That is one of
the reasons why we are working closely with stakeholders.
I go back to the amendment that
I was discussing. There is considerable expertise in local authorities,
and we hope and expect that it will be represented in both the
membership and staff of the IBB. That comes back to a point made by the
hon. Member for Basingstoke about safeguarding and whose role that is.
We all have a role in safeguarding and part of our role is to ensure
that it is not just about the IBB, or the CRB. It must be about
Departments, providers, parents, employers and regulated activity
providers. Other
types of expertise will be relevant when considering the IBB: expertise
in employment law, policing and civil and human rights; and the
expertise of informal carers, human resources professionals, those
engaged in and with knowledge of supported housing, professional and
regulatory bodies, and victim support groups and people in many other
areas. We shall want the best people from all those disciplines to
compete for jobs to ensure that IBB members and staff are the best
people for them.
Placing a rigid quota in the
Bill, as the amendment proposes, would be likely to constrain the IBB
by removing the freedom it needs to appoint the best
people to do the job. I hope that I have given the hon. Lady the
information that she was seeking, and that she will agree not to press
the amendment to a Division. Amendment No. 6 adds four new
functions to the IBB’s core functions. As set out in the Bill,
the core functions are the IBB’s essential decision-making roles
in relation to barring. That reflects our vision of an expert body with
a tight focus on taking independent, expert decisions, serviced by the
existing structures in the CRB, as I have said
already. The addition
of extra functions would risk diluting the IBB’s focus. Another
important reason why the new functions would be inappropriate is that
the core functions are described in the Bill as functions that cannot
be delegated. That is a reasonable criterion for a core function, and
there is no reason why proposed new functions relating to IT systems
maintaining a list and an online updating system for employers should
not be delegated to those with the appropriate level of
expertise. Classing
those as core to the IBB’s operation would constrain its freedom
and remove its current tight focus on making barring
decisions.
Sarah
Teather: This is a point about clarification and might be
perfectly obvious. When the Under-Secretary talks about delegating a
decision, is he talking about delegating from the board to the staff,
or from the IBB to another body? I am not clear on what he means
exactly.
Mr.
Dhanda: I am speaking about delegating functions, such as
IT systems, from the IBB to another
body.
Mrs.
Miller: Does the Minister not see that the quality of the
IBB’s data is at the heart of its ability to make good
decisions? Ultimately, its focus should be on good decision making and
so the quality of the data, by definition, will be at the heart of its
function.
Mr.
Dhanda: I agree that the quality of the decisions is the
most important thing, which is why I wish to keep a tight focus on the
core functions of the IBB’s role, which is making those
decisions. To return
to decision making, which the hon. Lady mentioned in her earlier
contribution, I would like to flesh out something and to make the
position clear: the IBB would be responsible for the list of those who
are barred from working with children and vulnerable adults. Those are
the core reasons. I could go into each of the four areas, but I think
that I have made the point that we do not want to expand those core
areas, because we want the IBB to contain and keep its
focus. On monitoring
the accuracy of the list, I have explained already that the monitoring
function is for the CRB and not the IBB. The accuracy of the data on
those subject to monitoring will be a matter for data handling and
identity matching. Those are matters in which the CRB has expertise.
The IBB is being created to give independence and expertise in taking
barring decisions and should not be relied on to police the CRB, which
is already accountable directly to the Home Office.
The CRB has worked hard to
improve the quality and accuracy of its existing disclosure service. It
has commissioned annual research studies on how its performance is
perceived by its customers, and it works to a five-year strategy and
business plan. I assure hon. Members that the CRB will be developing
robust systems for ensuring the accuracy of information on individuals
subject to monitoring. I hope that hon. Members will agree, therefore,
that there is no formal role for the IBB in the monitoring of the
accuracy of that
information. Amendment
No. 10 deals specifically with a communications strategy. I am wholly
in agreement, as I was on Second Reading, on the need for a widespread
and ongoing communications campaign, so that all those affected by the
new vetting and barring scheme are aware of their rights and
responsibilities under the legislation, and to that extent I agree with
the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke).
Indeed, we have made a number of commitments in the other place and on
Second Reading. However, as well-intentioned as I believe the amendment
to be, for a range of reasons, I do not think that it would be suitable
for it to be added to the Bill. It is not necessary. As I have said, we
have made those commitments. It would add little to make that implicit
in the Bill, because we are already more than committed to take that
course of
action. 11.15
am It may help if
I clarify the areas in which we intend to assist the groups affected by
the scheme to understand and to recognise their responsibilities under
the Bill. It will be crucial to ensure that employees and employers are
aware of the requirements that they face when engaging in regulated
activity. Guidance will be issued providing further detail about what
type of activity will be covered by the provision, so that employees,
for example, can be aware of situations in which they need to be
subject to monitoring. Employers need to know when they have to check
on an individual’s status in the
scheme. Further
guidance will be necessary to help employers and employees to interpret
important terms that we shall be discussing later, such as
“frequently” and “on an occasional basis”,
which lie at the heart of the concept of regulated activity. Beyond
that, we shall instigate an ongoing communications strategy, so that
employers, local authorities and other bodies are clear about the
grounds on which they are under a duty to refer prescribed information
to the scheme. We shall move to a shared understanding with
stakeholders about the nature of the conduct and harm that should
trigger a referral, something that we shall be discussing under
schedule 2. Any guidance that we issue will be explicit that acts of
omission and well as commission can contribute to the harming of a
child or a vulnerable adult. Alongside that, it will be crucial that
stakeholders understand the way in which referrals should be handled
and the IBB’s approach to dealing with
them. The mechanics of
the IBB will need to be as transparent as possible and implicit in that
is that we communicate to all those affected by the scheme how the
overall barring process will work. Implementing an effective
communications campaign to cover all those
commitments will not be easy, but we have already begun to talk to the
wide range of stakeholders with an interest in the Bill and we will
continue to consult them about how we can make the information process
as effective as
possible. We shall
take advantage of a variety of communication tools, including widely
disseminated guidance, media such as local authority newsletters and
articles in the trade press, practitioner workshops and seminars as
well as consultative groups on the vetting and barring scheme. It will
be important also to build on the current line of communication
stakeholders that has been established by my Department, the Department
of Health, the Home Office and the Criminal Records Bureau. I hope that
I have made it clear to members of the Committee how strongly committed
we are to implementing an effective programme of communications. We do
not need to make it any more explicit under the
Bill.
Sarah
Teather: Does the Minister agree that one of the learning
points from the recent Audit Commission report was the lack of clarity
in the guidance that was distributed from the DFES to schools and, in
particular, the repeated bits of guidance that often did not make it
clear when information was new and what had been updated? What has the
Department learnt from that experience? How will it implement that when
putting forward the new guidance, so that it is much easier for schools
to understand what is new and what their responsibilities
are?
Mr.
Dhanda: We are very much in consultative mode on such
matters and shall be working closely with the shareholders. We are
already working closely with Sir Roger Singleton, for
example, who has taken over the work on List 99. We want to use his
experience when setting up the IBB. We are doing all that we can now.
We have had several consultations along the way, but I assure the hon.
Lady that we will be working closely with stakeholders, which is why we
will be linking in with schools as well as local authorities and their
local media to get across the guidance. I accept that some of the
terms, not least “subject to monitoring” and “not
subject to monitoring”, can be complicated and that it can take
time for people to get their head around them.
The implication of the
amendment seems to be that the burden of instigating an ongoing
communications campaign will fall mainly on the IBB. As I have said, in
reality, that will not be the case. It will be the role not purely of
the IBB, but of the Criminal Records Bureau, the Department of Health
and the Department for Education and Skills—all of us. With that
in mind, and considering the reassurances that I have given on our
determination to implement an effective communications campaign, I hope
that hon. Members will not press their
amendments.
Annette
Brooke: Can the Minister reassure us that there will be a
lead body or person for the communications strategy? He has just
mentioned a number of bodies, and I am concerned that the
responsibility could fall between them. It is therefore important that
we identify who will be the lead person with overall
responsibility.
Mr.
Dhanda: I am happy to help the hon. Lady. We are setting
up a working group of Ministers from my Department, the Department of
Health and the Home Office. That is part of the reason why all three
Departments are represented here today. We will ensure that the vetting
and barring scheme is implemented once the Bill receives Royal Assent
and there will be ministerial oversight of that
process. Amendment No.
7 would require the IBB’s annual report to contain details on
the quality of information provided to it by regulated activity
providers and by any person who holds records of convictions or
cautions for use by police forces. There is a provision in paragraph 9
of schedule 1 that the annual report must be on the exercise of the
IBB’s functions. Paragraph 10 of that schedule
adds: “The
Secretary of State may direct the IBB to submit a report to him on any
matter regarding the exercise of IBB’s
functions.” That provides
a reporting scheme that will enable everything relevant to be included
without Parliament having to specify chapter headings or anticipate new
issues that might arise from time to
time. I am not saying
that the IBB’s annual report should not contain information on
the quality of information that it receives from the police, from
regulated activity providers or from others under the duty to refer.
Indeed, it would be a good thing for the annual report to contain that
information. However, there are many topics in relation to the exercise
of its functions that the IBB could usefully cover in its annual
report. To describe one such topic would be to put it above the others
without good
reason.
Mrs.
Miller: Can the Minister say who will dictate what is in
the
report?
Mr.
Dhanda: We will not dictate what is in the annual report,
but the Secretary of State will have the ability to request reports on
a range of issues. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady.
There are already arrangements
in place for reporting on improvements in the quality of police
information. A number of Bichard recommendations address the management
and sharing of police information, and regular progress reports are
published under the Bichard
programme. Amendment
No. 8 would require that the annual
report “shall be laid
before Parliament for
debate.” I accept that
the report will be of interest to the House, but a provision in primary
legislation is not necessary. If hon. Members want to debate annual
reports, which they may well wish to do, that will be a matter for the
House to decide at the appropriate
time.
| 
