Tim
Loughton: Whether reports should be produced to the
Minister responsible or to Parliament is old territory. In the case of
the children’s commissioner, the suggestion was strongly taken
on board by one of the Minister’s predecessors that the
commissioner’s report, which has to be presented to the
Secretary of State for Education and Skills, should also be presented
to the Select Committee on Education and Skills, so that he could be
invited to discuss the annual report in front of
that Committee. Does the Minister envisage a similar process taking
place in this case, whether involving the Select Committee on Home
Affairs or the Education and Skills
Committee?
Mr.
Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I
do not think that it is my place to rule his suggestion in or out, but
it is certainly interesting and could be considered. As I said, the
annual report will be of interest to the House. If problems arise from
the failure of the vetting and barring scheme, hon. Members will have
no difficulty in securing a ministerial statement and a debate, as we
have seen in recent times. Therefore, I have taken on board hon.
Members’ points, but hope that the Committee will accept that
the amendment is
unnecessary. Amendment
No. 9 would remove an incidental power of the IBB to borrow money, but
only in connection with the exercise of any of its functions. There is
no general power for the IBB to set itself up as a financial
speculator. In principle, it will need to work with annual break-even
budgets. If it were to conclude that the outright purchase of, say, a
batch of IT equipment or office furniture would give good value for
money, it might wish to borrow money for that. That is why the
provision has been
included. The hon.
Member for Basingstoke mentioned the IMPACT programme. It is an ongoing
piece of work. I would be happy to write to her with more information
on exactly how things are progressing, and I will do that. She
mentioned the CRB and some 3,000 CRB errors. I believe that that is off
the back of the recent report about duplication. However, it is worth
remembering in that context—I am sure that my Home Office
colleagues would want me to say this—that some 25,000 people
were protected last year through decisions made by the
CRB. The hon. Lady
asked a pertinent question about online access, which will be discussed
under schedule 4. It is our intention to set up online access for the
scheme so that people will be able to check whether somebody is subject
to monitoring. That is an important issue and very much part of our
proposals, and I look forward to debating it, whether today or
Thursday.
Tim
Loughton: The Minister skirted briefly around amendment
No. 9 and the power to borrow, but I am still mystified as to why this
body will need such a power. Is it purely for short-term borrowings, in
which case the board will be expected to have balanced its books by the
end of the year on a cash-flow basis? If it ends up with a deficit, how
will it be taken into account when judging the budget for the following
year? Will the following year’s budget be suitably adjusted
downwards to take account of the borrowings, as happens with health
trusts, for example? Exactly how will that work? A mention that the
board might like to buy some furniture does not really take account of
a large power; that is, to borrow. As the IBB is, in effect, a distant
part of Government, why does it need such
powers?
Mr.
Dhanda: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I
envisage that there will be an
expectation for the board to balance its books, as there is for most
organisations. I am afraid that I do not have at my fingertips how it
is to do that, but I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to
clarify the Department’s thinking on the
matter. With all of
that to be taken into consideration on this string of amendments, I
hope that hon. Members are satisfied that I have given enough
information for the amendment to be
withdrawn.
Mrs.
Miller: I thank the Minister for his response on this
string of important amendments, which needed further debate and
clarification. I thank the hon. Member for Brent, East for her support
for several of the amendments. I appreciate that support, particularly
in respect of communication. I am glad that she shares my concern that
adequate communication is vital if the Bill is to be effective as and
when it is put into
place.
11.30
am I was
interested by the Minister’s response about the monitoring side
of things. Obviously, the Government have considered that and decided
that there will be a separate body and that the activity will be
undertaken through the CRB. Several issues remain hanging, to which he
will perhaps return on Report. The CRB experienced great difficulty
with capacity, certainly immediately after it was set up. Giving the
entire role to the CRB would, in effect, double the size of its
operation. The CRB deals with 9 million people, and although there
might be some duplication, my understanding is that a further 9 million
to 10 million would be covered by the remit of the Bill. On Report, it
would be interesting to hear of any further discussions on how that
will be dealt with.
Mr.
Dhanda: It is probably fair to say that those people are
not likely to be an additional 7 million to 9 million people,
because many of those on whom the CRB will carry out checks will
already be working, for example, in the schools work
force.
Mrs.
Miller: I thank the Minister for that clarification but,
in a way, it misses the point. This is not a checking system but a
monitoring system, and the two are entirely separate. Having people
checked each year is a one-off process. They put their application in
to be checked by the CRB—as a school governor, for
example—and it is done, dusted and sent to those who requested
the check. This is an entirely separate process and involves setting up
a database of 9 million people, an undertaking that most
organisations would face with some trepidation, particularly given the
need for as high a level of accuracy as possible. I am somewhat
concerned at that response, because it does not show that the Minister
has grasped that a database of 9 million people would have to be
managed and monitored and that the information on it would have to be
acted on. It is an entirely separate and different process to that
currently undertaken by the CRB.
Mr.
Dhanda: Let me add a bit of clarity. The independent
barring board will be responsible only for lists of those barred from
working with children and
those barred from working with vulnerable adults. The CRB’s role
is to work as a monitor with other databases, including the police
national computer database. We are not saying that the IBB list will be
of the order of 7 million to 9 million people. I am sure that the hon.
Lady was not saying that either, but I thought I would mention it for
clarity.
Mrs.
Miller: So, the CRB is to undertake the role of
monitoring. I think that we shall have to return to the subject in
later stages of the Bill, because we will require some idea of how the
database will be run. Who will undertake the weeding of the
data?
Sarah
Teather: May I, rather obtusely, ask the hon. Lady to get
some clarity from the Minister? I am looking at the explanatory notes
and the extra money that the Treasury has agreed seems to be for the
DFES budget and not for an expansion of the CRB’s operation,
which is the point that she was making to the Minister. Obviously, we
will require extra capacity if extra checks are to be
done.
Mrs.
Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for that point. Before the
Minister responds, I want to draw his attention to something that
builds on it. It is a statement from one of his right hon. Friends, the
former Home Secretary, a few Home Secretaries ago—the right hon.
Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)—in response to a
debate in May
2004: “We
will...urgently
consider” Sir Michael
Bichard’s “recommendation
that a register be created to bring together all the relevant
information held on individuals in a way that is easily accessible. We
need to consider how that fits with and enhances the service already
provided by the Criminal Records Bureau.”—[Official
Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c.
1186-87.] That does not imply
that there will be merely a straight swap and that the register will be
the responsibility of the CRB, although it will sit alongside the CRB.
Certainly at that stage, it was not necessarily seen as an activity
undertaken purely by the CRB. The Minister may wish to respond to that
and to the comment of the hon. Member for Brent,
East.
Mr.
Dhanda: I am happy to respond to those
points.
The
Chairman: Order. Before the Minister does that, so that we
do not get carried away, I must say that the debate can continue if the
Committee wishes, but in future I shall call the Minister to intervene
only if he indicates that he wants to. It is not for the Opposition
spokesman to keep the debate running in this
way.
Mr.
Dhanda: On the point made by the hon. Member for Brent,
East, I gave on Second Reading the figures available for the vetting
and barring scheme. I do not have them at my fingertips but think they
were in the order of £14 million in the first year, with similar
figures during the next five years to put the scheme in
place. On the enlarged
role of the CRB, the monitoring of police information systems is a
development of the
current CRB processes. Feasibility studies have confirmed that the
operational basis for that work is in place. It is
feasible. Mrs.
Miller: I apologise, Mr. Conway. We may have taken the
discussion on monitoring as far as it can go at the moment, but I feel,
and other members probably agree, that more discussion is needed. It is
an important issue. Monitoring people is so important that the weeding
of data caused great concern in the events leading to the Bichard
report. A number of areas not dealt with in detail in the Bill may need
further exploration. I
move to the Minister’s response on my hon. Friends’
amendments. I take on board his comments on secondment, but yet again
he seems to be brushing aside responses from consultation. I am sure
that he will know best how to handle that. Perhaps, in the spirit of
this debate, he might consider the conversations that we have had today
on the matter and ensure that they are communicated to the IBB so that
staff employed in that organisation will be aware of the debate on the
issue and the opinions expressed during
consultation. The
Minister responded on information and quality. I hope that he does not
feel that the amendments would dilute the focus of the IBB and that the
quality of the IBB’s data will be at the heart of ensuring that
it performs its core function. Presumably, the IBB will be able to
address that in its own way. Quality is key. We must ensure with all
the changes going on and all the problems encountered that we are in no
way complacent and that all is being done that must be done to ensure
that quality
improves. I understand
the Minister’s sentiment that the current level of CRB error is
relatively small. However, in absolute terms, each of the 3,000 people
who were erroneously given records that they had done nothing to
deserve found that a very difficult situation to handle. In some cases,
it caused great
concern. I am pleased
to hear the Minister’s commitment that communication is an
important part of what will happen following the passage of the Bill. I
endorse his statement that it is not just the IBB that will need to
undertake communications and that it will be the role of many others,
but I should like to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for
Brent, East. We need to ensure that the communication is co-ordinated
and that we do not fall into a situation in which others feel that it
is not their job to communicate or that others are undertaking that
communication. Unfortunately,
there is not a good record of good, clear communication from the
Government on some of these matters. I am sure that the Minister would
accept that and understand why we have raised the
point. I thank the
Minister for his comments about parliamentary scrutiny and for his
positive remarks on the recommendation made by my hon. Friend, the hon.
Member for East Worthing and Shoreham on the matter of parliamentary
scrutiny, and perhaps on an assurance of having a Committee look at the
report. I understand that it is not for the Minister to dictate that
but am pleased that he would think it a positive
thing. In terms of the
ability to borrow money, the Minister needs to revisit the code of
practice on non-governmental public bodies to ensure that he is
entirely
in line with the requirements of the Treasury. The practice guidelines
state that the use of money needs to be clear, if it is to be put into
a Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham
said, that is a significant power. Understandably, the Treasury needs
to ensure that it knows when people will have the ability to raise
money and why they would need to. Once the Minister has had the chance
to consult the code of practice more fully, we may need to revisit
that. I thank the
Minister for his update on the IMPACT system. I hope that we can hold
him to some of the reports saying that the system, rather than being
ready next year, will be ready in 2010 and that we do not see any
further escalation in the costs associated with that system, which have
increased dramatically since the project was started.
I thank the Minister for his
response to that string of amendments. I have used this opportunity to
reiterate some concerns raised, not just among my colleagues, but in
the various consultations that have taken place. I hope that the
Minister has listened to my comments and considered the amendments in
the spirit in which they were meant—that of improving the
Bill—and that he will ensure that we work together, as we
should. In the hope that he will ponder further before Report, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
| 
