The
Chairman: Before I call Mrs. Miller, I make it clear that
the stand part debate, which I am happy to allow, will be on the
clause; it will not be a Second Reading on the entire Bill. I will need
the Committee’s co-operation in sticking to the content of the
clause itself.
Mrs.
Miller: Thank you, Mr. Conway. As I said earlier, I want
to raise one matter about the structure of the independent barring
board. It is a specific but important point because it will enable us
to have better debate on amendments to subsequent clauses.
Will the Minister detail
exactly what type of body the IBB will be? Will it be a
non-departmental public body, as suggested in some correspondence that
came out of the debates in the Lords, although, that was not absolutely
stated, but was merely an indication? Non-departmental public bodies
are distanced from Government and are independent on a daily level.
However, as the guidance issued to Ministers on non-departmental public
body
states: “Departments
will need to identify whether in the circumstances of a particular
non-departmental public body, Ministers will need to retain control
over and so be accountable to Parliament for certain aspects of the
NDPB’s
activities.” 11.45
am The Minister
will be accountable for the work of the IBB, but where will the line be
drawn on the Minister’s and Department’s role in its
operation? Where does he see the line being drawn on becoming involved
if there is political pressure to do so? He feels that the IBB
should be independent, but if it is established as a non-departmental
public body, there will be an opportunity for Ministers and politicians
to get involved in its running. Will he reassure us that that will not
happen? If the IBB is
constituted as a non-departmental public body and not as a tribunal, I
shall be interested to know why. Different issues are associated with
constituting it as a tribunal, which would give it a different flavour
and complexion. However, I should be interested to know why the
decision was made to go down one route and not the other. The care
standards tribunal will be the body of appeal to which people can go
after they have been assessed by the IBB. There needs to be a link
between the two bodies, and certainly between the thresholds that they
use to assess whether somebody has undertaken activity that requires
barring. I find it difficult to understand, so perhaps the Minister
will clarify the matter.
It is worth reiterating that on
19 January, the then Secretary of State for Education said that the new
legislation, which we are discussing today, will
“remove Ministers from the process
entirely”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2006; Vol.
441, c. 969.] By constituting
the IBB as an NDPB, that is not actually the case. Perhaps the Minister
can tease out the role of politicians, because if the former Secretary
of State felt that politicians should be entirely removed from the
process, I am not sure that her analysis of the situation was entirely
correct.
Mr.
Dhanda: I shall put on record a couple of remarks about
clause 1, then come to the hon. Lady’s points.
Clause 1 establishes a new
statutory body to be known as the independent barring board. Schedule 1
makes provision regarding the IBB, including its membership and
staffing arrangements. It also sets out its responsibilities for
reporting to Parliament and the Secretary of State. Those reporting
arrangements will ensure that the IBB is held accountable for its
work. Schedule 1
allows the IBB to delegate its core functions to its staff. The core
functions of the IBB are to determine whether to include someone on a
barred list or remove someone from a barred list and to consider
representations made under schedule 2. The ability to delegate those
functions to staff members will allow the IBB to manage its work load
effectively. The IBB
will also delegate its non-core functions, for example its purely
administrative functions, to people outside the IBB, such as the
Criminal Records Bureau. That will allow the IBB to build on the
data-processing expertise of the CRB. The IBB will be held accountable
for the work that it delegates to others.
The statement of 19 January
from my right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State for Education,
promised that we would establish a statutory body that would hold the
barred lists and take decisions about who should be barred. This
clause, in conjunction with schedule 1, delivers those
commitments. The
framework that the clause and schedule provide for the IBB will ensure
that its decisions are taken by experts totally independent of
Ministers. I reassure the hon. Member for Basingstoke that Ministers
will have no involvement in decisions about barring. The Bill
places the IBB under a duty to publish annual reports, which will mean
that it is held accountable for its decision making and performance. In
addition, the Secretary of State will be able to request that the IBB
report on specific aspects of its performance throughout the
year. We will ensure
that the IBB has a mix of experts in child and vulnerable adult
protection. The balance of expertise will need to reflect the work of
the IBB and will need to be able to adjust to changing circumstances.
We have therefore decided not to specify the membership in the Bill as
that follows from the fact that the right people will need to be
appointed through a
process Judy
Mallaber (Amber Valley) (Lab): Will the Department give
guidance on the make-up of that body? As I have mentioned to the
Minister privately, I would be most concerned if it did not include
people from the new Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre,
which has been set up to safeguard children and possess the expertise
on internet issues relating to children’s safety. Does the
Minister expect to give advice on the type of organisations that might
have representation on the board?
Mr.
Dhanda: My hon. Friend makes a fair point relating to IT
issues, and I am sure she wants to debate it later. We wish to discuss
the matter widely with stakeholders, many of whom have an active
interest in the area that she mentions, when we formulate the process
to create the IBB.
Clause 1 and schedule 1 are
essential because they allow the IBB to be set up. Its existence will
mean that decisions on barring are taken by experts independently of
Ministers. That will deliver more consistent barring decisions informed
by the expertise of the IBB’s members. The answer to the
question asked by the hon. Member for Basingstoke about whether it is a
non-departmental Government body is yes. It is not a tribunal, but it
needs to have the interface that she mentions, which we will discuss
later, in respect of the appeals process to the Care Standards
Tribunal. The tribunal can refer a decision back to the IBB for it to
give further consideration. I do not want to get too far into that
debate.
Mrs.
Miller: On that specific point, if there is this direct
link between the Care Standards Tribunal and the IBB, will they share
the same standard of proof on the information required to put in place
a
barring?
Mr.
Dhanda: An interesting debate was had in another place
about how the appeals process should work. The process was widened to
include not just on “a point of law” but on “a
point of fact”. It is a case of the tribunal’s making
those decisions when it considers all the facts, but we cannot fetter
the IBB by being too stringent, or by being stringent at all, in terms
of its criteria. It will be an expert body and will be best placed to
make those complex decisions, because every case is different. It is
difficult to categorise them or lump them
together.
Mrs.
Miller: I want to probe a little further on that point. If
the appeal body is a tribunal that is set up with the burden of proof
being the civil burden of proof , and if another body reports into it
that has a much vaguer burden of proof because it is not a tribunal and
does not have those standards of proof attached to it, does the
Minister not foresee a
difficulty?
Mr.
Dhanda: The Care Standards Tribunal will already have
criteria in place from the work that it has being doing over a period
of time. I am happy to write to the hon. Lady with more information
about that. The fettering of the IBB and how it will make decisions on
individual cases will come up again during the course of our debates.
It is important to have regulations but we must ensure that it is able
to get on with its job and to do so entirely independently. Having said
that, I recommend that the clause stand part of the
Bill. Question put
and agreed
to. Clause 1
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
1Independent
Barring
Board
Mrs.
Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 90, in
schedule 1, page 32, line 15, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 91, in
schedule 1, page 34, line 29, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
92, in
schedule 1, page 34, line 33, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to believe
are’. No. 93,
in
schedule 1, page 34, line 38, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to believe
are’. No. 11,
in
schedule 2, page 35, line 11, leave
out from ‘If’ to ‘that’ and insert
‘there is
evidence’. No.
12, in
schedule 2, page 35, line 18, leave
out from ‘If’ to ‘that’ and insert
‘there is
evidence’. No.
13, in
schedule 2, page 35, line 24, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
14, in
schedule 2, page 35, line 28, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
15, in
schedule 2, page 35, line 33, leave
out from ‘If’ to ‘that’ and insert
‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
18, in
schedule 2, page 36, line 30, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
19, in
schedule 2, page 36, line 34, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
42, in
schedule 2, page 36, line 36, after
‘if’, insert ‘there are
reasonable grounds to suspect
that’. No. 20,
in
schedule 2, page 37, line 6, leave
out from ‘if’ to ‘that’ and insert
‘there is
evidence’. No.
21, in
schedule 2, page 37, line 13, leave
out from ‘If’ to ‘that’ and insert
‘there is evidence’.
No. 22, in
schedule 2, page 37, line 19, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’.
No. 23, in
schedule 2, page 37, line 23, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
24, in
schedule 2, page 37, line 28, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
25, in
schedule 2, page 37, line 36, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
26, in
schedule 2, page 37, line 38, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
27, in
schedule 2, page 38, line 12, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
28, in
schedule 2, page 38, line 16, leave
out ‘it appears to IBB’ and insert ‘IBB has
evidence’. No.
46, in
schedule 2, page 38, line 18, after
‘if’, insert ‘there are
reasonable grounds to suspect
that’. No. 94,
in
schedule 2, page 39, line 40, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
believe’. No.
95, in
schedule 2, page 40, line 10, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
believe’. No.
96, in
schedule 2, page 40, line 45, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
97, in
schedule 2, page 41, line 2, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
98, in
schedule 2, page 41, line 5, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
believe’. No.
99, in
schedule 2, page 41, line 9, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
believe’. No.
100, in
schedule 2, page 41, line 34, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
101, in
schedule 2, page 41, line 46, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
62, in
clause 21, page 13, line 42, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
63, in
clause 21, page 14, line 2, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
64, in
clause 21, page 14, line 5, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
65, in
clause 21, page 14, line 6, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
66, in
clause 21, page 14, line 13, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
67, in
clause 21, page 14, line 17, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
68, in
clause 21, page 14, line 32, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
69, in
clause 23, page 15, line 39, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
70, in
clause 23, page 15, line 41, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
71, in
clause 24, page 16, line 7, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
102, in
schedule 4, page 50, line 40, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
believe’. No.
103, in
schedule 4, page 50, line 44, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
believe’. No.
72, in
clause 26, page 16, line 24, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
73, in
clause 26, page 16, line 33, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’.
No. 74, in
clause 26, page 16, line 39, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
75, in
clause 27, page 17, line 34, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
32, in
clause 27, page 17, line 39, after
‘is’, insert ‘that there are
reasonable grounds to
suspect’. No.
76, in
clause 28, page 18, line 30, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
34, in
clause 28, page 18, line 35, after
‘is’, insert ‘that there are
reasonable grounds to
suspect’. No.
77, in
clause 31, page 20, line 5, leave
out ‘think’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
36, in
clause 31, page 20, line 11, after
‘is’, insert ‘that there are
reasonable grounds to
suspect’. No.
78, in
clause 31, page 20, line 17, leave
out ‘think’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
79, in
clause 31, page 20, line 27, leave
out ‘think’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
80, in
clause 32, page 20, line 37, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert
‘believes’. No.
81, in
clause 33, page 21, line 6, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
38, in
clause 33, page 21, line 12, after
‘is’, insert ‘that there are
reasonable grounds to
suspect’. No.
82, in
clause 33, page 21, line 18, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
83, in
clause 33, page 21, line 28, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
84, in
clause 35, page 22, line 4, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
85, in
clause 35, page 22, line 17, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
86, in
clause 36, page 24, line 7, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
40, in
clause 36, page 24, line 14, after
‘is’, insert ‘that there are
reasonable grounds to
suspect’. No.
87, in
clause 36, page 24, line 20, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
88, in clause 36, page 24, line 28, leave out ‘thinks’
and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’. No.
89, in
clause 37, page 25, line 9, leave
out ‘thinks’ and insert ‘has reason to
suspect’.
| 
