 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords] |
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Geoffrey Farrar, Committee
Clerk † attended
the Committee Standing Committee BTuesday 11 July 2006(Afternoon)[Mr. Eric Martlew in the Chair]Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]Schedule 2Barred
lists Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 121, in
schedule 2, page 35, line 13, leave
out sub-paragraph (3) and
insert— ‘(3) Referrals made
by the Secretary of State under this paragraph will be subject to
scrutiny by IBB prior to automatic inclusion of an individual on the
barred list.’.—[Mrs.
Miller.] 4
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing the following amendments:No. 120, in
schedule 2, page 35, line 14, at
end insert— ‘1A (1) This
paragraph applies to the decision-making process of
IBB. (2) IBB must refer to a
code of practice, to be issued by regulations, prior to including an
individual on the barred
list. (3) For the purpose of
sub-paragraph (2), a code of practice
is— (a)
that which is issued by the Secretary of
State by regulation, subject to the affirmative resolution
procedure, (b)
composed after consultation with senior representatives
from— (i) the police
service; (ii) the probation
service; (iii) the Child
Protection Service; and (iv)
the Crown Prosecution
Service.’. No.
133, in
schedule 2, page 35, line 14, at
end insert— ‘1A (4) IBB
cannot include a person under the age of 18 in the children’s
barred list without the right to
representations. (5) IBB must
make a referral for therapeutic services, as specified in regulations,
for a person under the age of 18 included on the children’s
barred list after representations have been
heard.’. No.
122, in
schedule 2, page 37, line 8, leave
out sub-paragraph (3) and
insert— ‘(3) Referrals made
by the Secretary of State under this paragraph will be subject to
scrutiny by IBB prior to automatic inclusion of an individual on the
barred
list.’. No.
123, in
schedule 2, page 37, line 9, at
end insert— ‘6A (1) This
paragraph applies to the decision-making process of the
IBB. (2) IBB must refer to a
code of practice, to be issued by regulations, prior to including an
individual on the barred list.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), a code of
practice is— (a)
that which is issued by the Secretary of
State by regulation, subject to the affirmative resolution
procedure, (b)
composed after consultation with senior representatives
from— (i) the police
service; (ii) the probation
service; (iii) the Child
Protection Service; and (iv)
the Crown Prosecution
Service.’. No.
134, in
schedule 2, page 37, line 9, at
end insert— ‘6A (1) IBB
cannot include a person under the age of 18 in the adults’
barred list without the right to
representations. (2) IBB must
make a referral for therapeutic services, as specified in regulations,
for a person under the age of 18 included on the adults’ barred
list after representations have been
heard.’.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr.
Parmjit Dhanda): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Martlew.
I understand that it is your first outing in such a Committee; we are
lucky to have you. [Interruption.] The whole Committee obviously
agrees. I
shall carry on where I left off. Automatic barring without the right to
make representations will result from the most serious sexual offences
against children and vulnerable adults, such as the rape or sexual
assault of a child under 13 in the case of the children’s barred
list, or inducement, threat or deception to procure sexual activity
from a person with a mental disorder in the case of the adult barred
list. Automatic barring with the right to representation will result
from a further list of serious sexual and violent offences, as well as
offences relating to the supply of drugs to children. It will be
evident from those examples that convictions or cautions for such
offences are in themselves evidence of a risk of harm and justify an
automatic bar, in the interests of safeguarding vulnerable
groups. More broadly,
amendment No. 120 suggests that the decision-making processes of the
independent barring board be set out in a code. Paragraph 13 of
schedule 2 allows regulations to specify the operational details of how
the IBB will carry out its functions. We envisage that the regulations
will specify how the IBB will gather evidence, and will deal with
representations by the individual, and the processes for verifying and
considering the evidence and representations.
The
regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. Under the Bill,
we have followed generally accepted principles for the delegation of
powers. According to those principles, secondary legislation is used
for subordinate provisions in cases where the overall legislative
framework is clearly in the Bill. Secondary legislation is also used
where flexibility is needed to ensure effective implementation and
where ability to respond to changing circumstances is
required—for example, in respect of the future development of
children or the vulnerable adults work force. It may also be used for
operational, administrative and technical details that are not normally
set out in primary
legislation. Sarah
Teather (Brent, East) (LD): Before the Minister leaves the
topic, may I pick up on the issue of the possibility of administrative
error, which I raised
with him this morning? He will recall that a few months ago there was
big scandal in the media about the Criminal Records Bureau mixing up
people’s identity and mistakenly identifying individuals as
having convictions. Does he concede that something similar could happen
under the Bill? As there is no appeal process, what processes are being
put in place to make sure that if someone’s identity is
mistaken, the problem can be
corrected?
Mr.
Dhanda: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. As I envisage
it, it will be the role of the IBB to receive direct representations
from people who feel that there has been a mistake. The IBB has the
power to remove a person included on the list as a result of
errors—so, yes, it will take that kind of information on board.
[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the
Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) makes a very good point about ID
cards, which will be of great assistance to the work done under the
Bill. They would reduce the amount of time that it would typically take
the CRB to receive a disclosure by three weeks.
Anyway, getting back to the
amendment, I believe that the negative procedure is the right approach
in this context. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
agrees, because the regulations will deal with matters of operational
detail within the framework created by the Bill and provide for changes
to respond to future circumstances as a scheme is phased in and becomes
established. Amendments
Nos. 133 and 134 would ensure that no one under 18 would be
automatically included in the children’s barred list and the
adults’ barred list, respectively. I am pleased to say that I
have some good news for the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather)
on this group of amendments. I agree with the Opposition on this
principle, and the Government’s policy is that no under-18s
would be included on either barred list automatically. Instead they
would be dealt with under a discretionary process and given the right
to make representations before the IBB takes its decision. The IBB
will, as with all discretionary cases, need to make a judgment on
whether the individual poses a risk to one of the groups and whether it
is appropriate to include them on either or both barred lists. We have
explained that clearly in another place and also on Second
Reading. We intend to
make the provision in regulations, which will specify prescribed
criteria for automatic barring. It would not be appropriate to do so in
the Bill, because we will specify other provisions relating to age in
regulations—for example, that minimum barred periods will be
shorter for under-25s. I also explained that to the hon. Lady on Second
Reading. It would be inconsistent to have one age provision in the Bill
and other similar provisions in regulations. This kind of detail is
commonly dealt with in regulations, but I am happy to put on record the
fact that we intend to make those
changes. Amendments
Nos. 133 and 134 would also require the IBB to refer anyone under 18
years old whom it chooses to bar to therapeutic services, which would
be specified in regulations. The proposal would require referral to
service providers such as the national health service, local
authorities, children’s social care services
or appropriate charitable organisations. Unfortunately, that is
inconsistent with the IBB’s primary role of maintaining the
barred lists, which is what the Bill is about. It would also be
unhelpful if an IBB referral to the therapeutic service provider was
made at the end of the process. The IBB decision is based on
information from the police, sector bodies, employers and courts, any
or all of which could advise the individual to seek medical or
psychiatric help at earlier stages or therapeutic services. To require
a referral of juveniles upon barring does not seem to be the most
effective way to help them and would add a process, when routes are
already established to gain access to that kind of support, such as the
child and adolescent mental health services, and local authorities are
required to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need. I
therefore ask hon. Members not to press the amendment to a
Division.
Mrs.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con): I welcome you to the
Chair, Mr. Martlew, and look forward to serving under your
chairmanship. I thank the Minister for his responses to the arguments
that were put forward by myself and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and
North Poole (Annette Brooke). It was useful to get clarification from
the Minister on these issues, although it was concerning to hear that
the IBB has no discretion about people who are referred to it from the
Secretary of State. Obviously, that is how these things have been
proposed. Perhaps it could be viewed as being inconsistent with the
arm’s-length approach, which the Secretary of State was at pains
to stress in
January. I am rather
disappointed that the Minister feels that it is inappropriate to define
the code of practice in the Bill, although I was glad to hear that it
will be subject to regulations. It is important that such bodies are
clear and transparent in how they operate, and we should do everything
that we can to ensure that that is the case. The Minister
suggested—I hope that I understood him correctly—that the
code of practice will be proposed by way of the negative procedure. If
that is the case, it is a concern. Everything to do with the Bill has
been of great concern to the House, and Members would want to have
every opportunity to debate the issues in great
detail—[Interruption.] It sounds as though someone
disagrees with me from a sedentary position. I must take issue, because
this is a matter of great concern to many constituents throughout the
country and many hon. Members want to know the details of how the
organisation will work. Many of the organisations and processes that
are currently in place are simply not working as they should and we
must look for the correct level of
scrutiny. I shall
touch briefly on amendments Nos. 133 and 134. It was good to hear that
the Government are taking heed of the amendments, and I hope that that
is a sign of things to come on other amendments. It is worth pointing
out that we have not always clarified Bills through other processes,
such as regulations, and we must ask ourselves what the point of
debating the Bill is if, first, the House does not debate it in detail
and, secondly, the details are not articulated in the body of the Bill.
On Second Reading, I asked when that became the regular way of doing
things and whether it is helpful to hon. Members when discussing
Bills or to those who administer Bills. We should always aid the debate
of legislation and it is not helpful to debate Bills, which will become
Acts, if the details are not laid down in them.
I am pleased to hear that the
Minister has some sympathy with the amendment, but I must press him to
reconsider his stance on the use of regulations instead of including
the details in the Bill, so that we can debate them in the
House.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 13 July 2006 |