Mrs.
Miller: Does the hon. Lady share my concern that, given
the many jobs in the care sector and education, many people will have
gaps in their careers, perhaps to look after children, so merely the
presence of a gap on someone’s CV is not sufficient in such
circumstances?
Annette
Brooke: Absolutely. A gap might exist for all sorts of
reasons. Someone could just say that he went to live abroad in the sun
until his savings ran out. We do not know whether the person was
working there or whether they were engaged in unfortunate activities
while they were there. I cannot see how all those offences will be
caught by the order. As welcome as it is, we must be aware that it will
not cover a lot of
problems. Apart
from the problem of dealing with the IBB and the ISA, the transitional
arrangements seem quite straightforward. The whole point is to have
independence and to get away from Ministers making decisions, so again
we must welcome the order. The explanatory notes refer to article 4
modifying the effect of section 142 of the Education Act 2002. It seems
that the Secretary of State will still have some power over independent
schools, which raised questions in my mind about why independent
schools should be treated differently in that respect and whether they
are being brought fully within the legislation in other respects. I
should like reassurance on that
point. I
agree with what the hon. Member for Basingstoke has said about making
information available, the impact of being on the barred list and the
implications for employers. I can offer some comfort on the issue of
the 15-year-old and the 14-year-old. I am pleased that the Government
amended the 2006 Act, although there were snide comments that under-18s
have the right to make representations. That amendment was important,
because it would be unrealistic to blight the whole of someone’s
life for something that might have been purely childish behaviour. It
is difficult to sort out that issue, because it is difficult to
distinguish between exploratory behaviour and what turns out to be a
long-term habit. It is important that individual cases are looked at,
which is welcome. Throughout our debate, we have raised worries about
the fact that people who accept cautions go on the automatically barred
list without representations.
We have explored such matters in great depth, but I want to reinforce
the point that it is vital that anyone who accepts a caution really
understands its
implications. 5.13
pm
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I thank both hon. Members for their
contributions. We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. We
all agree that safeguarding vulnerable groups is a high priority, that
it needs to be done fairly and proportionately and that it is right
that we consider the orders carefully. I am well aware that that the
two hon. Ladies have been involved in the matter for a long time and
that I am new to it, but, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke has said,
I have been immersing myself in
it. Before
I respond to the specific queries, I want to underline two key points.
First, the transitory order does not alter the areas of work from which
a newly barred person is barred. A barring decision by the ISA between
winter 2008 and autumn 2009 will have exactly the same effect in terms
of unsuitability as a Secretary of State bar now on the protection of
vulnerable adults list, the Protection of Children Act 1999 list or
list 99. Secondly, the foreign offences order will enable our
prescribed criteria regulations, of which an early draft is in the
information note, to include specified foreign offences that will lead
to an automatic bar. To respond to the question raised by both hon.
Ladies, there will be a separate opportunity to consider those
regulations in a few weeks’
time. Turning
to queries raised in the debate, the hon. Member for Basingstoke asked
about the delayed implementation date and how long it has taken to
introduce the orders. It was important for us to do robust testing and
ensure that the orders would operate correctly from the start. We
legislated in 2006 to give effect to the scheme, as the hon. Ladies
know. We have done a great deal of consultation on offences that would
lead to automatic barring and on detailed issues to underpin the
scheme. It will be the UK’s toughest and most expensive vetting
and barring system. We must build on the existing extensive safeguards
to create a system that works. The stakeholders to whom we have spoken
welcome the time that it has taken to ensure that all views are taken
into
account. Like
the hon. Member for Basingstoke, I, too, hope that I am in place to
deal with the remaining regulations, which I look forward to debating.
She mentioned amendments on foreign offences that came up in Committee.
It is true that there were amendments on the benefit of using
information on foreign offences. As it stands, the 2006 Act allows for
that, as the ISA must consider information from any source in deciding
whether to bar
someone. There
is one specific point about using foreign offences that are equivalent
to offences under UK law to bar people automatically, rather than the
ISA using that information in a discretionary manner. We have done a
great deal of work to develop that since the passage of the 2006 Act.
We also have experience now of using foreign offences to bar people
automatically using list 99, which has been a feature of the list 99
arrangements. We can report that those arrangements work to safeguard
children, so we should continue them in the new scheme.
Mrs.
Miller: I thank the Minister for clarifying that point. I
do not have the notes in front of me, but we talked about automatic
barring in Committee, and it seems a little odd that it is being
included only
now.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Not having been in the Committee that
considered the Bill and, I must admit, not having read the Hansard
reports of all the Committee meetings, I can say only that I will
go back and look at them and write a note to the hon. Lady. As the hon.
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned, there is no automatic
barring for under-18s, whether the offence is a foreign or a UK
offence, and it would not happen without
representations. On
the question of how many countries have adopted the framework, we are
exploring reciprocal information-sharing arrangements. We are doing so
with France and Australia, but we are looking to expand that. We
certainly see information-sharing as a key priority for the next EU
work
programme. The
hon. Member for Basingstoke asked whether we have used the foreign
offences provision. I confirm that we have used it in list 99, but I
will not comment in this Committee on individual cases. The
provision has been used, which shows in itself why the order
is
necessary. As
I have said, a full set of prescribed criteria regulations for the
foreign offences order will be introduced, provided that this order is
passed. We will quickly introduce the full set, we will consult on them
and the House will have a full opportunity to debate them. The foreign
offences order will allow us to say in effect that those convicted of
an offence abroad that would have been an offence in England if it had
been committed here meet the automatic barring
criteria. The
hon. Member for Basingstoke asked about employment law. An employer
will commit an offence in employing someone who is barred. It is not
the employer’s decision who is barred; that is for the ISA.
Consequently, the fact that a person is barred will not give rise to
employment law issues.
The hon.
Lady’s other question was how people barred by the ISA would
know what they were barred from. The ISA will write to the people being
barred and make clear the scope of work from which they are
being barred and how that is different after the new vetting
and barring system goes live. Before go live, the bar has the same
effect as the Secretary of State bar under current schemes.
After go live, the bar is from the full width of regulated activity
under the 2006
Act. The
hon. Members for Basingstoke and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole spoke
about the importance of communication. We have an extensive programme
of consultation and, in the run-up to implementation, we are stepping
up that consultation. Guidance will come out in the new year to address
the issues that stakeholders have told us are important—decision
making by the ISA, which positions are covered and which are not, and
how the scheme will be phased in. We shall make full use of our
consultative groups in preparing guidance, some of which is already out
for
consultation. The
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked about people working
abroad. Our guidance to schools makes it very clear that when someone
has spent time abroad, the school should obtain a certificate of good
conduct from the embassy. That is whether or not the person has worked
or just spent time abroad.
We must use all the sources of information that it is possible to draw
on. I appreciate the points that both hon. Ladies made about the
difficulty that there sometimes is in obtaining that information, but
we must use all the sources that we can get hold of. I take the point
that a clean CRB disclosure and ISA check is not evidence of a clean
background, because of that lack of foreign
information. This
is an important issue. It is very important that employers understand
the decisions that they are taking and the nature of the information
available. We shall make it clear in guidance accompanying the scheme
that certain information is not routinely accessed and that just
because someone has a clean disclosure, that is not a green light to
employment. If there are any suspicions, people should pursue that
further. Guidance will emphasise the importance of chasing up
references and understanding the background of prospective
employees. A
point was made about independent schools being treated differently. The
provision made in relation to independent schools allows the Secretary
of State to carry out functions under the Education Act 2002 with
regard to the registration and operation of independent schools. The
Secretary of State’s powers apply only in cases of
misconduct—fraud—not safeguarding matters. All
safeguarding vulnerable people matters will be dealt with by the ISA,
not by the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole will notice that I
nearly slipped up there and said “IBB”. I have to confess
that I have known it only as the ISA. I do not currently know the
answer to her question about why the IBB became the ISA, but I will
write to
her.
Annette
Brooke: I am looking for clarity such that
throughout the communication strategy the body has one name and one
name only. I do not know why we are still referring to the IBB. We
should be using the new name all the time now. If the Minister could
give an explanation, it would be helpful.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I undertake always in the future to refer to
the ISA. I undertake to ensure that when we send out guidance notes and
consultation documents, we refer to the
ISA. I
hope that you agree, Mr. Chope, that we have had a useful
debate. I know that we all agree that nothing is more important than
safeguarding children and vulnerable adults from those who pose a
serious risk of
harm.
Mrs.
Miller: Before the Minister finishes, I want to draw her
attention to my remarks on the current situation regarding individuals
from overseas committing sexual offences and that not necessarily
always being recognised in the UK. Only 62 cases have been recognised
in the past year of people moving from overseas to work in the UK when
they may have sexual offences in their
past.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I apologise for not referring specifically
to that point, but I think that I covered it in the fact that we will
have an opportunity to debate exactly those issues in relation to the
draft regulations, because if we pass this measure today, the foreign
offences will become part of those regulations. That will be an
opportunity for us to explore the matter
further. These
orders take a further step in establishing the ISA, which plays an
important part in the Government’s agenda to meet the Bichard
recommendations and ensure that the most robust safeguarding procedures
are in place. I commend the orders to the
Committee. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups
Act 2006 (Prescribed Criteria) (Foreign Offences) Order
2008. Draft
Safeguarding vulnerable groups act 2006 (transitory provisions) Order
2008Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups
Act 2006 (Transitory Provisions) Order 2008.—[Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.] Committee
rose at twenty five-minutes past Five
o’clock.
| 
