Mrs.
Miller: The Minister has not replied to my point about
soft information, a matter that was debated vigorously on Second
Reading, in Committee and on Report. It will be possible for the ISA to
use soft data to bar people—indeed, it will be possible to use
cautions to do the same. What progress has the Minister made to ensure
that the soft data is accurate and kept up to
date?
Mr.
Wright: I will come back to the hon. Lady on that. I am
sure that some sort of inspiration will come to me shortly.
My fourth
point concerns foreign workers and foreign offences. The hon. Lady said
that we are in the process of developing protocols with 21 countries,
and asked me how advanced we are with making them operational. While
preparing for the debate, I looked at previous debates regarding that
issue. I hold my hands up—it is a genuinely difficult and
incredibly complex issue. Many people who are working with children and
vulnerable people come from countries without a formal system of
checking criminal records. That makes our life incredibly difficult in
trying to provide safeguards and reassurance. In that context, and with
that complexity, it is vital that employers take up references and
check their employees by following up as much information as they can.
In many countries, both inside and outside the EU, the information is
often best obtained by the individual. In many countries, the vetting
process works by the individual obtaining their own criminal
convictions and presenting them to the employer, as opposed to a
central Government agency providing criminal record
checks. Another
reason why it is beneficial for an individual to obtain information on
themselves is because many countries do not allow information obtained
for policing or court purposes to be used for employment vetting, while
allowing information obtained by the individual to be so used. Despite
that, there are limitations regarding that process, as all Committee
members will recognise. On that basis, we are working with other
countries to get them to share information from their criminal record
systems. We have an agreement in principle to do that with Australia,
and we are continuing discussions with Ireland and France to take that
further.
The hon. Lady
also mentioned an amendment tabled by her with regards to foreign
offences and overseas workers, which I read earlier this
morning.
Mrs.
Miller: It was a very good
amendment.
Mr.
Wright: I understand that it was a good amendment, and
that there was a good debate in Committee on the benefits of using
information on foreign offences. The 2006 Act, as it stands, allows
that to happen. The ISA must consider any information from any source
in deciding whether to bar someone. However, the amendment tabled by
the hon. Lady did not tackle the specific point that she mentioned in
Committee today—using foreign offences that are equivalent to
offences under UK law to bar people automatically, instead of the ISA
using that information in a discretionary
manner. The
Government’s work on how to use information on foreign offences
has developed further since the debates in Committee in July 2006. In
particular, we now have experience of using foreign offences to bar
people automatically on List 99, which has been a feature of the List
99 arrangements since February 2007. Those arrangements work and are
effective in safeguarding children, and have consequently included
equivalent foreign offences in the autobar regulations. I hope that
that reassures the hon.
Lady.
Mrs.
Miller: For clarity, my amendment, which was tabled on
Report, would have flagged to employers that an individual had resided
and worked outside the UK, so that they could ensure that they followed
the matter up thoroughly. At the moment, I do not believe that that
would necessarily come out unless the employee made that clear to their
employer, which they may choose not to if they had committed an offence
of the type that we are talking
about.
Mr.
Wright: I will take that away and look at it, but I think
the issue has been considered. The impression that I had while reading
Hansard on the specific point, which I understand is a complex
and important matter, is that it is already well covered, and that we
have safeguards in place. Subsequent real-time events have demonstrated
that the system is working and working well in providing the
safeguarding that we all want. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that
the information that we have seen in real life, as it were, means that
it is working
well. The
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole talked about the 11 million
work force, which touches on a major theme—that of
communication—of the hon. Member for Basingstoke, who mentioned
the relatively low level of responses from local authorities in
consultations. Communication on such an important point is very
important. We are running a communications campaign on people’s
responsibilities with the ISA and producing detailed guidance, in
particular for the voluntary sector, which may have been put off by
such perceptions as outlined in the debate today. That will be rolled
out from autumn through to spring. I accept that a great deal of work
is to be done, but we are taking seriously our responsibility for
communicating such matters.
The hon.
Member for Basingstoke mentioned that local authorities feel
ill-informed. I would dispute that and think it is the wrong approach.
Local authorities are represented on our consultative group, and the LA
representative comes to regular meetings, including one this month.
Many local authority managers are attending our current series of road
shows, for example this week in Cardiff, Llandudno and Liverpool. I am
confident
that local authorities feel well engaged and could put forward the
matter in a good, convincing and effective
way. Mrs.
Miller: I was referring to a memo that was issued by the
Minister’s own Department, which suggested that local
authorities might be feeling ill-informed. It was not something that I
said.
Mr.
Wright: I thank the hon. Lady for that
clarification. Let
me come on to an important point of the debate, which is mission,
regulatory or definition creep. When my hon. Friend the Member for
Gloucester was a Minister in the Department for Education and Skills,
he defined regulated activity in 2006. The Government said
“proportionate”. The line of questioning that we have had
today indicates a concern that we are creeping up, that additions to
office holders are a step too far. Although I come fresh to the issue,
I would disagree strongly with the hon. Ladies. We have contacted
governors’ associations and local authorities, which fully
support the changes. The principle of including office holders in
registered activity was firmly within the principles of the 2006 Bill
as it progressed through Committee. That was a key part of what we were
trying to do. On specific points about why we have amended the
legislation to include other office holders, it was decided that a
small number of roles should be automatically included within the scope
of the regulated activity due to the trust engendered in the minds of
vulnerable groups. A key part is school governors and any member
affiliated to the governing board. During consultation on the
implementation of the Act, it was increasingly felt that the roles of
associated members and clerks of governing boards were viewed as
similar enough to that of governors, particularly in the minds of
pupils, that they should undergo similar ISA registration as required
of school
governors. As
a relatively new Minister in the Department, I completely and utterly
agree with that principle—similarly for chief executives of
local authorities with social service or education functions. It was
decided that in the minds of some vulnerable groups, included with
elected members of local authorities who exercise education or social
service functions would be the chief executive of those authorities,
who frequently has access to the same information as elected members
and has a duty to check the ISA registration status of the elected
members. Again, I am fully and strongly supportive of the idea that
they should be included in the
order. The
hon. Lady looks somewhat bemused and perplexed—perhaps she had
something for breakfast that disagreed with her. I am happy to give way
if she
wishes.
The
Chairman: Don’t encourage the hon. Lady,
Minister.
Mr.
Wright: I stand corrected, Mr.
Martlew.
There is no
mission or definition creep. The principles, as put forward under the
2006 Act, are consistent with what we had originally suggested. After
consultation with relevant interest groups, we decided that the
proposal was within the principles of the legislation.
Finally—the
Committee will be pleased to hear—the hon. Lady asked what is
meant by “strongly encouraged” with regard to small
businesses. As she says, employers will still need to register an
interest if they wish to be
informed of a change in the registration status of an employer. There
are two important points to be made here. The first, which touches on
the line of questioning of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole, is that the key focus and the principal objective is to
safeguard the interests and safety of children and vulnerable people.
However, we also have to recognise that such measures must be
proportionate. That is one of the reasons why we altered the order with
regard to what happens in people’s homes. On that basis, we felt
that it was disproportionate to require, as a duty, all employers to
register an interest. However, we have made provision in the Policing
and Crime Bill to provide that the ISA will notify known employers when
they propose to bar an individual employed by them. That is probably a
proportionate response, given the different conflicts that we have and
the different balances that need to be
addressed. Mrs.
Miller: Will the Minister confirm that it would be an
offence to employ an individual who was barred, even if the employer
had not registered an interest in that person, and therefore had not
been informed that they had committed an offence that resulted in them
being
barred?
Mr.
Wright: The short answer is yes. That is the
case. Let
me move on to the line of questioning about soft information of IT
systems and intelligence. The hon. Lady knows far better than I that
individual chief police officers are responsible for the data held,
managed and used by their respective forces. All chief police officers
in England and Wales are required to have regard to the statutory code
of practice on the management of police information, which was
introduced in 2005. That requires forces to adopt practices for the
management of information that ensure such information is
used
effectively for police purposes and in compliance with the law. In
addition, the Association of Chief Police Officers has a community
security policy, which all forces are required to be compliant with by
March 2010. That policy covers a set of wide-ranging controls to ensure
that data are kept secure. Reporting on compliance with a community
security policy is managed through the Police Information Assurance
Board and is supported by the National Policing Improvement
Agency. I hope that I
have covered the detailed line of questioning pursued by hon. Members
in this important Committee. On that basis, I commend the order to the
House.
Question
put. The
Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes
6.
Division
No.
1] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the Draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups
Act 2006 (Regulated Activity, Miscellaneous and Transitional Provisions
and Commencement No. 5) Order
2009. 11.29
am Committee
rose.
| 
