| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Of course, children’s defence against this being exploited by an unscrupulous person lies in the employers having good recruitment and child protection policies in addition to the measures in the Bill—and the vigilance of other members of staff who know what to look for. That relies on them having received appropriate child protection training.
1 Nov 2006 : Column 380
10.30 pm
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness has just said. All the provisions and procedures in the Bill will amount to very little if employers do not observe good recruitment practices and do not have effective child protection policies.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 85.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 86 to 88. I shall speak to the other amendments in the group, all of which are minor and consequential.
Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 adjust references to National Health Service legislation in the Bill to ensure that they are consistent with those in the NHS consolidation Bill. Amendment No. 97 updates the name of the UK Passport Agency to its new name, the Identity and Passport Service. Amendment No. 253 will allow a police officer on secondment to the IBB to remain a member of the police pension scheme. Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 repeal parts of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 that became redundant following the repeal of disqualification orders through an amendment made in this House at Third Reading. There are amendments of similar gravity throughout the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 86 to 88.—(Lord Adonis.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 89 and 90.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91. I shall speak to the other amendments in the group, all of which relate to various aspects of information flows within the scheme. They make changes to the online checks provided for by Schedule 4. We want to ensure that the scheme is easy for employers to use so that it effectively supports them in their recruitment decisions. Making the information that they need available quickly and easily online is a key part of that.
Employers are required to ensure that all individuals engaged in regulated activity are “subject to monitoring”. That means that the individual has
1 Nov 2006 : Column 381
We propose that the online check should show whether an individual is subject to monitoring, but not whether they are barred. As the Bill sets out, those who are barred cannot be subject to monitoring, and employers in regulated activity can only use people who are subject to monitoring. Therefore, showing whether an individual is subject to monitoring effectively ensures that employers do not recruit barred individuals.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 move the provisions of how a check is made from Schedule 4 into two new clauses, one of which provides for the mechanics of the check and one for the information that is released. Amendment No. 104 also delivers the commitment made on Report in this House to place a duty on local councils to inform direct payment recipients about the vetting and barring scheme. That was a matter of great concern to your Lordships.
Amendments Nos. 103, 106 and 107 make similar changes to the notification system. They place more detail about the system in the Bill and change the information that is released. Employers who have registered an interest in an individual will be told that he or she has ceased to be subject to monitoring and so cannot be engaged in regulated activity.
Amendments Nos. 125, 132 to 134, 131, 135, 136 and 137 provide for supervisory authorities and professional regulatory bodies to receive more information, including confirmation that the individual is barred. They also consolidate the way in which supervisory authorities are defined. That information is required by those bodies to help them carry out their inspection and regulatory functions.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 100 create new information offences. The first will criminalise anyone making a false declaration to access individuals’ information illegitimately. The second criminalises employers who force individuals to provide the information about their criminal records history which they receive when they apply to be monitored. Amendment No. 181 adds data held by both the IBB and the Secretary of State in connection with his functions under this Bill to Section 56 of the Data Protection Act, the effect of which is to criminalise employers who force individuals to make subject access requests for data under the Data Protection Act as a condition of employment.
Amendment No. 101 expands the role of the independent monitor to include reviewing all decisions by the police to withhold police information from an individual under Clause 21 and to review a sample of the information that is provided to the vetting and barring scheme by the police. That was another issue of great concern during the passage of the Bill through this House. The independent monitor’s role, as set out in Clause 23, covers only police information in connection with CRB criminal records disclosures. The amendment adds police
1 Nov 2006 : Column 382
Amendments Nos. 141, 114 and 116 make it clear that a finding of fact, such as in court proceedings or an employment tribunal, is not necessary for the purpose of any referrals to the IBB. That is because there may be no such proceedings in all the cases where we wish there to be a referral to the IBB. In the Bill as drafted that was made clear in some, but not all, of the referral provisions. The amendments remove any doubt. These amendments provide for more streamlined flows of information within the scheme and so will improve its operation.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91.— (Lord Adonis.)
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, on the amendments relating to information flows, is the Minister satisfied that the IBB, when it receives information that raises serious child protection issues, irrespective of barring decisions, will share information appropriately with social services? It is quite possible that, as a result of referrals, the IBB may process key pieces of information giving a fuller picture about an individual than a local social services department is able to gather.
Secondly, in a situation where an individual who is barred from working with children has children of his own, will the IBB ensure that a referral is made to the appropriate social services department so that a child protection assessment can be carried out on those children? Will the local social services in the area where the barred person resides be informed of a person’s barred status?
The vetting and barring scheme, however well it operates, can only ever be part of the picture of protection for children and vulnerable adults. Can the Minister understand the worries of many of us that the Bill will be seen as a be-all and end-all? Once organisations are satisfied that they can comply with the measures in the Bill, they may consider that they have “done” child protection. What are the Government doing to ensure that they encourage all appropriate organisations to have sound protection and reporting policies, a child-friendly ethos and enough staff training? We welcome Amendment No. 101, which expands the remit of the independent monitor and ensures that police force practice in this area is compliant with human rights principles.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the independent barring board will have the freedom to share information as appropriate with other bodies including social services departments, as she mentioned. We would expect the IBB to have robust standard procedures for doing that. On the procedures that will be followed in respect of children of barred individuals, and how
1 Nov 2006 : Column 383
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 92 to 142.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. I will speak also to the others in the group.
These amendments relate to the operation of vetting and barring in the devolved Administrations. They will enable the Government to deliver the commitments that they have made to ensure that the vetting and barring scheme operates successfully across the United Kingdom. These commitments include that a person who appears on a barred list kept by the IBB or by Scottish Ministers will be barred from working with children or vulnerable adults across the entire UK, and that the relevant authorities across the UK will share information so that information that could lead to barring can be considered by the IBB or Scottish Ministers, as appropriate, regardless of where in the UK the information first came to light.
Amendment No. 143 enables provision to be made in future to take account of forthcoming Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation. Scotland is making provision for its own vetting and barring scheme. Northern Ireland will make its own provisions, which will work in parallel with those in England and Wales and allow the IBB to make barring decisions about individuals living and working in Northern Ireland. Both the Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation will be finalised after the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill has completed its passage. Secondary legislation made under this new clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure if it amends provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill or confers a power to make secondary legislation.
Amendment No. 153A responds to a recommendation by the Delegated Powers Committee. It will ensure that the order-making power in Amendment No. 143 is subject to affirmative resolution, whether it makes an amendment to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill or to any other Act of Parliament. We are grateful for the committee’s thorough scrutiny of the Bill, and are happy to accept its recommendation in this regard.
Amendments Nos. 179 and 188 provide that the IBB must not include a person on a barred list where Scottish Ministers have already made a decision whether to include the person on their list and the IBB has no new evidence. This will prevent a person from being considered for more than one jurisdiction’s list on the basis of the same information and therefore needing to go through different
1 Nov 2006 : Column 384
The amendments also give the Secretary of State an order-making power that he can use to ensure that a person is considered for listing by the most appropriate barring authority, rather than by the barring authority that happens first to become aware of information that could lead to listing. For example, we intend that if the IBB receives information about a person who is not subject to monitoring in England and Wales, but who is a member of the Scottish scheme, Scottish Ministers and not the IBB should consider new information on that person’s case.
Amendment No. 190 provides that the Secretary of State must tell Scottish Ministers where the IBB includes a person on a barred list. This will allow Scottish Ministers to ensure that the person cannot work with either children or vulnerable adults in Scotland.
Amendment No. 144 provides that certain powers to make secondary legislation, to the extent that they affect Wales, are to be exercised by the Welsh Ministers. These are powers that significantly cut across devolved matters, such as the requirements around checks for school governors. This clause also requires the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of Welsh Ministers before exercising secondary legislation-making powers that provide for requirements and powers that will affect the National Assembly for Wales in its functions as an inspectorate. Amendment No. 191 provides that the IBB may provide information to Welsh Ministers relevant to their functions—formulating policy and monitoring delivery of that policy.
These amendments will ensure that the vetting and barring scheme operates successfully across the UK and I commend them to your Lordships’ House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 and 144.—(Lord Adonis.)
10.45 pm
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, as I said earlier, the provisions in the Bill need to be complemented by other positive measures to promote good employment and safeguarding practice. We often find examples of good practice in the devolved parts of the United Kingdom.
When we discussed this before, I raised the matter of the kitemarking accreditation system in Northern Ireland and asked the Minister whether his department could consider introducing something similar here. Much has changed in the Bill since it left us, and I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance further to consider that suggestion. It may not need to go in the Bill but it would be helpful to know whether the Government intend seriously to consider such a move, once the new Act has bedded down, as a natural development of good practice. The big advantage of this scheme, which is in the process of
1 Nov 2006 : Column 385
On another cross-border matter, I am particularly glad about Amendments Nos. 179 and 188, as, in the past, there has been considerable concern about whether appropriate information has been passed from police forces in Scotland to those in England when abusers have moved residence. I hope that that situation will be ironed out when the Scottish system is in place and the IBB is in contact with it.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I have to confess that, as I am not the Minister personally responsible for the development of the IBB in the scheme, I had not been paying attention to the development of our thinking on kitemarking and to how we might evaluate the experience of Northern Ireland in this regard. However, I will draw the noble Baroness’s remarks to the attention of my honourable friend Parmjit Dhanda. I am sure that he has been considering this issue, and I shall write to her about it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 145 to 152.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
“( ) by order under section (Devolution: alignment)(1) if it contains provision amending this Act or confers power to make subordinate legislation,”
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 153 and do propose Amendment No. 153A as an amendment thereto.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 154 and 155.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 156. I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.
These amendments concern the criteria and arrangements for placing individuals on the barred lists. They respond to a variety of issues raised in previous debates and include provisions to enable the transfer of individuals from the existing barred lists.
Amendments Nos. 196 and 197 clarify that no one under the age of 18 will be automatically barred as a
1 Nov 2006 : Column 386
Pornography was much debated in both this House and another place. Amendments Nos. 173 to 177 and 181 to 186 align the references to pornography in relation to the vulnerable adults’ and the children’s barred lists, fulfilling commitments that I made on Report. Any behaviour involving pornography that harms a child or vulnerable adult is already covered under the harm provisions. These amendments catch any other conduct involving pornography that may indicate a risk to the vulnerable but not necessarily harm them.
The Bill already grants the Secretary of State the power to give guidance, and the amendment adjusts this provision to ensure that guidance can be given about what is inappropriate behaviour involving violent pornography. It is intended that this should be used so that acceptable behaviour involving adult pornography is excluded from consideration.
Amendments Nos. 172, 178, 180 and 187 make clear in the Bill that a two-stage test applies in discretionary barring cases. Where someone is being considered for barring because he has engaged in “relevant conduct”, such as behaviour that has harmed a vulnerable individual, the IBB must first be satisfied that the individual has engaged in that behaviour and then decide whether it is appropriate to bar the individual. Where someone is being considered because they may pose a risk of harm to vulnerable groups, the IBB must first be satisfied that the individual poses a risk of harm and then decide whether it is appropriate to bar the individual.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |