| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 12:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Registers: notice of barring and cessation of monitoring]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 13:
"but does not include information falling within paragraph 17(4A) of Schedule 2."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 15 and 22. These minor amendments will ensure that important police information can flow to the IBB but will not be disclosed to registration authorities, such as the General Medical Council, or to supervisory authorities, such as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, or be used by the IBB to bar a person if the chief officer of the police force which provided the information thinks it would not be in the interests of the prevention or detection of crime to disclose it to the person under consideration. Various kinds of information may fit this category, but the most common is information related to an ongoing investigation which, if it were released to the individual, may jeopardise an ongoing police investigation.
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1348
Information of this kind is not currently sent to individuals, and it would be unjust to bar an individual on the basis of information that cannot be released to them, so Amendment No. 15 ensures that the IBB cannot bar an individual on the basis of such information. However, we do not wish to prevent entirely the IBB from seeing this information, as it may help it to identify risks and to liaise with the police as investigations continue. For example, if the IBB is aware that an investigation is under way it can work closely with the police and use the information as part of a barring decision as soon as the police are content for it to be released.
As Amendment No. 22 prevents the IBB using this information in a barring decision, the board is not under a duty to disclose the information to the individual. This will ensure that confidential police information is not released inappropriately. These are minor amendments to improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, they are minor but important amendments. The IBB will need to have a good working relationship with the police. From what the Minister has just said, my understanding is that the amendments appear to offer the police the necessary facilities to utilise sensitive intelligence, which is a very welcome step. I understand that the restriction on the IBB in this respect will not prevent it making what one hopes will be the right decision, because the necessary information will be made available to it. We support the amendments.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, the amendments may be minor but I find them a little worrying. I would like to question the Minister about them. While I understand that no one would want to prejudice a successful ongoing police operation to charge and convict someone who genuinely should be charged and convicted, I am a little puzzled, as it seems that information can be given to the IBB, but it cannot be used in a barring decision because, if it were, it would have to be disclosed to the person concerned, which would not be desirable. What about the situation where the only information that the IBB has on which to make the correct barring decision about someone is such information, and it has no other grounds on which to put that person on the barred list? I am afraid that this may put children at risk. Can the Minister explain to us that that will not happen? This comes before us at a very late stage in the passage of the Bill, so we do not have an opportunity to unpick it. If the Minister cannot set our minds at rest, another place will have an opportunity to question these amendments in a little more detail than we can today.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I have similar concerns. I thought that perhaps I did not quite understand how this would work. Maybe the Minister could elucidate further. I am concerned that an employer might end up with one of these people in their employment because they had not been on the barred list. I am not sure how that would relate to the
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1349
CRB checks. The whole matter gives great cause for concern that one of these individuals may end up working in a restricted area of employment.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, my understanding is that the number of cases will be very small indeed. They will be cases where the relevant chief officer of police, in the force concerned, is of the view, on the basis of the evidence that had been accumulated, that it would impede ongoing investigations if information were released to the person under consideration. It is not expected, in all but the most exceptional cases—even within those cases—that it would be for a long period at all. It would be for whatever period were necessary to complete the investigations.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps the Minister could explain the purpose of the subsection. If the police do not want the information to be used, and if the IBB cannot use information, why do the police pass it to the IBB? Why not just keep it to themselves?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, the reason for ensuring that the IBB is aware of information is so that it can act as expeditiously as possible once a decision is made. Such information may be available to the IBB—taking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—in conjunction with other information that it has. The process of communication between the IBB and the police would be enhanced if it were able to see information that was currently held from other sources in the context of information that the police did not wish to be disclosed.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that, however small the number, no child will be put at risk while an investigation in some other area takes place and an individual was, therefore, not properly barred? I am sure a mechanism could be found to ensure that. I think that this House needs reassurance on the record.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, we regard it as the responsibility of the police, where they ask for this information, to ensure it is not disclosed to the individual, so that children are not thereby put at any additional risk. The regime currently applies in the context of the CRB and its relationship with the police, so this is not a new situation. These amendments have been tabled to ensure that the new regime is compliant with the current one. However, I will write to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords to underline this point.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Given what he says, can he assure us that, when this mechanism has been in place in the past, no offences have been committed while the police had asked for stay on the process of putting somebody on a barred list?
Lord Adonis: My Lords, I do not have that information, so cannot give that assurance. I am sure
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1350
that if it were the case, we would have been made aware. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness and let her know. I am sure that, as she says, this issue will be explored further in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 14:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Provision of information to supervisory authorities]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 15:
"but does not include information falling within paragraph 17(4A) of Schedule 2."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 16:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Vulnerable adults]:
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 17:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |