---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their broad welcome, once again, for the Bill and the proposed arrangements of the IBB. This group of amendments gives us the opportunity to look in more detail at the composition of the IBB in the light of our experience so far with the new expert panel chaired by Sir Roger Singleton. I should also stress that we have acted throughout in close consultation with our vetting and barring scheme advisory group to discuss the composition of the IBB and the arrangements for its operation. The advisory group supports our approach. The first amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would affect the role of the IBB chairman as she described. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear that we would seek a very broad range of expertise in the membership of the IBB when it is fully comprised. I can assure the noble Baroness about the extent of the membership by drawing attention to the expert panel that we established under Sir Roger Singleton. It consists of 14 members and is chaired by Sir Roger, a former head of Barnardo’s. It includes individuals drawn from local government, the chief constable of a major police authority, child psychiatrists, a representative of the National Offender Management Service, the chief executive of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations and a senior representative from the Children’s Society. We have tried to ensure the expert panel has the wide range of representation sought for the IBB. We believe that the consistency of approach required is most likely to be achieved by a close-knit team of members setting appropriate standards, supported by staff who have areas of expertise and who will take their cue from the members within a system of delegation based on difficulty and sensitivity. Amendment No. 7 removes paragraph 4(2), which provides that the chairman may be appointed as chief executive. It may be helpful if I explain why we want it to be possible for the chairman to be appointed as chief executive. Given that the IBB will be an expert body, we envisage that most of its support systems will be provided by the Secretary of State in the form of the Criminal Records Bureau. The administrative support for the decision-making function, including the IT system, will not require direct management within the IBB, although it will require the IBB’s oversight. The IBB is likely to require no more than a small secretariat and administrative staff, including an accountant or finance manager, an IT manager, a legal adviser, a head of operations and a human resources manager. The chairman will be full time if he is to be involved in the most difficult cases, as we believe he will need to be. In setting the standards of the organisation, it will be essential that, particularly at the outset, the chairman plays a hands-on role in the development of the IBB. We envisage that the chairman will lead in strategic financial matters and in the interface with Ministers and the Criminal Records Bureau. Given this level of direct engagement by the chairman, we would like to keep open the possibility of the chairman being appointed as chief executive, which we believe may well be appropriate in the circumstances, for the reasons that I have given. Amendment No. 8, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, imposes a specific statutory requirement about the membership of the IBB and removes an existing provision enabling staff to be seconded to work for the IBB—I assume the noble Baroness seeks to get at the first part, the specific statutory requirement that over half of the membership of the IBB must be drawn from those with relevant experience in local government or the protection of vulnerable adults. There is considerable experience in local authorities, and I assure the noble Baroness that they are likely to be a prime recruiting ground for appointments both as IBB members and staff. Local authorities provide social services that are responsible for the protection of children and vulnerable adults at local level, although they commission some of those services externally. Local authorities also provide education—the single main service within which children need to be protected—although some workers in schools are employed by governing bodies rather than local authorities. We believe that local authorities will be an important source of recruitment to the IBB. However, we do not favour rigid quotas for membership of the IBB and certainly do not think it would be appropriate to include them in the Bill. The IBB needs the best people from wherever they come. I assure the noble Baroness that we intend to appoint members who are the best suited to fulfil the functions. Having just given details of the membership of the expert panel chaired by Sir Roger Singleton, I should point out that only two of its 14 members come directly from local authorities. I am not saying that that indicates the balance that we would expect on the IBB, but it is a reason for not thinking that rigid quotas would be appropriate. The consultation on IBB membership that we started at Second Reading has just ended; it identified, much as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, did, a wider range of disciplines, professional groups and perspectives with a claim to be represented on the IBB. For example, respondents have suggested that membership should include experts in employment law, civil and human rights, and vulnerable older people; informal carers; human resources professionals; those engaged in and with knowledge of supported housing; professional and regulatory bodies; victim support groups and many more. In direct answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, we envisage a membership of about 10. Simply reading out the list of those to whom it would be appropriate to have regard in appointing members shows that we will not be able to cover them all. We hope to cover a broad range of those sources of expertise in the membership of the IBB. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in consultation with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Secretary of State for Health, will reflect on the consultation that has just been completed and take decisions on the IBB in the light of it; but we seek to ensure a broadly based membership. It is also important that the IBB includes staff with recent experience of dealing with vetting and barring cases. It may well, therefore, be appropriate for staff in my department who operate the current barring scheme to be employed or seconded to the IBB. Formal restrictions on the sourcing of IBB staff would be undesirable if they constrained the flexibility to recruit those best suited to undertake the work. I have assumed that the amendment is about members of staff, but it may help if I explain how we envisage appointing IBB members. The members will not be secondees, as IBB membership is not an exclusive employment relationship but rather an office. Rather than members being seconded to the IBB—I refer to the members themselves, not their staff—we envisage them either being appointed full time or combining membership with their existing employment, as do members of the expert group, or having a part-time arrangement that enables them to undertake their duties as a member of the IBB. Our current thinking is that at least the great majority of the members would be full time because of the weight of work that would be required. However, the Bill gives full and necessary flexibility in that regard and, subject to the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Baronesses will think it appropriate. Amendment No. 12 removes the IBB’s power in paragraph 13(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to,"““do such other things as IBB thinks necessary or expedient””," in connection with the exercise of its functions. The ““other things”” in question are things other than entering into contracts, acquiring and disposing of property, or borrowing money, which the IBB is empowered to do by paragraph 13(1)(a) to (c). I see this as a purely probing amendment to understand better what sort of other powers the Government had in mind. I stress that the amendment seeks to remove powers of an incidental nature to be used by the IBB only in connection with the exercise of any of its functions. The power might be used in connection with aspects of the IBB’s internal organisation that are not covered explicitly elsewhere in Schedule 1, such as setting up banking arrangements and security systems, meeting a raft of requirements in relation to the appointment of staff, and the determination and enforcement of terms and conditions, and the payment of injury benefits. I stress that this is a standard provision in legislation setting up non-departmental public bodies, and we do not believe that it is in any way controversial. Amendment No. 13, from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, removes the provision in paragraph 13(2)(b) that the IBB may accept gifts or loans of property other than money on such terms as it thinks appropriate. This, too, is a standard provision for statutory corporations. If the IBB is to be independent, it will need to be able to take decisions on its location and accommodation and, therefore, decisions on land and property. It will, of course, work closely with the Government to get itself properly established. The IBB is not empowered to accept gifts or loans other than in connection with the exercise of its functions. Amendment No. 40, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would place the Secretary of State under a duty to make regulations to provide for the procedures that the IBB must follow in making decisions under Schedule 2, including the time in which anything must be done. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to make such regulations, but does not place him under a duty to do so. It has been drafted like this to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations governing some aspects of the IBB’s processes—such as the form of applications, or the times within which representations must be made—and to allow the IBB to determine some of its processes independently. The IBB’s purpose is to deliver independent, expert barring decisions. This can be best achieved by enabling the IBB to determine some of its own processes as the body responsible for taking, vetting and barring decisions, without having all its procedures laid down by the Secretary of State. This would be in common with other bodies of this kind, which have a certain degree of latitude in setting their own procedures and processes based on experience of their work. It would be unnecessarily prescriptive for the Secretary of State to make regulations about every aspect of the IBB’s processes, and would remove much of the operational flexibility which allows the IBB to work efficiently and effectively. This, of course, is on the basis that the IBB will be an expert body employing expert staff and, therefore, that it merits full public confidence. The noble Baroness also asked me about costs. The IBB’s set-up costs are estimated at about £17 million over the three years 2005-08. A full analysis is set out in the regulatory impact assessment, which I will happily send to the noble Baroness if she does not have a copy. The operational costs will be consolidated with the current arrangements for the CRB disclosures, which will be funded out of an application fee. The exact level of the fee needed in 2008, when the new scheme comes into operation, will be calculated nearer the time. I hope that deals with the various points raised by the noble Baronesses.