---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister very much for his full reply to my several amendments. Of course, the formation of such a board is not an exact science and I accept entirely that it is important to have flexibility and breadth of thought for the future. I was pleased with the Minister’s response, both with regard to the chairman’s role, the board’s size, and the fact that thought has clearly been given in the expert panel to the breadth of experience, expertise and skills that should be attracted to such a crucial role. It is important to seek clarification on these issues. As I made clear, these are probing amendments. Members of the IBB will have to fulfil a hugely important and difficult role. It is good that it will be possible for members to be part-time and full-time because perhaps some of the best people who might be attracted to the panel may not be able to fulfil the role full time. I am very pleased by the Minister’s response and his acceptance that in the early days the chairman’s role needs to be hands-on and that he or she must take account of, not only some of the most difficult decision-making regarding vetting and barring, but strategic financial matters. There has to be direct engagement. I take on board the Minister’s comments regarding our suggestion that over half of members may be drawn from local authorities. That is a possible and probable prime recruiting ground, but I entirely agree that there should not be any rigid quotas. It is important that we have a rich mix of experience and expertise. I hope that that will be reflected in the consultation. The Minister’s point about the importance of recent—I stress, recent—experience in vetting and barring was very appropriate. I should like to think that the possibility of secondment remained open; perhaps Ministers will think more openly about it when making such decisions in the future. Certainly in other spheres—for example, the private sector—secondment has allowed opportunities for some of the best minds with the broadest experience to be used within the public sector for the benefit of all of us. I thank the Minister again for his clarification in regard to Amendment No. 12. While I accept that references such as entering into contracts and borrowing money and so on are standard, clarification is important—that is the point of Committee stage. Off the top of my head, £17 million over three years, from 2005-08, sounds a reasonable figure. I am pleased that a small secretariat with administrative staff is envisaged; and I would be grateful for a copy of the impact assessment report.