---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I latch on to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who said that there should be the maximum appropriate read-across between the two lists. That is the intention behind the Bill and the Government’s policy. We believe that the duties placed on the IBB will ensure the maximum appropriate read-across and, indeed, a duty on the board to consider inclusion on either or both lists in the light of the information available to them. Over and above that, we are entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in that decisions made by the IBB must be proportionate and justifiable. Given that there is not a complete overlap in the requisite issues of concern in relation to the two workforces, it is right to maintain two separate lists, but with maximum appropriate read-across between them. I am in a slightly difficult position because the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is inviting me to express a view in principle, without knowing the circumstances of the case, on whether someone found guilty of gross financial misconduct in relation to adults should be barred, when that is the opinion of those who have to make a judgment on the facts of the case. Let us be clear: such people who are found guilty would be barred entirely from taking any post of responsibility in relation to vulnerable adults. Simply by virtue of that fact, should they be barred from any position of working with children? I do not regard myself as competent to make that judgment. That is why we have separate lists in respect of the protection of vulnerable adults and the protection of children. I can give the noble Lord our figures, which may put the debate in some perspective, for the number of people currently on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list who are barred from working with vulnerable adults, and those on the POCA list who are barred from working in the children’s workforce—where, I stress, there are already arrangements for cross-referral, which require consideration to be given for entry on to the two lists when people are entered on one of them. Since the POVA list was introduced, there have been 221 entries on the POCA list, of which 200 have been cross-referred to the POVA list—a high rate of cross-referral. However, there have been 389 entries on the POVA list, of which 178 have been cross-referred to the POCA list—less than half. Simply in giving those figures and not seeking to enter into a debate about the precise circumstances in which the entry on one list should be regarded as sufficient justification for entry on the other list, the noble Lord will see that those currently charged with making such decisions are very conscientious and bring great expertise to bear, and there is nothing like a complete overlap between the lists. There is a high overlap between those who are entered on the Protection of Children Act list and those entered on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list, but the other way round a sizeable proportion of those barred from the adult workforce are not barred from the children’s workforce. I am informed that a significant reason for that concerns financial misconduct offences, which, it is not thought, should lead to—let us be clear what we are talking about—an absolute bar on working in the children’s workforce. However, given the nature of those offences and the significantly enhanced opportunities available for misconduct in that area, they are regarded as a reason for an absolute bar from entering the vulnerable adults workforce. I simply point out those figures to the noble Lord because I believe that then the onus would be on Parliament to say why the experts making these decisions, on a basis that they regard as proportionate and justifiable, are getting the matter so seriously wrong. That would be the implication of having a requirement to enter individuals on to both lists automatically, or indeed to have a single list. The only way you could deal with such a degree of discretion if you had a single list would be to have caveats within the list concerning those who are eligible to work with parts of the workforce. That would simply be the creation of two separate lists by another means. Amendment No. 17, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and Amendment No. 55, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, seek to ensure a high degree of alignment of the lists while maintaining their separation. We entirely support the objectives of the amendments but they are met by the Bill. When information is made available to the IBB that leads it to the conclusion that a person has engaged in relevant conduct to be barred in one list, it will consider the implications of that for entry on the other list. The IBB would therefore be under an implied obligation to consider a person for both lists in the light of the information made available to it. However, it is right that the IBB should have discretion in those cases. Frankly, there would not be much purpose in setting it up in the first place if there were a requirement for entry on the two lists simply by virtue of conduct that was found to constitute a compelling reason for entry on one of the lists. For those reasons, we believe that it is right to maintain two lists. I point to the statistics available on the overlap between the existing two lists, which lead us to believe that it is right to keep them separate and not to have automatic entry on one simply by virtue of being entered on the other.