---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 23:"Page 34, line 15, at end insert—" ““(1) This paragraph applies to the decision making process of IBB. (2) IBB must refer to a code of practice to be issued in regulations prior to including an individual on the barred list. (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), a code of practice is— (a) that which is issued by the Secretary of State by regulation, subject to the affirmative procedure, and (b) composed after consultation with senior representatives from— (i) the police service; (ii) the probation service; (iii) the child protection service; (iv) the crown prosecution service.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 34, 35 and 43. These amendments were put together in the spirit of the first group of amendments on membership of the IBB. They seek clarification from the Minister on the processes of decision-making in the IBB. The Minister’s note on ““information flow”” provided helpful reading in the light of this amendment. It is reassuring that the Bill commits through duties to a constant flow of information between interested parties. These amendments tie in to my earlier amendments on membership as they reflect the need to encourage consultation with the relevant professions, not just in exchanging information, but also in analysing that information. Amendments Nos. 23 and 34 would mirror that proposed membership in setting up a code of practice for the decision-making processes of the IBB. It is positive to give the IBB a duty to inform the Secretary of State when an individual is included on the list, but it would be so much more satisfying if the decision-making process were entirely transparent, with a clear code of practice or guidance to ensure consistency. Inevitably, each case will be different, but it is precisely because of that that the system of inclusion is consistent. Amendments Nos. 24, 35 and 43 are concerned with the automatic barring procedure. The Minister’s exhaustive note was again helpful reading. The list of offences—shortened from List 99—under which offenders are automatically included on the list was comprehensive. It made sense that, as the Minister stated in his note, appeals against ““autobars”” would apply on operation of the law in respect of cautions or convictions. However, I am still somewhat apprehensive that an individual included on the list will have to ask for permission to appeal that decision, as stated in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 14 in Schedule 2. Amendment No. 43 seeks to address that issue. Presently, the Bill states that a person may apply for a review only with the consent of the IBB. The application can be made only after the end of a minimum barred period. However, we have no indication of how long that minimum period will be or on what grounds the length of time will be decided. The Bill states that if the individual has made an application within the prescribed time, he will not be allowed to make another one. Those rules do not seem to add up. Why should an individual be penalised for making an application to clear his name? Amendments Nos. 24 and 35 feed into Amendment No. 43. They would give an individual who has been automatically included on the barred list the right to appeal the decision regardless of whether the IBB wished to receive the appeal. It would also place a duty on the IBB to monitor the rehabilitation progress of those included on its lists by reviewing the status of automatically listed individuals every five years. I assure Members of the Committee that the amendment is not intended to give individuals who have committed heinous crimes an easy ride. It is intended to preserve the integrity of the IBB and to ensure that it functions to the very highest standards. I beg to move.