---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

My Lords, I hope I can meet the first points made by the noble Baroness by stating categorically that we will issue guidance to local authorities and professional bodies so that they are clear about the grounds for the duty to refer information. We will do so for all the reasons that she gave as to the importance of ensuring clarity and consistency of practice nationwide. The guidance will also include advice on when the ““harm test”” can be said to have been satisfied and, as I set out in the note on the definition of the ““harm test”” I circulated to noble Lords before Grand Committee, harm will include physical harm, damage to a child or vulnerable adult’s emotional or mental state, and harm to a vulnerable adult as a result of financial loss. Guidance will also be issued on the grounds on which the condition at Clause 31(4)(b)—that the local authority or professional body thinks that IBB may consider it appropriate for the person to be included in a barred list—may be met. This will ensure that local authorities and professional bodies are not under a duty to refer information on the grounds of trivial incidents of harm that would not be sufficient to bar a person. The guidance will also clarify the meaning of ““may engage in a regulated position””, which is used at Clause 31(4)(a), the clause to which the noble Baroness has just referred. It is not intended that this condition should effectively include anyone who has the capacity to engage in regulated or controlled activity at some point in the future, nor that a local authority or professional body should make a judgment about a person’s likelihood to engage in regulated or controlled activity several months or a year from the time at which it is considering referring information about the person to the IBB. It is intended that this condition should include cases where a person, for example, is seeking employment in regulated or controlled activity—or a person has a significant history of involvement in voluntary work with children and vulnerable adults—and the local authority thinks that he may do so in the future, even though he is not volunteering at the precise moment when the local authority is considering referring information about him to the IBB. I hope that this addresses the point raised by the noble Baroness and limits, as the guidance will do, the very general wording in that subsection. The Secretary of State will also prescribe the information that must be referred to the IBB once the conditions for the grounds for referral have been met. As I set out fully in the regulation powers note, which I circulated before Grand Committee, it is envisaged that the information will include certain factual information relating to the case, including an individual’s name and other personal details, details of the behaviour engaged in by the individual, copies of relevant documents such as interview notes and notes of evidence, and information about police involvement and disciplinary hearings. I hope that I have given the noble Baroness the assurances that she was seeking and that she will feel that she does not need to press the amendment.