---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

From a sedentary position, I am getting some support on that point. However, we are optimistic that we will secure some important amendments. As with the other Bills I have served on, there is great reliance on future regulations and the issuing of guidance. I welcome the information notes already published, but inevitably, there are outstanding concerns about many of the issues covered, further areas of promised guidance and questions as to why certain matters cannot be included in the Bill. I concur entirely with the way in which the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) expressed those concerns. There will be a great deal of detail to cover in Committee, so for now, I too would like to highlight concerns in a number of key areas. First, I want to consider the principle relating to the creation of the lists and the operation of the IBB. As we have heard, the Bill originally proposed two quite separate lists—one for people who pose a risk to adults and one for people who pose a risk to children. However, in the light of the important evidence supplied by the Ann Craft Trust that one in five of those who sexually abused older people had also sexually abused children, I was pleased that the Government proposed an amendment that the IBB should have an automatic duty to consider someone for both lists. I am not sure whether the amendment adds up to automatic cross-referencing. We will have to tease that out. As we know, there are four types of behaviour that may or may not, or must, require inclusion on the barred list. Those include cases where there has been a caution or a conviction, which may result in automatic inclusion, or inclusion subject to representation, and those where there is not a conviction or a caution, but the basis is behaviour and risk of harm. Specifying the precise types of behaviour that will result in automatic inclusion and inclusion subject to consideration of representations is reserved for secondary legislation. Concern has been expressed that automatic inclusion will not allow any representation to be made, and is exempt from the appeal process in clause 4. Liberty suggests that the absolute nature of the bar might raise issues under the European convention on human rights. I shall be interested in the Minister’s comments on that. There are two issues here, which have a compound effect that concerns me: the automatic bar without representation and the limited parliamentary scrutiny offered to us of which offences will be included on the respective lists. I understand that the proposed list of offences will not be amendable, even through the affirmative resolution procedure. At some time, we shall therefore have to vote for or against a whole list. As we are all so concerned about the issues, it is clear that we would have to vote for the whole list even if we were worried about one or two offences on it. That, together with the lack of a right of appeal on the automatic bar, gives me cause for concern. On the other types of behaviour that can lead to an entry on the barred list, the IBB will have greater discretion. That is clearly appropriate, but as we have heard before, it relies on soft information. There is a balance between information that should be passed on and that which perhaps should not. In the Ian Huntley case, data had not been stored. Obviously, we can look back on the tragedy of that information not being passed on, and something not being picked up that should have been. On the other hand, should we pass on, for example, information about a teacher which might clearly be established as malicious, or is it up to the IBB to do the sifting or weeding—or whichever term hon. Members want to use? It is important to establish the procedures. Who should be passing information on to the IBB? The police and social services, we assume. Will there be a duty on public offices to inform the IBB of revocation of appointeeship or attorneyship due to abuse? There are a lot of issues to consider. With reference to risk of harm, there are clearly issues about the precise criteria, and I am pleased that the Government are committed to publishing guidance in this area, but will the IBB publish any criteria that it establishes, thus ensuring transparency, openness and clarity, and also reference to any risk assessment model that it uses? We welcome the Government amendment that widened the right of appeal beyond a point of law to include the ability to appeal on the finding of fact. I am not clear whether an appeal to the tribunal may be made on the basis of facts not available to the IBB at the time of the original decision. I would be grateful for clarification. Like other Members, I am concerned about the lack of definitions of certain terms in the Bill. The four obvious ones are ““frequent””, ““occasional””, ““harm”” and ““incidental””. I want to refer to the Government’s information note 1(iv), as I find some of the sentences there quite the reverse of reassuring. One states:"““The approach that has been adopted in relation to these expressions is that they will take their normal meaning…Broadly speaking we believe that the terms should be interpreted in the following ways…we broadly consider anything more than once a month or any contract that lasts longer than a week to be ‘frequent’””." That is very imprecise and, I suggest, difficult to apply. I quite understand the need for flexibility, but this could lead to serious consequences. We have already heard of the example of the short-term play scheme, perhaps operating for five days. I might ask the Minister for Children and Families, while she is still here, about a crèche that operates for less than two hours a day, perhaps on four successive days. I would be concerned about what could happen over that period. I am sorry to have made that particular point, but as people know, I have a concern about crèches that operate for less than two hours a day. Moving on to the definition of ““harm””, the information note states:"““‘Harm’ should take its normal meaning for a range of reasons specified””." Paragraph 26 states:"““In both these cases we believe that ‘harm’ should take its normal, commonsense meaning so that a special definition is not required on the face of the Bill. We are clear that the normal meaning of the word covers our original intentions for the scheme.””" The Government might be quite satisfied about that, but I feel that Opposition Members are not. For example, will ““harm”” include withholding the personal expenses allowances in a care home? That is not clear. Will it include definitions based on retaining the dignity of older people, which the Government are concerned about in a general sense? I could make much more of that, but I have probably made the crucial points that I want to make. I do not think that that is good enough, and I am sure that many workers in this sphere will not think it good enough either. I have a concern about consistency for children and vulnerable adults, particularly in the realm of controlled activity and regulated activity. We have had some good examples already, such as the day centre. I concur that, for a local authority-run day centre, for example, there is a case for a full vetting and barring scheme. I have already mentioned some of my concerns about further education colleges. Those concerns remain. I asked a parliamentary question about checks by the Criminal Records Bureau on people in further education colleges. What would happen when a young person entered the working environment, not just for work experience? The answer I received did not reassure me at all. I hope that the Minister will tell me now exactly how the new system will affect those attending further education colleges, and how the existing system affects a range of young people who are involved in a number of activities, and might be based primarily in schools. A housing support worker recently came to my surgery. That person was doing excellent work, giving a great deal of support to a couple with particular difficulties related to mental health conditions, and meeting them probably once a month. I would expect the vetting and barring scheme to come into effect in such cases of fairly regular contact. That is no reflection on the person who came to see me, because I was very impressed by the level of support being given, but I feel that the Bill ignores one aspect of vulnerability. All the different categories and definitions could well cause much confusion to employers, organisations, employees, parents and others. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children gives the example of a receptionist in a dentist’s surgery, who could be employed even if on the barred list, but points out that employers are responsible for ensuring that extra safeguards exist. That was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Basingstoke. We need to know how such arrangements will be monitored. I do not think that the introduction of extra criminal offences is the answer. I shall not say much about the direct payments system, because it was dealt with extensively in the other place and has also been mentioned today. It is difficult for the Government to achieve the right balance. Carers who have already been burdened have been frightened away as new regulations have been introduced. They have not been prepared to continue, and become involved in the direct payments system. It is important for us to retain our great army of loyal helpers, but we need equality of protection. There should be more than an expectation that local authorities should inform potential direct payment recipients of the vetting and barring scheme; authorities should have a duty to give everyone the opportunity, without the burden necessarily being involved. I welcome the commitment given by the Government in the other place that those under 18 who commit an offence will never be barred automatically without the right to representation.