---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

I can tell the hon. Lady that I am committed to ensuring that there is a dialogue, and that we involve stakeholders when we set up the list. The list to which I have referred is illustrative of where we are coming from with regard to these offences. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which provide for an appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal on the basis of a fact that was unavailable to the IBB when it made its barring decision, are unnecessary. The IBB already has the power to reconsider its decisions where new facts are available that were relevant to the decision to bar. I hope that that will give hon. Members food for thought, and that they will reconsider the amendments in the light of that. It would be surprising, for example, if the IBB barred a person on the basis of a conviction that was quashed following the decision to bar, and the board was not then able to reconsider the case. I am pleased to put it on record that the IBB will have this power, under paragraph 13(1)(d) of schedule 1. The procedure in such a case would be for the barred individual to apply to the IBB for his case to be reconsidered on the basis of the new factual evidence. This process would be simpler, quicker and cheaper than providing for an appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal. New clause 24 would require the IBB to refer barred people under 18 years old to therapeutic services. I have just explained my thinking on that issue, and I hope that that will satisfy hon. Members. Amendment No. 7 relates to paragraph 17(5) of schedule 2, which provides that the IBB must not take into account police information that the chief police officer ““thinks”” it would not be in the interests of the prevention or detection of crime to disclose to the person under consideration. The amendment seeks to replace ““thinks”” with ““has reason to believe””. This amendment is unnecessary in drafting terms. It is intended that the chief officer should ““think”” that it would not be in the interests of the prevention or detection of crime to disclose the information on the basis of a reasonable thought. So the chief officer must have a reason to justify his belief. This is lawyer talk, but these are the assurances that we have been given by our lawyers. On the introduction of the Bill in another place, subsections (1) and (3) of clause 26 contained the expression ““reasonably thinks””. By amendments made at an early stage in the Bill’s progress the word ““reasonably”” was removed for the same reason—the word was considered legally unnecessary. Amendment No. 11 applies to the obligation to refer to the IBB. This obligation arises when the employer dismisses or would have dismissed an employee. It is the employer’s own reason for making the dismissal that is important for purposes of the obligation to refer. There is no practical difference between an employer who has dismissed an employee because he ““thinks”” that the employee has harmed a child and an employer who has dismissed an employee because he has ““reason to suspect”” that the employee has harmed a child. As we said in Committee, there is no question of a certain standard of proof having to be met before referrals under this clause have to be made. It will be for the IBB, when assessing the evidence, to determine whether the employee engaged in relevant conduct, and that will be assessed on the balance of probabilities. It is important that the IBB has all the evidence available to it on which to make a decision. It can then decide whether to accept the evidence. That is part of the professional judgment that we will expect the board to make. Under amendment No. 12 the IBB would have to give permission for a review of a previous decision to bar an individual. Paragraph 16 of schedule 2 already ensures that, when barred people ask for a review of their case, the IBB can refuse their request if it is obvious that there is no prospect of success. Our intention is that the IBB only has to ““think”” that someone may have a reasonable case for a review in order to give permission for a review to go ahead. In other words, the board must believe that it is possible that the individual’s circumstances have changed. It does not have to be satisfied that the person should be removed from the list at the stage at which it grants permission for a review. I hope that that explanation will satisfy hon. Members. Amendment No. 13 raises the issue of the standard of proof in relation to the decision to include someone in the children’s list. Government amendment No. 113 makes it clear that this is a two-stage decision. The first stage is for the IBB to establish whether someone has engaged in ““relevant conduct””. The board must be satisfied of this on the balance of probabilities, as we discussed in Committee. Having taken legal advice, however, I am satisfied that it is neither necessary nor usual to put such a requirement on the face of the Bill. The second stage is for the IBB to judge whether it is appropriate to bar the individual, and, as this is an expert opinion, it is not susceptible to a standard of proof. It is a matter for the IBB’s judgment. Amendments Nos. 252 and 253 would ensure that all those who receive cautions for offences that would otherwise lead to automatic barring without the right to make representations would be given the right to make representations in relation to any exceptional circumstances that might warrant their removal from the list. I have already set out where we are coming from on this issue. In the case of cautions, an individual has admitted their guilt and we believe that they should be treated in the same way as someone who has been convicted of that offence. The automatic barring offences, without a right to make representations, will be restricted to a small number of the most serious sexual offences such as the rape of a child and the others that I mentioned earlier. In regard to these few offences, we do not believe that any exceptional circumstances could justify the individual being allowed to work with children. This is a clear and important safeguard under the new scheme, and we would not wish to water it down. Amendment No. 251 was contingent on a new clause that was tabled by the Opposition tabled but not selected. On its own, it would mean that the regulations prescribing the offences that lead to automatic barring would not be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Amendments Nos. 243 to 248 deal with people who are referred to the IBB on the ground that, although they have not engaged in relevant conduct, they may present a risk of harm to children or vulnerable adults. Amendments Nos. 243, 245, 247 and 248 would require the IBB to obtain an opinion from an appropriate professional that indicated that the person may present a risk of harm to children or vulnerable adults, before it could propose to include the person in either barred list. I reassure hon. Members that the practice of the IBB will ensure that expert views are obtained where appropriate. The IBB will itself be an expert body and will be able to assess a case once the evidence has been assembled. Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 seek to provide a definition of harm to cover where an employer has to refer information to the IBB because an individual may pose a risk of harm to a child or vulnerable adult. Although I sympathise with the intention behind the amendments, I still believe that the Bill deals with the matter in the right way. Amendment No. 204 seeks to incorporate the concept of dignity, and amendment No. 205 the concept of financial loss, in the term harm. Those are both important concepts, but they would be included in the normal meaning of the term harm, which encompasses financial deprivation and the impairment of self-esteem and self-respect. Were we to accept the amendments, there would be a risk that if a further type of harm needed to be covered in future, it would be necessary to amend the definition through primary legislation—a problem that would not arise were we to rely on the normal meaning of the word. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.