Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 128: Page 17, line 45, at end insert— "( ) The harm test may only be satisfied where statements attesting to the harm test described in subsection (5) are provided by two individuals associated with the regulated activity provider both of whom have experience in the provision of regulated activity." The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to the harm test, and to the circumstances in which a regulated activity provider thinks the harm test is satisfied, and then looks further at the definition of this. The intention behind this amendment—which, no doubt, is appallingly drafted and even were its sentiment accepted by my noble friend, would require extensive further work—is to avoid situations in which the barring board is confronted with a single statement from an individual's employer, against which there may be a statement from the individual saying, "This is rubbish, and is completely unfair". I have read with great interest the letter my noble friend has circulated to the Committee on discretionary barring on the basis of the risk of harm. It talks about circumstances in which there is clear psychological or medical evidence that an individual has an inclination to cause harm. In some senses that is a clear and defined set of circumstances, though I am not entirely sure how well that would all work. On Second Reading, I referred to circumstances that I had been aware of, when I was involved in local authority social services, where there was real professional concern about an individual's behaviour—towards children, in that case, but it could equally have been vulnerable adults in care. That professional concern was not amenable to proof in terms of finding a disciplinary matter, because it never got to that stage; it was the professional concern of someone who has worked in that field for a long time who feels that the way an individual relates to the people in their care is inappropriate. The no doubt dubious process then followed by my local authority at the time was to find ways to remove the individual from that task and try and avoid that happening in the future. My belief is that the Bill would provide for circumstances in which, as opposed to psychological or medical evidence that the person might have an inclination, there was professional concern about their behaviour. The Bill covers that. I am trying to avoid circumstances in which it is simply the say-so of one person that there is that professional concern. The example I cited was within a local authority. Amendment No. 143 deals with local authority providers, and Amendment No. 152 deals with other bodies. In the circumstances that I described in a local authority, an individual with professional experience would supervise the person and perhaps another individual higher up the management tree, also with substantial professional experience, would, as it were, validate the concerns expressed by the individual. He would also be aware of any other issues that might exist between the individual and his supervisor that might lead to strange things being said about the individual, and he would also have confidence in the professional judgment of the immediate supervisor. So, in a local authority context, it is likely that two individuals with professional knowledge would be able to certify that professional concerns existed. However, in a voluntary organisation—particularly small voluntary bodies—there may well not be two people with professional experience who are able so to certify. I can conceive of circumstances in which the barring board would be placed in a very difficult position where there were very strongly felt representations expressing professional concern but no means of seeing whether those concerns were supported or endorsed by anyone else with professional experience. That would leave the barring board with a difficult and invidious decision to make. It is possible that the Minister will say that the professional concerns that I have outlined are not intended to be part of the Bill. In that case, I think that there is an omission in the Bill because it should be possible somehow to pick up those concerns, and I suspect that in the past they have been picked up in variety of ways—some formal and some informal. But if it is intended that these professional concerns should be covered in the Bill, I think that we have to build in some safeguards, particularly in small organisations, to ensure that there is a system of validation. As I said, I have no affection for the drafting of the amendment—I suspect that it is inadequately drafted—but its purpose is to try to ensure that, in making such statements, the barring board is provided with a statement, and some confirmation of that statement by another professional. I beg to move.