Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Prescribed Criteria) (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2008

I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations, which we very much welcome the opportunity to debate. They represent what is so often the case with secondary legislation: a battery of good intentions in need of perfecting. We on this side of the House expressed at length when this Bill was being debated that we feel strongly that protecting vulnerable children and adults is of paramount importance. Crucially, these vulnerable children and adults are in desperate need of support from all sorts of services, and it is essential that the Government provide that help with well trained and well intentioned professionals and volunteers. I hope the Minister will not mind if I make some general points while we are discussing these issues. He may not be in a position to answer my questions but I hope that he will. I understand that we are talking about transferring from one list to another, but I would like to raise some general points. If our aim is to protect these vulnerable people, part of the task is to ensure that the wrong people are not working in close proximity with them. The other important part is to ensure that the right people are not being put off; that is, we must be very careful not to contribute to the sense that the Government are suspicious of those with a genuine interest in caring for the vulnerable segment of society. Since the Bill was passed, we have heard anecdotal stories of how difficult it is to get volunteers and how many people are being put off by the hoops they have to jump through. Although this question is not directly involved with the issue, has there been a decline in the number of volunteers since the Act came into effect? As I say, those are general points but they provide an important framework in which this debate rests. We understand that the migration of those from the older list of those already barred or restricted to the list under the new scheme is an important step to ensuring that the new scheme is implemented efficiently. The need to determine what offences result in an automatic barring is a key step in the construction of the foundation of the new scheme. It is right that it should be clearly defined and presented to Parliament in that manner. While we appreciate the significance of outlining the criteria, we still feel it is necessary to have further clarity from the Minister on a few key points that are the cause of some concern on this side of the House. The first issue concerns not the list of offences in themselves but the other important part of the criteria for referral; namely, whether or not the person in question was convicted of the offence. The regulations still state that for specific offences a caution as well as a conviction necessitates a referral. These are often serious sexual offences. I fully appreciate that, in legal terms, accepting a caution can be construed as an admission of guilt, but making such a sharp demarcation risks ignoring the circumstances. People often accept cautions without realising their full implications. What conversation has the Minister had with the police with the aim of improving the public’s understanding of the significance of being cautioned? Does he feel that those accepting cautions are aware of the full implications? Does he think there might be circumstances where someone might accept a caution simply to avoid shame or scandal, and thus unwittingly bar themselves from working with vulnerable people? I understand that this might concern only a very small number of cases, but the point remains that without a proper appreciation of the individual circumstances of those who are cautioned, an outright bar might not be appropriate. What assurances can the Minister give that those referred to be barred because of a caution will only be those who might pose a threat? What mechanism might be in place for that? The second point that I want to bring to your Lordships’ attention is something that appears to be a new condition. The regulations specify that only offences committed in the past 10 years will result in referral to be barred. Does this include all manner of offences? I think of the more appalling offences such as murder or rape. Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the only convictions that become spent or ignored after 10 years are convictions for crimes that carry sentences of up to two and a half years. Under this regulation, it seems that any crime will be ignored for referral purposes, as long as it happened 10 years ago. Is that really the Government’s intention? Could the Minister explain why the regulations diverge from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act’s specific cap of ignoring only those crimes that carry short sentences? The regulations refer explicitly to when the crime was committed. Does that mean that it allows those who committed a crime more than 10 years ago, but may have only recently been convicted, the chance to work with vulnerable adults? The few successes of the Home Office’s Operation Advance have resulted in the conviction of serious sex offenders many years after the commission of the crime. Developments in DNA technology will make these sorts of belated convictions even more possible. Would those people still be allowed to work with vulnerable people under the language of the regulations? Of course, conviction of the listed crime might bar an individual, but how does this coincide with the specific mention of the time when the crime was committed and not when the person was convicted? I have been speaking about a few of the technical points in the regulations that I feel need clarification, but I now turn to an issue that is worrying in its omission from this regulation. It may well be because we are only talking about people being referred from one list to the other, but I am still going to make the points because they are important and they are worrying issues. There is no structure in the Act for how offences committed overseas are to be incorporated into the referral mechanism. Could the Minister explain how they will be incorporated? Surely they are not to be ignored. What resources do we have to depend on? We are not yet linked in to the most important European criminal database, the Schengen information system II. How can we be sure that dangerous offenders will be barred from working with vulnerable groups if we cannot identify those who come from outside this country? The EU Committee report on the Schengen information system II suggests that it is possible for dangerous criminals to enter the country undetected; and that is just those from Europe. Although we do not exactly have the greatest faith in the Government when it comes to large databases, what is being done to ensure that offenders from countries with which we have not even tried to share a database are not working with vulnerable children? What conversations has the Minister had with the Home Office to address this issue? Does the Minister have plans to include crimes committed abroad on his list of criteria for referral? Essentially, we welcome the fact that steps are being taken to ensure that vulnerable groups are protected. That is of the utmost importance. But we must be alert to all of the potential threats; from a lack of information about foreign crimes, from unclear language and from the fact that many people who do want to help might be scared away from even trying. Much needs to be done to ensure that vulnerable people are getting the care that they need, with the confidence that they are in the safest possible hands. I look forward to the Minister’s response.