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

Thank you. The advantage of speaking second is that one’s concerns have often already been extremely well expressed. That applies in this case, in that I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about conviction and caution. Members of the Committee will remember that when we went through the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, it became clear that I do not like barring without a right to representation at all in principle. Even if—to quote the background paper—the offence creates, "““a presumption that the offender poses a risk of harm to children or vulnerable adults””," it would be a human right for the person being so barred at least to be able to make a statement in his or her own defence. Opening any chinks in our defences for children and vulnerable groups is the last thing I would want to do, but it is a human right that somebody should at least be able to make a statement about the fact that they do not feel that they should be barred. However, I welcome the fact that we have the affirmative resolution procedure for these regulations, because that gives us a chance to look at the further consultations before they come back to this House so that we can take account of them in further discussion, as we are today. In fact, looking at the consultation, I was interested to see that respondents wanted more offences, rather than fewer, on the list of those which do not attract a right to representation. Far be it from me to encourage the Government to lengthen the list of people who do not have the right to representation, but I am curious as to why they decided not to follow the suggestions in the consultation and leave the list as it is. My main concern is cautions. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that people often do not understand the significance of what is happening to them when they are offered the opportunity of taking a caution rather than going to court. Those people give me most concern when I remember that they have no right of representation. However serious the offence for which they are being cautioned, it has not had the test of the normal level of proof in the criminal courts in this country. They have not gone through those tests, and people who have accepted a caution should therefore have the right of representation and leave it to the independent expert board, in which we all have the greatest confidence, to look at the circumstances of the offence itself, the level of proof and the state of mind of the person concerned when they were persuaded to accept a caution, before they put that person on a barred list. I also share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, about overseas convictions. I ask the Minister whether that includes overseas cautions as well. Not every country has the same standards for the behaviour of the police as in this country. I would not like to think that people were in any way unreasonably pressured by a foreign police force to accept a caution, thereby removing their right to representation and barring them. I look forward, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, to the Minister’s response on those issues. However, I will ask about one more related point; I have not given the Minister notice of this, so he may wish to write to me. It is about the implementation of the consolidated safety recruitment guidance, and the follow-up to the Ofsted survey on vetting practice in schools. In a Written Ministerial Statement, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families stated: "““Ofsted inspectors evaluate schools’ compliance with Government requirements regarding vetting of staff during the course of inspections of maintained schools. Reports published since April 2007 indicate that compliance is very high, and Ofsted will continue to report on this aspect””.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/08; col. 37WS.]" It is good news that schools’ compliance with the CRB checks, as they are currently called, is very high, and I am delighted to see that. However, I have received evidence from a schools inspector which gives me cause for concern. He says: "““Schools are expected to see positive evidence of identity, birth, address, qualifications … Many seem to believe that they must retain evidence””," so that they can prove that they have done this to, for example, a CRB monitor or an Ofsted inspector. The result is that this inspector is finding in many schools, "““a growing plethora of personal information: photocopies of drivers’ licences, birth certificates, qualifications and passports. Schools know that they must destroy the actual CRB disclosure, because they have been told that they must””," and many schools think that they should keep this background evidence. There is a chance that this is quite a widespread practice, although I have to admit that the person who informed me has obviously not inspected thousands of schools. But he is concerned that a lot of this confidential information may be vulnerable, although the majority of schools will do their best to keep that sort of information safe. What is being done to make sure that schools understand that they do not need to keep that information once the CRB check has gone through, and that they have destroyed the CRB disclosure itself, simply in order to convince the inspectors that they are complying? Perhaps Ofsted or the Information Commissioner would be able to comment on this. I should be most grateful if the Minister would write if he is unable to answer the question. This is my only opportunity to raise this issue. It is not strictly relevant to the regulations, but it is related to it, I hope, closely enough.