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

I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for their welcome for the regulations and for their questions. Most of the questions range well outside the remit of the regulations that we are debating today, which have a very limited and precise intent; that is, to define a category of those who are already barred under existing barring arrangements and who will continue to be barred under the new arrangements with no rights to make representations. That may include people who have come by the route of being cautioned, but they are people who, whatever the route, have been barred and have been therefore held by the existing procedures to be a sufficient risk to the client groups with whom they were working to be barred. The issue is defining that category of people who we do not think it is appropriate to allow to make representations as they migrate from the old system to the new. There are about 14,000 migration cases in total. My information is that only some hundreds of cases will be migrated to the new system without any right to make representations. The overwhelming majority of those who are migrated will have the right to make representations. We are dealing with a very small group who will not. That very small group includes people who have been barred because of risks that they pose under legislation—which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, stated, are, on any reasonable assessment, very serious offences—or where there are concerns about activities relating to extremely serious offences. I could read them out, but I do not think that any of us in the Grand Committee would have any difficulty in thinking that these were appropriate cases. That is the precise area we are talking about. In the great majority of cases there will be the right to make representations. Having made that general introduction, I shall now seek to deal with individual points that have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked about the impact of the new arrangements for volunteers. With regard to the establishment of the new barring arrangements, it is not possible to say what impact there has been because they have still to be introduced, so they have not taken effect. However, I see that she is really getting at the time it takes to get CRB checks, which we all know was an issue a few years ago when there were delays in the system and a lack of clarity in some areas about which groups were and were not covered by the need for CRB checks, and there was a concern that this would put people off coming forward. I am glad to be able to say that the CRB regime has significantly improved its efficiency; the latest data I have show that the CRB processes 90 per cent of enhanced checks within four weeks and its average performance this year exceeds that, so it is improving. In the data I have for 2007-08, the four-week target has been made in 95.2 per cent of cases. The target for customer satisfaction is 85 per cent, and the latest data that we have show that there is 82 per cent customer satisfaction. That needs to improve, but it is still high. We do not collect figures on the numbers of volunteers coming forward, but the evidence is that the CRB regime is operating well now; it is meeting its efficiency targets and has improved in the past few years. As a matter of anecdote—in many of these areas that is all we have to go on—I visit many schools and voluntary organisations, and no one in recent months has raised with me the difficulty in procuring CRB checks or any lack of clarity about when they should be procured as an obstacle to being able to recruit either full-time staff or volunteers. Having said that for the record in Hansard, I will now be flooded with such instances, which my officials will be glad to deal with. In so far as I can answer the noble Baroness, that is my response at present. The noble Baroness asked me what, on the face of it, is a serious issue: whether having committed a serious offence more than 10 years ago should be a relevant consideration whether to bar someone. I think she misconstrued the regulation. The point is not whether a serious offence was committed more than 10 years ago. That would continue to be a relevant factor in whether someone should be barred. The issue is whether the individual in question is then allowed to make representations about their case. The regulations we are debating today are for that category of people who are barred who will not be allowed to make representations. Those who committed offences more than 10 years ago will be allowed to make representations. That does not mean that it therefore follows that their barring would be lifted; it is simply one of the criteria used to define that group who will not be allowed to make representations. I hope that answers the point. The noble Baroness is right that serious offences committed more than 10 years ago do not cease to be relevant. The question is simply whether people have the right to make representations. We debated cautions during the passage of the Bill, and I know they are of concern. It is crucial that individuals understand the significance of accepting cautions. That issue is key. I am informed that ACPO has revised its guidance to ensure that police officers explain the significance of accepting cautions for the offences listed, and that that could—indeed, would—lead to individuals being barred. Realistically, we cannot do more than that to ensure that individuals, at the point of deciding whether to accept a caution, understand the consequences for their potential employment if it is a relevant factor. They do not have to accept a caution—if they wish, they can see the issue proceed through further legal channels—but it is important that they understand, at the point where they accept the caution, that there are consequences. That is now enshrined in the ACPO revised guidance. That is a specific response to concerns that were raised when the Bill was going through both Houses. Why are there not more offences listed? As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, some of those whom we consulted thought that more should be listed. The point to make here is that the ISA will consider all relevant offences. However, we had to be very careful in deciding which offences were put into the category of those for which there is no right to make representations. We sought advice from experts in the safeguarding, offending and legal fields. We looked at how offences were used in current safeguarding schemes and, of course, the list of automatic barring offences has been subject to extensive consultation, most recently the formal public consultation last year. The fact that certain offences are not in this order does not mean that they are not necessarily extremely serious offences which would lead to barring, it simply concerns whether representations can be made if an individual is barred as a result of them. We debated at length workers from overseas and offences committed overseas when the Bill was going through. The regulations deal with those who are already barred. Future regulations will ensure that where we know an offence has been committed abroad, it will lead to barring. We have very good reciprocal arrangements with many countries for determining whether individuals have committed offences as this forms part of their application and assessment procedures when they apply for jobs which come within those categories for which CRB checks are necessary. I am told that we are making significant progress in enhancing the reciprocal arrangements for the exchange of information. For example, I am told that we are making very good progress with the eight states of Australia on much more robust mechanisms for exchanging information when workers apply for jobs. Australia is, of course, a big market for the recruitment of staff into the sectors with which we are dealing. We are seeking to strengthen systems to receive foreign offender information from all countries, and this is a big task of the new ISA. But I must be frank with the Committee that this depends on the quality of information held by the domestic authorities. This will be ongoing work which we need to take forward to ensure that we procure the best quality information available and that it is transmitted to us in a timely fashion. But, of course, it is also the responsibility of employers to conduct the most thorough evaluation they can of individuals who apply for jobs, over and above them being cleared through a CRB process or a reciprocal arrangement for exchanging information with overseas. The fact that an individual comes from overseas and we do not have good quality information from their own vetting and barring services does not lessen the obligation on the employer to make all necessary checks and to monitor behaviour very carefully. I hope that I have dealt with the specific questions—