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

I, too, thank the Minister for her explanation. I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about the issue of cautions and foreign workers, and I believe that I have said so on the several previous occasions that we have debated the subject. How regularly will the House receive updates on the UK Government’s relationship with foreign Governments and on the information we obtain regarding the offences of those who want to come to this country to work with vulnerable people? These regulations, which allow the ISA to deal with non-migration or new cases, are of course necessary. However, as the Minister might recall, when the original legislation was debated in your Lordships’ House, we on these Benches were concerned about two of the four ways in which individuals could be barred from working with children and vulnerable people. We felt that the balance between protecting vulnerable people and children and the human rights of individuals might not be quite right in certain small matters of detail. Perhaps I may list the ways in which people can be barred and say which ones we are still concerned about. The first four are: automatic barring without the right to representation; automatic barring with the right to representation; barring at the ISA’s discretion based on previous actions of the person concerned; and barring at the ISA’s discretion on the basis that it judges that the person may behave in a way which would harm a vulnerable person. We still have concerns about the first and last of those. Can the Government assure us that we will get a report on the second way in which people can be barred—that is, barred automatically but with the right to representation? The basis of the decisions following such representation may shed light on whether the first way of barring people—that is, without representation—is the right way to go. If people are automatically barred but then go on to make representations that are accepted and are allowed by the ISA to work with vulnerable people, then perhaps we should look again at the category of those who are barred automatically with no right of representation. If we can be assured that we will receive regular reports on those cases, we might be able to consider whether the first category—barring without representation—is the right way to go. On the fourth group, the Minister will recall that we were concerned that the ISA has the discretion to bar someone on the basis of what it thinks they might do rather than what they have actually done. It would be helpful to know whether there will be a review of how the ISA has used these powers. It would enable us to judge whether the fourth category of barring is the way to go or whether there are still concerns about the human rights of those being considered for barring. I have a couple of questions about two other aspects of the regulations. The first is on the representation period. As the Minister said, the ISA will notify the individual when he is automatically barred, and, when it is allowed, he will have eight weeks in which to make representations about it. I notice that the ISA has discretion to extend that period if it is satisfied that there is a good reason for doing so. Can the Minister give any examples of the sorts of reasons that the ISA might accept as justifying an extension of the period from eight weeks?On the minimum review period, it is right that there should be variable review periods for people of different ages. There has been considerable discussion about the under-18s and, if I remember correctly, the Government made a concession by reducing the no review period to one year, given that young people sometimes do foolish things and then change as they grow up. However, I do have a question on this issue. There is no right to a review—it is at the discretion of the ISA—and the barred person has to show that their circumstances have changed in order to be allowed one. Can the Minister give any examples of the kind of circumstances that might be acceptable to the ISA for it to grant a review? For example, would undergoing an anger management course, sexual therapy and so on be considered valid when a barred person asks for their case to be reviewed after the appropriate period of time? On putting independent schools on the same footing as maintained schools with regard to the duty to refer a case, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. I think the measure is perfectly justified and I welcome it. My questions refer to the details of the barring issues.