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

I hope that I can respond comprehensively to the questions. However, before I do so, I have been rather remiss because I should have welcomed the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, to her position. I think I am right in doing that. We are starting a new Session and I feel that I should have done so at the start. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness. She will bring to this brief her forensic grasp of the importance of the detail of this subject and a great perspective of the bigger picture. The noble Baroness started her contribution with a very important point. I agree wholeheartedly about two issues: first, the importance of training and support for all staff working in these important areas with vulnerable people, and I have no doubt we will cover that theme again and again in the coming months in our deliberations on the whole issue; and, secondly, the need for Criminal Records Bureau checks to be accessible. Of course, if they are not accessible, the system will start to creak. It is important that that is on the record. Volunteers should not pay a fee for their criminal record checks. That will continue in the new vetting and barring scheme where volunteers will not be charged for registration. We expect volunteers to play their part and become registered in the new scheme and it is important that they do not have an onerous financial burden placed upon them. The noble Baroness also asked about Regulation 7 and the question of why independent schools should refer to the ISA. The point we are making is that this merely puts independent schools on the same footing as maintained schools. Once the transitional provisions order comes into force, all referrals relating to safeguarding concerns will have to be made in a set way to the ISA regardless of what part of the system the schools are in. Members asked about automatic barring and the question of a conflict with human rights. We are very clear that there is no conflict between human rights and automatic barring. It is the Government’s view that such barring takes place because of the operation of law. The act of automatically barring a person from engaging in regulated activity without the right to make representations does not constitute the determination of their civil rights. There is no conflict with the human rights convention because automatic barring happens as a consequence of the criminal justice system following on from the conviction, so it is an extension of that conviction. We provided information on that point for the Merits Committee earlier this year when the transitional version of these regulations was debated. I am happy to circulate further the communication with the Merits Committee if that would be helpful. Both noble Baronesses talked about whether ISA appeals are compliant with the ECHR. We believe that the scope of ISA appeals, which can be on a point of law or on a finding of fact, complies with the right to a fair trial. The current scope of appeals gives the upper tribunal that will hear ISA appeals all the powers it needs to overturn an unsound barring decision. In particular, an appeal on a point of law can include an appeal on the basis that an ISA decision might be unreasonable, so that is the option. Appeals should not be extended to the ISA’s expert judgment on whether or not to bar a person, which is separate from the ISA finding a fact about that person. The tribunal will not be in a position to make a similar judgment. The Act’s compliance with human rights was tested thoroughly through the passage of the legislation. We take this issue seriously and have been careful to think through the implications of automatic barring and the question of how the appeals work where an appeal is possible. Members asked about the flow of information from the EU. As we discussed last time, there was an EU Council decision in November 2005 that an EU member state must inform the UK if a UK national is convicted in that other EU state. Under the same decision—I think we talked about this on the last occasion, and I apologise if we have already done so—criminal conviction information can also be sought on EU nationals being proceeded against in the UK. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, a further framework decision is currently under discussion in Brussels to make it compulsory for EU member states to provide us with information on their nationals being proceeded against here. A standard format for securely exchanging information electronically was agreed at the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on 24 October. As the noble Baroness suggested, it will make it much easier. Indeed, it would be unacceptable if it were not to happen. It is important that we have a flow of information. Noble Lords asked what further work needs to be done in order to gather criminal information from overseas. On 4 December the Government published their response to Sir Ian Magee’s review of criminality information agreed steps to expand information flows with other countries based on a more proactive, risk-based approach. We have accepted that we should make a more co-ordinated approach to other countries, which I think was the point the noble Baroness sought to make with regard to vetting and barring as priority areas. Our strategy for doing so will be developed by January 2009—next month—so that is a strong commitment for us. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the basis for decisions on extended periods. An example might be if a person had moved and there was a delay in forwarding mail, including letters from the ISA, to his new address. These are matters of practicality rather than of substance about the offence itself. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness if there is more information that I can share with her. She asked a number of questions about the right to review, and it might be helpful for me to write to her about that and circulate the letter to other noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked about time lapses in offences and how being convicted of an offence some years previously might affect the ISA’s consideration. We have before us a long list of serious offences, and we must be clear that where those offences have been committed some years ago, if the conviction stands and there is an automatic bar in place, it will stand. It is also important to say that the ISA can take into consideration such information as it sees fit. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the ISA’s remit to make decisions about things that people might do. We have to make assessments about the risk that people pose to children and vulnerable adults. It is about making a judgment and, from time to time, the ISA may have to make preventative judgments about people.