Clause 1
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]
11:30 am
Maria Miller (Shadow Minister (Education), Education; Basingstoke, Conservative)
Thank you, Mr. Conway. As I said earlier, I want to raise one matter about the structure of the independent barring board. It is a specific but important point because it will enable us to have better debate on amendments to subsequent clauses.
Will the Minister detail exactly what type of body the IBB will be? Will it be a non-departmental public body, as suggested in some correspondence that came out of the debates in the Lords, although, that was not absolutely stated, but was merely an indication? Non-departmental public bodies are distanced from Government and are independent on a daily level. However, as the guidance issued to Ministers on non-departmental public body states:
“Departments will need to identify whether in the circumstances of a particular non-departmental public body, Ministers will need to retain control over and so be accountable to Parliament for certain aspects of the NDPB’s activities.”
The Minister will be accountable for the work of the IBB, but where will the line be drawn on the Minister’s and Department’s role in its operation? Where does he see the line being drawn on becoming involved if there is political pressure to do so? He feels that the IBB should be independent, but if it is established as a non-departmental public body, there will be an opportunity for Ministers and politicians to get involved in its running. Will he reassure us that that will not happen?
If the IBB is constituted as a non-departmental public body and not as a tribunal, I shall be interested to know why. Different issues are associated with constituting it as a tribunal, which would give it a different flavour and complexion. However, I should be interested to know why the decision was made to go down one route and not the other. The care standards tribunal will be the body of appeal to which people can go after they have been assessed by the IBB. There needs to be a link between the two bodies, and certainly between the thresholds that they use to assess whether somebody has undertaken activity that requires barring. I find it difficult to understand, so perhaps the Minister will clarify the matter.
It is worth reiterating that on 19 January, the then Secretary of State for Education said that the new legislation, which we are discussing today, will
“remove Ministers from the process entirely”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 969.]
By constituting the IBB as an NDPB, that is not actually the case. Perhaps the Minister can tease out the role of politicians, because if the former Secretary of State felt that politicians should be entirely removed from the process, I am not sure that her analysis of the situation was entirely correct.