Clause 1
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Maria Miller (Shadow Minister (Education), Education; Basingstoke, Conservative)
This string of amendments relates to the role and responsibilities of the independent barring board.
Amendment No. 3 is intended to probe the Government on their intentions on monitoring. The Bichard inquiry stated that a new and different system was required to monitor and vet individuals working with children and vulnerable adults. A register was to be used to monitor those individuals and would constantly be updated. It would take the police out of the process with regard to the information retained on the database. Just as important, soft data—data that may not be the result of conviction—could be logged so that they, too, could be taken into account as and when necessary.
Sir Michael Bichard made clear recommendations about the system that he thought appropriate. The Bill deals in detail with only one aspect—barring. Although it refers to monitoring, it is rather vague as to how it will be undertaken and by whom. Monitoring and barring are closely linked. The Bichard inquiry said that the failure to identify Huntley through his behaviour patterns was the result of ineffective monitoring of intelligence. That was one of his root findings.
Monitoring can help us build a picture, ensuring that information is readily available from many sources; it should ensure that individuals who are not suitable for working with children and vulnerable adults can be identified. We accept that. However, the Bill is unclear about how the process will be undertaken. If there is not a close link between monitoring and barring, would it not present an opportunity for people to slip through the net, so that, through error or oversight, people were not caught who should be?
The amendment allows me to put several questions to the Minister. Have the Government worked out how the monitoring system will work, and who will undertake the monitoring that Bichard says is so important? Why was a joint role for the IBB rejected, and why does the Bill not include an independent monitoring and barring board? Having read the Bichard recommendations, I should have thought that the obvious solution. A great deal of thought has obviously been given to the matter, and I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation of why that joint role was rejected.
If there are to be two separate bodies, who will decide on the people to be referred? Will the DFES decide on the people who are being monitored who will then be referred on to the barring board for consideration for barring? A number of details are not clear, and I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify them. There are many examples where regulators both monitor and bar: the General Medical Council and the Law Society are but two. If there are two separate bodies in this instance, because that is what the Government feel will be most effective, will the Minister tell us how those two bodies will work together, how unnecessary complications between two independent groups will be avoided and when we will get the details of how that monitoring system will work?
Amendment No. 5 refers to membership of the IBB. My noble Friend Baroness Buscombe made suggestions when the Bill was undergoing detailed scrutiny in the other place. I felt it appropriate to bring them back. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, a number of issues covered by the amendments were raised in the DFES consultation. This was one. There was concern from people in the professional field that full-time staff were employed by the IBB might not, in the words of the consultation, be of the same standard, and they certainly might not be up to date with the processes and practices that they would need to understand to be effective members of the board.
Amendment No. 5 is tabled perhaps as a suggestion to the Minister that we need to consider more fully the consultation that has been undertaken. Secondment to the IBB may be a technique that can be used, again picking up from the consultation, to ensure that IBB staff are of sufficient quality and have up-to-date experience. Given that consultation, will the Minister confirm whether it will be revisited either through formal amendment to the Bill or through recommendations to the IBB?
Amendment No. 6 is also related to the IBB. This is an incredibly important amendment and requires a little bit of explanation. Bichard states:
“effective vetting depends on information, and much of that information inevitably comes from the police”.
Information is the lifeblood of the IBB and the quality of that information is vital. The second part of the amendment relates back to the online database which was an important part of this initiative when it was launched.
In terms of the quality and accuracy of its data, we must ensure that the reputation of the IBB is established from the outset. Its robustness in taking accurate decisions is reliant on the quality of the data that it uses. Many changes are under way in the ways in which data used in barring decisions are collected. Any professional organisation—the IBB will indeed be a professional organisation—would want to ensure that the information it uses is of good quality. Therefore we believe that it will be sensible to build a need to ensure quality into the systems that the IBB adopts.
Full implementation of the Bichard recommendations is closely linked with the information management, prioritisation, analysis, co-ordination and tasking—IMPACT—database, which has suffered from some delay and has also suffered a great deal of increased expenditure. As part of the discussion on information and information quality, will the Minister update us on the status of the database, and will he confirm whether the delay in that particular data collection methodology is linked to the fact that the monitoring database is not included in the Bill? Maybe the two are linked, or maybe not. Will the Minister confirm the position?
On procedures and procedural changes, there is one other change of which the Minister will no doubt be aware—the change in the way that court convictions are put on databases. Previously that was done by the police, but that was the subject of criticism by Bichard because less than 50 per cent. of court results were put on to the police national database within seven days. As a result, data collection methods have changed, and convictions will be put on by the court, not the police. That is another change, and it needs to be monitored by the IBB to ensure that it has not reduced data quality and accuracy. With all those changes taking place, the purpose of the amendment is to try to make sure that the IBB has a way to ensure quality, and accuracy of decision making.
In a note to the Committee in another place, Lord Adonis said that the IBB was built on the expertise of the criminal records bureau. I would not use the word expertise—I would say “role.” We debated that point on First Reading: the CRB has made 3,000 errors on its existing database since the database was put in place. The Minister rightly says that that is an error rate of only 0.03 per cent., but the errors show that we cannot assume that information coming through is 100 per cent. accurate.
None of us would be complacent about how we deal with such things. However, I shall cite what the independent complaints mediator said in response to the CRB’s mistakes:
“All measures to ensure accuracy must be taken.”
The spirit of the amendments is to make sure that accuracy goes to the heart of the IBB’s activities.
I should like to hear the Minister’s reaction to my comments on how quality and accuracy will be dealt with by the IBB. I should like to know whether he agrees that the amount of ongoing change on all the different data strands means that there is an opportunity for the Government to reconsider their stance and consider the amendment. On amendment No. 6, it would be useful to have feedback from the Minister on online access, because that was one of the main planks of the announcement—that the Bill would allow online access to the barred database. Despite concern about it in the April 2005 consultation, it remained an important part of the media launch, yet is not in the Bill. Will the Minister explain how that aspect of the scheme will be progressed—or has it been dropped? The Minister will remember that I mentioned the subject on Second Reading.
There has been great concern in the United States about experience of online database security. In, I believe, 11 states, individuals hacked into the relevant system and not only gained access to it but changed information about individuals online. I am sure that the Minister shares my concern about that. I can entirely understand it if the Government are taking another look at that aspect of their announcement, but it would be useful to know whether they are, because the matter was given widespread coverage.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 go together, as both relate to parliamentary scrutiny. Consultation suggested that accountability is absolutely vital to the new independent barring board process. I can think of no better accountability and scrutiny than that afforded on the Floor of the House of Commons. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would ensure that that scrutiny could take place and could offer the IBB the opportunity for a little independence on the issues that it raises. The amendments would also mean that the IBB was not answerable only to the Minister, as it currently is under the Bill. The amendments would also ensure an opportunity to scrutinise the body’s finances. I say “the body” because it is not yet entirely clear what sort of body the IBB will be.
It has been mooted that the IBB will be a non-departmental public body. I was going to ask the Chairman’s permission to hold a small stand part debate on that, because it is important to how the Bill works that we have clarity on what sort of body the IBB is. If it were an NDPB, Parliament would have to be able to scrutinise its finances in order for it to be line with the guidance issued on NDPBs. Perhaps the Minister could give me some clarity on that.
Amendment No. 9 is a strange one. It would remove the IBB’s ability to borrow money. It is clear from guidance that NDPBs have powers and obligations allowing them to raise, borrow and lend money, but what does the IBB need to borrow money for? The guidance on NDPBs says clearly that the Treasury would not be willing for a Bill such as this to include provisions on loan finance relating to an NDPB, on the off-chance that those provisions will be used. The Minister will need to clarify why a provision for borrowing money is needed, if he is to ensure that he stays within the Government’s guidelines on such bodies.
Amendment No. 10 relates to communications. Everybody who has scrutinised the Bill—including, I am sure, all of us in the Room—will understand how much change it would mean for many people. As a result, there is an obligation on Government, and particularly on the IBB, to ensure clear communication on what the proposed changes will mean for the various groups that will be affected. We believe more discussion is needed in a number of areas to provide clarity of communication, and we will discuss them, but we need to be absolutely reassured that, as soon as the Bill moves forward, there will be a programme of activity to ensure that its contents are effectively communicated to those outside. That is important, given the terms used in the Bill.
In particular, the Bill includes the concept of being monitored. That is a positive aspect, but perhaps it will not be seen as such by those who have not been able to scrutinise it as much as we have. We must make sure that people understand those terms and that they are not viewed in a way that is not intended. We have to make sure that employers, employees, professional bodies and local authorities understand their responsibilities, and we must minimise any inadvertent criminal behaviour that may result if communication is not undertaken well.
About 10 million people will be affected by the Bill, and the Minister rightly pointed out that it is technical and complex. We in Committee will attempt to unpick some of that complexity and to ensure that the Bill is clearer in its communication. We also need to ensure that there is a further round of communication involving all who will be affected by it.