Schedule 2
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Parmjit Dhanda (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Gloucester, Labour)
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. As I envisage it, it will be the role of the IBB to receive direct representations from people who feel that there has been a mistake. The IBB has the power to remove a person included on the list as a result of errors—so, yes, it will take that kind of information on board. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) makes a very good point about ID cards, which will be of great assistance to the work done under the Bill. They would reduce the amount of time that it would typically take the CRB to receive a disclosure by three weeks.
Anyway, getting back to the amendment, I believe that the negative procedure is the right approach in this context. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee agrees, because the regulations will deal with matters of operational detail within the framework created by the Bill and provide for changes to respond to future circumstances as a scheme is phased in and becomes established.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 would ensure that no one under 18 would be automatically included in the children’s barred list and the adults’ barred list, respectively. I am pleased to say that I have some good news for the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) on this group of amendments. I agree with the Opposition on this principle, and the Government’s policy is that no under-18s would be included on either barred list automatically. Instead they would be dealt with under a discretionary process and given the right to make representations before the IBB takes its decision. The IBB will, as with all discretionary cases, need to make a judgment on whether the individual poses a risk to one of the groups and whether it is appropriate to include them on either or both barred lists. We have explained that clearly in another place and also on Second Reading.
We intend to make the provision in regulations, which will specify prescribed criteria for automatic barring. It would not be appropriate to do so in the Bill, because we will specify other provisions relating to age in regulations—for example, that minimum barred periods will be shorter for under-25s. I also explained that to the hon. Lady on Second Reading. It would be inconsistent to have one age provision in the Bill and other similar provisions in regulations. This kind of detail is commonly dealt with in regulations, but I am happy to put on record the fact that we intend to make those changes.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 would also require the IBB to refer anyone under 18 years old whom it chooses to bar to therapeutic services, which would be specified in regulations. The proposal would require referral to service providers such as the national health service, local authorities, children’s social care services or appropriate charitable organisations. Unfortunately, that is inconsistent with the IBB’s primary role of maintaining the barred lists, which is what the Bill is about. It would also be unhelpful if an IBB referral to the therapeutic service provider was made at the end of the process. The IBB decision is based on information from the police, sector bodies, employers and courts, any or all of which could advise the individual to seek medical or psychiatric help at earlier stages or therapeutic services. To require a referral of juveniles upon barring does not seem to be the most effective way to help them and would add a process, when routes are already established to gain access to that kind of support, such as the child and adolescent mental health services, and local authorities are required to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the amendment to a Division.