Mrs.
Miller: Is it not surprising that despite a great deal of
discussion about the importance of excluding family homes from the
legislation, it was felt necessary to amend the Act further at this
stage to make that crystal clear? Surely, the Government should have
got it right first
time.
Annette
Brooke: That point will be reiterated about most of the
proposals in the draft order.
I want to
focus first on the proposals for automatic barring, which concern me
the most. Automatic barring without representation is a powerful
measure. I was particularly concerned about the ability to change
things under negative resolution, which means that we, as Opposition
Members, will not have any control. I argued that affirmative
resolution would be a useful tool, which would have helped us in
today’s debate when we are particularly concerned about one
piece of the statutory instrument, allowing us to single out particular
items to vote against.
On this
particular issue, will the Minister clarify what changes are proposed?
I read in Hansard from the other place that the order will
correct two minor omissions in the prescribed criteria regulations. It
is worrying that we are having such corrections two years on, and I am
not 100 per cent. clear what they are. It is probably “newly
convicted” or “cautioned”, from my reading, but
were those left out? That would be such a huge hole in the legislation,
and seems quite incredible. I want the Minister to set out exactly what
is being changed as far as automatic barring is concerned, particularly
in articles 9 and 18. One of my greatest concerns during the
passage of the Act was that someone could get caught up in this and
have their life destroyed for ever without being able to make
representations, so we need to be crystal
clear. We
have always been given examples of the most horrendous crimes, for
which no one can suggest that there should not be automatic barring. I
have not come across anything where that has not been the case, but I
am nervous, from a civil liberties point of view, that as amendments
are made as we go along and think of something else, there could be
injustice. It is the Committee’s duty to address that
issue.
The hon. Lady
identified definition creep, and I, too, have flagged that up. Next to
the addition of school governing bodies, associate members, clerks and
local authority chief executives, I wrote “Why?” Why are
we extending the definition and seemingly moving away from the core
purpose of the Act?
Interestingly,
in our many discussions on the statutory instruments and on the Act, we
have never dwelt much on the 11 million people who will get caught up
in the registration. This is an opportunity to ask the Minister to give
us some more details. Presumably, the provision that I have just
referred to will increase the number to beyond 11 million. That is a
huge database, which will be upon us soon, and we have not had much in
the way of assurances on security
checks. Throughout
the process, small businesses in particular have been concerned about
the onerous duty that will be imposed on them. I, too, thought that the
explanatory notes were helpful, but for the sake of the business
community, it would be exceedingly helpful if the Minister expanded on
the
issue.
Mrs.
Miller: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the
number of people who will be covered by the legislation. Does she share
my concern that the definition of those who will be covered by
controlled activity is yet to be discussed by a Committee similar to
this one? We are some handful of months away from the full
implementation of the Act, and yet a sizeable group of employers and
employees are still unaware of the details of how the Act will affect
them.
Annette
Brooke: The hon. Lady makes yet another helpful
intervention. The issue is not just the size of the database and the
burden on small businesses in particular, but communication. As she
said earlier, we could not have devoted more time than we did to
discussing how important that is. However, we are reading that, yes,
the Government are accepting that they have to work particularly hard,
as far as volunteers are concerned, to get the information out. That is
critical, because big mistakes could be made from a lack of
understanding because of the sheer complexities of the Act. If we are
going to have any other changes, I would urge that they were towards
simplifying the
process. I
was pleased to see that the point about work experience has been picked
up by the Government, because I have had a number of representations
about that. While wanting to be sure that youngsters on work
experience, aged 14 or 15, were absolutely safe, there was the real
possibility of the supply of those places drying up. We come back to
the point over and over again that it is so important for the
legislation to have a proportionate effect, which is what we must focus
on
today. When
does the Minister expect the online access to become live? We have not
heard much about that—no doubt we shall in due course. I would
like to reinforce the points made about overseas workers, because we
have a complicated system but with yawning gaps where someone could
slip through the net. I have a number of concerns. I have a great deal
of sympathy with the hon. Lady about definition creep, and I hope that
the Minister will be exceedingly convincing about why that is
essential. My feeling is that we should be getting the system up and
running without making it unnecessarily complicated, while being sure
that we are closing the gaps.
Finally, my
No. 1 priority is safeguarding vulnerable children and adults. We have
to be sure that the legislation does that, rather than confusing and
muddying the water.
11.2
am
Mr.
Wright: I thank the hon. Members for Basingstoke and for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole for their kind welcome. I feel that I have
come to the party relatively late, when most of the champagne has gone.
I am having a baptism of fire, given the level of knowledge and
expertise in the room—of the hon. Ladies and, not least, of my
right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West, who was so instrumental
in pushing us down the path of safeguarding children and vulnerable
people. I shall try my best to answer some of the detailed
questions. Correct
me if I am wrong, but I have detected six or seven key themes in the
line of questioning: delays and potential errors in the secondary
legislation process; human rights and auto-barring; concerns about IT
systems; foreign workers and foreign offences; communication to
business, local authorities and others; mission and definition creep,
about which I understand the concern; and, linked in with the last two
points, the impact upon small businesses and the point made by the hon.
Member for Basingstoke about how we strongly encourage businesses to
take on board the suggested processes. I hope to cover all those in the
time available, but if I do not I shall write to the hon. Ladies and
the rest of the
Committee.
Mrs.
Miller: I am sorry to intervene on the Minister so early
in his response, but could he add to that list an update for the
Committee about when the Government might come through with a
definition with regard to controlled activities that I talked about in
my intervention on the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. Now
we are so close to full implementation of the scheme, does the Minister
not share my concern that there are still significant holes in how the
legislation is enacted in full? We still have no detailed statutory
instrument on controlled
activities.
Mr.
Wright: I can answer that point straight away and
disappoint the hon. Lady early on in my contribution. We have no
proposals to change the definitions of controlled activities as set out
in the Act, beyond the minor amendment in article 28 to do with Wales,
which I mentioned in my opening remarks. I am sorry to disappoint the
hon. Lady. There are no such plans.
I come now to
the seven main themes that I have detected in the Committee’s
deliberations today. First, one of the main questions that has been
asked is about the reason for the delay. I will be honest and upfront
with the Committee: we want to get this right. The key point is to
ensure that children and vulnerable adults are safeguarded as much as
possible and that the framework is in place to allow that to happen. A
good system is in place at the moment, but we need to tighten it as
much as possible. The new system and the new transition process will
allow that to happen. If it takes time to get it accurate, and that is
the right approach to
take. The
reason for the changes in the commencement date to which the hon.
Member for Basingstoke alluded was set out in the written ministerial
statement in March this year. The scheme has been phased in to ensure
that it is correct and effective. From October this year, the powers of
the ISA to bar persons from the full range of regulated activity will
come into force. Applications to become ISA-registered under section 24
of the Act
will commence from July 2010, and that will enable the new systems and
interfaces to be fully tested and problems dealt
with. I
was asked whether different systems and different checking devices with
regard to the ISA and CRB would be complicated and prone to error. I am
confident that that will not be the case. I appreciate that the
transition is complex, but I am sure that all parties know what needs
to be done at each stage. For example, the ISA is clear that it has to
complete the work on migrating cases from the existing barred lists to
the new barred lists. It has a dedicated team of people to allow that
to happen, and work will continue until the job is done. We are setting
up the systems that provide the barred lists to the CRB in such a way
that they can be processed and searched automatically by the CRB as
part of the disclosure process. I stress that each stage of the
transition has been carefully scoped out and planned to minimise as
much as possible the risks of error and further
delay.
Mrs.
Miller: I am sure that the Committee will be reassured to
hear that the hon. Gentleman wants to be confident in the system and to
minimise risk. The objective of the new system is to remove as much as
possible the risk of inappropriate people working with children and
adults. I am still somewhat worried that the Government’s
original plan clearly did not get it right, which is why we are here
two years on with a delay in the process and with an Act that is being
amended on the hoof to make it work
properly.
The
Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that interventions
should be
short.
Mrs.
Miller: Is the Minister content with the current position,
in that he is amending the legislation on the
hoof?
Mr.
Wright: The hon. Lady might be surprised to hear that I
utterly disagree with her comments. While preparing for the debate, I
was reading the statement made on the Floor of the House in January
2006. The intention was always incredibly clear that the Government
want to get the measure right and accurate, and that their principal
objective, which all hon. Members share, is to minimise the risk to
children and vulnerable people. That has taken time. There have been
complex processes, but I am confident that the transitionary process
that we are putting in place will minimise that risk. I hope that the
hon. Lady will join us in making sure that that is the
case. My
second point concerns human rights and barring without representation.
Both the hon. Members for Basingstoke and for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole said that they were a bit uneasy about matters. That has been a
theme throughout their questioning of the process during the past
couple of years. They were a little worried about the human rights
implications. The hon. Member for Basingstoke asked me directly whether
I was confident that the measure was compatible with ECHR. Yes, I can
confirm that it is consistent with human rights legislation. With
permission, an individual can also appeal to the Court of Appeal on
points of law.
The hon.
Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned automatic barring and
the criteria for amendments. I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady that
the amendments relate to automatic barring with representations. I
understand perfectly her point that making amendments and having that
sort of creep with regard to automatic barring without representations
can impact on civil rights legislation. There are no changes to the
offences leading to automatic barring without the right to make
representations, and I hope that reassures
her. The
hon. Member for Basingstoke made a very important point about the
rationale behind automatic barring without representation. Looking at
it afresh and seeing the principles behind it, I am reassured that it
has always been and remains the case that automatic barring without
representation is based upon the commission of crimes that by their
very nature indicate that the perpetrator poses a risk of harm such
that there is nothing to justify to the ISA why they should be allowed
to work with vulnerable groups in the short term. The hon. Lady
mentioned that we need to minimise that risk as much as possible. That
is absolutely right and I hope that the whole Committee will
agree. The
hon. Lady also mentioned appeal on an automatic bar without
representations. Individuals who have been automatically barred without
the right to make representations do not have rights of appeal. Appeals
under the 2006 Act are only on a point of law or on a finding of fact.
In the case of an automatic bar with no right of representations, it is
indisputable that the person was convicted of an offence and it is also
indisputable that that offence is listed among the prescribed criteria
for automatic barring with no right to representations. That is an
important part of the safeguarding element of the
legislation.
Annette
Brooke: If I might just correct the record, I intended to
say that because there is no right of appeal it is important that we do
not have extra criteria slipped in. Hence my desire for a clear
statement from the Minister, and for which I thank
him.
Mr.
Wright: I acknowledge that the hon. Lady’s comments
are on the
record. I
will move on to my third point, which is about IT systems and the
progress in setting them up. The hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned
the IMPACT programme. Given her long-standing experience on the
subject, she will be more aware than I am that the IMPACT programme was
established in 2005 by the Home Office as a substantial part of the
Government’s response to the Bichard inquiry. IMPACT is an
IT-enabled business change programme that aims to improve the ability
of the police service to manage and share intelligence and other
operational information to prevent and detect crime and make
communities safer. It is meant to improve police information management
to enable the police to share information and to discharge the
Home Secretary’s commitment to implementing the recommendations
in Bichard’s
report. The
IMPACT nominal index—an interim system—was delivered in
December 2005. It transitioned into the operational services
directorate to become a normal part of business on 1 April
2008. The INI
allows officers in one force quickly to identify other forces that might
hold information on someone in whom they are interested, which directly
addresses a key part of Bichard’s recommendations. Following
Home Office Group Investment Board and HM Treasury approvals, a
contract was signed with Logica for the design, build, delivery and
operation of phase 1 of the police national database on 31 March this
year. That will address Bichard’s first recommendation. The
IMPACT programme is on track to commence deployment of PND capabilities
in 2010. I hope that reassures the hon.
Lady. The
hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked when online access to
the ISA system will go live? I have a specific date for the hon.
Lady—26 July 2010 is when it will become legally possible for an
individual to access the ISA
register.
| 
