I thank both noble Baronesses for their contributions and for participating in this debate, which is an important act of scrutiny of these important orders. I have had quite a lot of questions; I will do my very best to cover them all now but, as ever, if I do not or miss any answers, I undertake to write to the noble Baronesses. My right honourable friend in another place has just written to honourable Members in response to their debate. Some of the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, touched on were picked up there, so we are addressing them. I apologise if I am not going about this in the right order, but here goes anyway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked whether we have made an assessment of the negative effect of the whole scheme on ex-offenders in finding work. We have made a great effort to ensure that the exceptions that these provisions make to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are as narrow as possible. That means that, as much as possible, we are trying to leave standing all the work that people have been doing around the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to get it right. The only entitlement to details of spent convictions in relation to controlled activity is if the individual concerned has been barred by the ISA from regulated activities, which means that the ISA has already deemed a person to pose a risk to vulnerable groups. We estimate that the CRB might get around 5,000 applications a month, of which between one and five might be barred. It is a tiny proportion.
Both noble Baronesses asked how we deal with foreign offences, which I know is a matter of concern. As they know, we deal with them in several ways. Since the EU decision in 2005, an EU member state must inform the UK if a UK national is convicted in other EU states, as the noble Baronesses are aware. A standard for exchanging information electronically is being developed and the CRB is pursuing bilateral agreements on exchanging information for employment vetting purposes. We know that a prospective employer in the UK can also ask an applicant from overseas for a police certificate of good conduct. We would obviously also expect employers to take up references and to check with previous overseas employers, but that is of course an imperfect system. We rely on the sound judgment of employers, but we are working to create as strong and proportionate a system as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked about the coverage of the scheme. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also asked, but perhaps not. To be clear, the scheme as it relates to regulated activity—where people on the barred lists are prevented from working—applies in England and Wales under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act, and parallel legislation in Northern Ireland provides similar arrangements there. So there is some alignment. The only difference relates to the different structures there; for example, the existence of health and social care trusts and education and library boards rather than local authorities. The ISA is the barring authority in both England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and an ISA bar is already recognised in those countries.
I do not want to focus on too much detail, but Scotland will have a slightly different scale operating under the Protection of Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act. However, it is important that we intend to recognise Scottish bars and Scotland intends to recognise ours, so a person barred anywhere in the UK will be barred across the whole UK. It is therefore right to describe the system as a UK system.
Arrangements may be made for controlled activity in Wales which are different from those for England. However, the Welsh Assembly Government intend to make the same interim provisions for controlled activity in Wales as we intend to make for England. In Northern Ireland, employers are entitled to obtain enhanced disclosures on all workers in controlled activities, not only on those who are barred, and therefore there is no need for these interim arrangements. Scotland will be covered in the same way.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Controlled Activity and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2010
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 23 March 2010.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Controlled Activity and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2010.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
718 c347-8GC Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Legislation
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Regulated Activity, Devolution and Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 2010Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Controlled Activity and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2010
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2010
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:22:12 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633366
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633366
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633366