Draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Dr Andrew Murrison

† Bloore, Chris (Redditch) (Lab)

† Bool, Sarah (South Northamptonshire) (Con)

† Botterill, Jade (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)

† Duncan-Jordan, Neil (Poole) (Lab)

† Edwards, Sarah (Tamworth) (Lab)

† Farnsworth, Linsey (Amber Valley) (Lab)

† Jardine, Christine (Edinburgh West) (LD)

† Kitchen, Gen (Wellingborough and Rushden) (Lab)

† Lam, Katie (Weald of Kent) (Con)

† Lamb, Peter (Crawley) (Lab)

† Mather, Keir (Selby) (Lab)

† Newbury, Josh (Cannock Chase) (Lab)

† Rand, Mr Connor (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)

† Rankin, Jack (Windsor) (Con)

Smart, Lisa (Hazel Grove) (LD)

† Smith, Sarah (Hyndburn) (Lab)

Vickers, Matt (Stockton West) (Con)

Chloe Smith, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Timothy, Nick (West Suffolk) (Con)

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

[Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair]

Draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025

16:30:00

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The order amends the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to give the Disclosure and Barring Service an express power to share its barred list information with UK non-territorial police forces and the Crown dependency police forces of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. As well as issuing criminal record certificates, commonly known as DBS checks, the DBS also maintains two lists: one of people whom the DBS has barred from working in “regulated activity” with children; and one of those whom it has barred from working in “regulated activity” with adults. “Regulated activity” includes sensitive roles, such as work in schools and health and social care. The DBS bars people from such work if their criminal history, other information held by the police or their behaviour in the workplace indicates that they pose a high risk to either or both of these groups. The DBS updates the police national database—the PND—on a weekly basis with the names of individuals who have been barred. If the police then look up a named individual on the PND, for example, for the purposes of a criminal investigation or police officer vetting, the police will be able to see whether that person is on one or the other of the DBS’s barred lists. An express power to share such information with the police is provided to the DBS by section 50A of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. This gives the DBS the power to provide any information it has to a chief officer of police for purposes specified in the Act, and it confirms that a chief officer of police includes Police Service Northern Ireland and Police Scotland. It does not make express reference to the non-territorial police forces and Crown dependency police forces. Following an extensive review, which included arrangements for accessing the PND, the DBS decided, on a precautionary basis, that there should be an express statutory ground for sharing its barred list data with these forces. It therefore took steps in March 2024 to prevent them accessing the barred status of individuals, pending resolution of the legislative position. This means that the non-territorial forces and the Crown dependency police forces cannot currently access an individual’s barred list status. We therefore intend, through this order, to make it clear that the definition of “chief officer of police” in section 50A also includes chief officers of the UK non-territorial and Crown dependency police forces. The non-territorial forces are the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police, the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Air Force Police, the Royal Military Police, the National Crime Agency and the tri-service serious crime unit. The Crown dependency forces are the States of Jersey Police force, the salaried police force of the island of Guernsey and the Isle of Man Constabulary. This will give the DBS the certainty it seeks to provide all forces with access to information that indicates someone is considered to pose a risk to children or vulnerable adults. To conclude, through the barring of individuals who are deemed to pose a risk to children or vulnerable adults, the disclosure and barring regime protects the most vulnerable in our society. The information on an individual’s barred list status is important to decisions made by police forces, whether related to police officer vetting or the prevention and investigation of crime, so that they can carry out their functions effectively and keep the public safe. This order will confirm beyond any doubt that the DBS has the express statutory power to share this information with UK non-territorial and Crown dependency police forces, putting them on the same legal footing as territorial forces. I commend the order to the Committee.

16:34:00

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I thank the Minister for their remarks on a topic about which there should be little disagreement. We must give the police the power to access the information that they need to safeguard the vulnerable. There is no reason why non-territorial and specialist police forces, as well as those in the Crown dependencies, should not also be able to do that. Removing the legal ambiguity described by the Minister is therefore something that we support without reservation. It will be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether they believe there are any outstanding issues requiring remedial action. The Government will have our full support in doing that, too. The Government have also said that they consulted affected forces and agencies, and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, while working with the DBS on the changes. We would welcome hearing about anything else that the Government might have learned in that process about data sharing in law enforcement, and ways to improve it. While we reflect on the safeguarding of vulnerable people and ways in which the authorities can allow things to fall through the cracks, it seems remiss not to acknowledge the deep and abject failings of the British state to protect its children from sexual exploitation, including by organised grooming gangs. I must therefore take the opportunity to urge the Minister to reconsider the Government’s position and commence a national inquiry into those horrific crimes. When state organisations fail us, we must correct those past failures. We can either do that by changing legislation, as we are supporting the Government to do today, or by understanding better what has gone wrong and making sure that it does not happen again. We urge the Government to do those things.

16:36:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I do not intend to say much, but it is important to have it on the record that the Liberal Democrats support the draft order, too. There should be no obstacle so great that we do not try to overcome it in protecting our children and vulnerable groups. This is an important step in that.

16:36:00

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for their contributions to the debate. I note that most of the individuals who are barred by DBS will be the subject of other information that is held on police systems. Therefore, if the shadow Minister requires any other additional information on the question of remedial action, which she mentioned, I should be grateful if she would write to me—I can provide her with any other information that she might require. The majority of those on the barred list are there because they already have a conviction for a serious sexual or violent offence, or because police information indicates that they present a risk. We therefore judge that the information gap and any associated safeguarding risk created by those forces’ current inability to access barred list data are likely to be limited, but that does not mean that we cannot act to close any gaps where they might occur. It is right to take action to close the gap in this instance, in the interests of public protection. The fact of someone being barred is important information in its own right, especially in a recruitment or vetting context. In some limited cases, that will be the only information held on a police national database or the police national computer to indicate that the person is not suitable to work with children or vulnerable adults. On data sharing in law enforcement, I note that sharing was taking place until March 2024, when the DBS stated that it wanted a firmer statutory basis on which the list sharing could take place. There was confidence in the operation of that system before then, and I hope that the draft order will ensure that that confidence persists. I again thank the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for their considered contributions. I hope that I have answered their questions fully and satisfactorily. As I set out, I believe the draft order is necessary to ensure that all police forces have access to information that will help them to perform the critical task of protecting the public. I commend the order to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

16:38:00

Committee rose.