Draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Vaz.
The regulations were laid before the House on 15 January. As most of the Committee will know, Flood Re is a reinsurance scheme that provides for accessible and affordable flood insurance for eligible households. This joint Government and industry initiative was launched in 2016, and it was designed to improve the availability and affordability of UK household flood insurance. For clarity, Flood Re Ltd is the name of the company established to administer the scheme.
Since its launch, Flood Re has provided for flood insurance cover to more than 500,000 households across the UK that are at risk of flooding. Before Flood Re, only 9% of policyholders with a prior flood claim could get flood insurance quotes from two or more insurers, and none could get quotes from five or more insurers. In 2023-24, 99% of households at high risk of flooding could obtain quotes from 15 or more insurers.
The Flood Re scheme has evolved since its launch back in 2016. When levy 1 was last reviewed in 2022, the regulations were changed to allow for Build Back Better to be included in the scheme, allowing for up to £10,000 to be offered as part of a post-flood claim to install flood-resilient measures at the property, helping to reduce the risk and impact of future flooding.
Flood Re has taken several steps to encourage take-up of its Build Back Better initiative, including running a series of workshops and developing a toolkit for insurers. I am pleased that insurers representing some 77% of the UK household insurance market are now committed to offering Build Back Better to their customers, whether or not they have policies ceded to Flood Re. All Members will know that this is something about which I care deeply, and I want all insurers to offer it before too long. I pressed home this point when I met industry representatives at my insurance roundtable last year. However, consumer influence is far greater than mine, so I encourage everyone to ask whether Build Back Better is included when considering or renewing their household insurance policy.
Of course, the Flood Re scheme is a joint initiative between Government and the insurance industry, and we are going further than the previous Administration to invest in flood defences. As part of this Government’s plan for change, a record £2.65 billion has been committed to better protect 52,000 properties by March 2026. Maintenance of existing flood defences will also be prioritised, ensuring that a further 14,500 properties will have their expected level of protection maintained or restored. This means that a total of 66,500 properties will benefit from this funding, which will help to secure jobs, deliver growth and protect against economic damage. We will focus on fixing the foundations of the nation’s flood defences and giving communities confidence that flood defences will protect them.
We are reprioritising £108 million of investment towards repairing and restoring critical assets, including £36 million this year to target repairs at assets damaged by storms last winter and by ongoing flood events. A further £72 million will go towards continuing those repairs, and ensuring that assets are as resilient and reliable as possible, and that they operate as expected during flood events. We are also investing in new defences by making £140 million available to allow 31 schemes to progress to construction, ensuring that nearby communities are protected as soon as possible.
Returning to the specifics of this statutory instrument, Flood Re Ltd regularly and continuously monitors the risk in the market it is supporting to ensure it is in a position to continue enabling affordable flood insurance for those who need it. To do so, Flood Re Ltd is required to purchase reinsurance on a three-year basis. Taking into account changes in risk, claim profiles and the expected increase in the number of household flood insurance policies ceded to it, Flood Re Ltd has projected that its liabilities could increase from £2.1 billion to at least £3.2 billion over the next three years. That is the level of cover it needs to purchase.
In addition, the global reinsurance market has become more challenging since Flood Re Ltd last negotiated its three-year reinsurance cover. Events around the world have affected the risk appetite of those providing reinsurance, meaning that the market Flood Re Ltd can purchase from is both more volatile and more expensive.
All these factors combined have resulted in Flood Re Ltd proposing this increase to levy 1 so that it can afford to purchase its required reinsurance and continue to provide the access to affordable insurance that we all recognise the need for. I reassure colleagues that this proposal was well scrutinised before reaching the House for approval, not only by policy and financial officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but also by colleagues in His Majesty’s Treasury. This scrutiny has been informed by the Government Actuary’s Department, which has advised that the increase to levy 1 is necessary to ensure the scheme’s viability. It will also minimise the risk of Flood Re needing to implement levy 2 on the industry.
I recognise that any increased insurance costs are unwelcome at any time. The cost of increasing levy 1 is spread across all insurance companies offering UK household insurance, proportionally based on their market share. Although this is an increase to the current annual levy 1, hon. Members will all recognise that it remains well below the £180 million a year that was in place when Flood Re was established. We can be confident that Flood Re Ltd has done its due diligence in seeking this increase, and we can be reassured that it would not be asked for if it were not needed. By using existing capital, Flood Re Ltd is keeping the increase to 18%, while its reinsurance costs are expected to more than double. The reduction from £140 million a year to £135 million a year three years ago also demonstrates Flood Re Ltd’s commitment to its responsibility for keeping the levy as low as possible.
In summary, this statutory instrument allows for a necessary change to the Flood Re scheme by amending regulation 8(2)(a) of the Flood Reinsurance (Scheme Funding and Administration) Regulations 2015 to increase levy 1 placed on UK household insurance providers, from £135 million a year to £160 million a year, from 1 April 2025. This change will allow Flood Re Ltd to manage its changing risk profile, and to continue to operate the scheme effectively for those who benefit from it—notably, those households that would otherwise find it challenging to secure flood insurance—while also ensuring that the total levy is no higher than needed. Failure to increase levy 1 from April 2025 risks undermining Flood Re’s ability to provide flood cover to UK households.
I emphasise that this statutory instrument is necessary to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of the Flood Re scheme and its ability to provide affordable flood cover for the increasing number of homes in the UK that are at risk of flooding. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a delight and a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the Minister for laying these important regulations.
I am pleased to say that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are happy to support this measure, which will help to ensure that Flood Re can continue to operate effectively. As the Minister articulated, the Flood Re scheme is vital. Since its inception in 2016 under the Conservatives, many people have relied on the scheme. We have sadly seen increasingly frequent extreme weather events in recent months and years, with the number of named storms continually going up, so it is important that people have coverage. When those extreme weather events cause flooding in the United Kingdom, they have brought horror and devastating consequences to many people’s livelihoods and finances.
The Minister and I have great mutual respect. We have talked a lot about the severe financial implications when floods hit, and about the human implications—the mental health impacts, the stress and anxiety of people who worry about being flooded and then the trauma when they are. The Flood Re scheme is vital to mitigating, to some degree, the things people go through. Enabling the effective use of Flood Re to support those affected by flooding will not only mean that people receive the financial support they need, but reduce harm to their mental wellbeing, because they know that some support is there when they need it most.
With that, and given that not having an effective Flood Re scheme may result in high-risk households being left without flood insurance, it is a clear and common-sense decision to support this statutory instrument. The increase in the levy is therefore a pragmatic decision, which I note takes into account inflation. According to the Government’s assessment, the cost of the increase in the levy, which will most likely be passed on to consumers through the premiums, is estimated to be about £1.60 per policy.
Although I welcome reaffirming the importance of Flood Re, I hope to see more ambition from the Government about the scheme’s future expansion—I have talked to the Minister about that before. There is potential to expand the scheme, and we have talked a lot about whether businesses can come under its umbrella. What discussions has the Minister had with businesses about the potential merits of expanding the scheme to include them? Equally, there are people who live above their business, so a composite home and business could be affected by flooding. Again, in the spirit of cross-party consensus, I hope the Government will move forward to help more people when floods hit.
Furthermore, the eligibility for Flood Re states that a home must have been built before 1 January 2009. Although I appreciate that regulations have since been strengthened to consider flood resilience, the Minister will be aware that properties continue to be built on at-risk floodplains. In the light of the central, top-down Government targets that are coming for house building, which may mean that more houses are built in at-risk areas, will the Minister ensure that homes built after 2009 have the security of flood insurance? Will she consider expanding the Flood Re scheme to include homes built after 1 January 2009? Labour Back Benchers have also called for that.
Helping people who are traumatised by flooding is above party politics. I have been calling for the expansion of the Flood Re scheme for some time. I hope that the Minister, her colleagues and her officials in DEFRA can look at its merits and talk to the Treasury about that too.
More broadly, as well as insurance, prevention is key. The last Government protected more than 600,000 properties from flooding between 2010 and 2024, and published a policy statement to make England more resilient, with 40 actions and five ambitious policies stemming from that. Furthermore, in March 2020, it was announced that the flooding budget would be doubled to £5.2 billion over the next six-year spending period to deploy more flood schemes. The Minister has confirmed that the Government will bring forward a flood resilience strategy. When can we expect it to be published, and will it include specific targets?
The Government have also launched the floods resilience taskforce. At the last count, we believe it has met only a couple of times recently—if it has met more than that, I stand to be corrected—despite the increase in drastic and devastating flooding. We want it to meet more frequently. Can the Minister assure us that it will meet regularly, and sometimes in advance as these frequent events come down the pipeline? We know flooding will happen in the winter months, so can the taskforce meet more regularly? What has the taskforce done to tackle flooding, especially after the storms that have recently hit the UK? How will it protect residents, farmers and businesses from the next set of storms that we know will come?
For properties that are sadly flooded, support is required. The last Government introduced the frequently flooded allowance, which was a ringfenced fund of £100 million to protect areas that had been affected by repeated flooding. The Government have yet to confirm whether that funding will continue and whether it will be ringfenced. Can the Minister enlighten us on the Government’s plans?
The support available to handle the aftermath of flooding, such as the Flood Re scheme that we are talking about today, has also included discretionary funding, such as the Bellwin scheme. Again, the Minister and I have had exchanges across the Dispatch Box on this issue. When such events happen, can she assure us that there will be cross-Government talks to make sure these support schemes can be activated on a pragmatic, compassionate and case-by-case basis?
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that engagement must happen with councils as well? North Yorkshire has suffered very badly from floods recently, but the engagement with North Yorkshire council has often been lacking, from not only this Government but previous Administrations. That is largely based on cost, but that engagement is key.
Dr Hudson
I totally agree. There needs to be joined-up thinking at all levels of government, including local authorities. There also needs to be engagement with local emergency resilience groups, many of which are volunteers. When storms and floods hit, can people get the information they need? DEFRA could work with the Environment Agency, local authorities and emergency resilience groups to help people when they are flooded. There needs to be a co-ordinated effort that considers things such as planning, insurance, flood prevention, support and response. I hope that my questions are constructive in helping people when they experience dreadful flooding events. We support helping Flood Re to do its excellent work.
The Chair
Before I call anyone else, I remind hon. Members that the regulations increase the levy from £135 million a year to £160 million a year. Could Members focus their comments on the topic of the regulations?
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thoroughly endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Epping Forest and the questions he raised. I will make three quick remarks, the first of which is to embellish his point about whether the figure in the regulations takes sufficient account of anticipated development. The Government have committed themselves to significant housing growth in the coming years. With the Environment Agency’s projections extending the area of flood risk to new locations—it is inevitable that they will extend further over time, as all Members of Parliament will be aware—to what extent does the figure in the regulations take fully into account projected development growth in flood risk areas?
Secondly, what action can be taken when a planning application is made in a flood risk area where the Environment Agency has warned against development and the local authority grants planning permission in spite of that advice? In those circumstances, will properties be protected under the Flood Re scheme, or will they be penalised because the advice of the Environment Agency was ignored, including by the local authority that provided planning permission, placing a burden on the public purse?
Finally, on my first point about the development that the Government are planning and the areas to which the Environment Agency is extending flood risk zones in its 30-year projections, to what extent is that burden taken into account in the calculations? It is not just the developments that are happening, but the extent of the flood risk areas, which will inevitably grow over time.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I will make some brief remarks, which I hope the Minister can respond to. My constituency of North Norfolk suffers heavily from flooding. Many of my constituents have benefited from the Flood Re scheme, so I wholeheartedly welcome this measure, which will increase the funds available to it. I hope that the Minister, in her closing remarks, will update us on her confidence that risk-reflective pricing will be delivered by the time Flood Re exits the market and her plans to ensure that that is the case over subsequent years.
The key thing that drove me to speak in the debate is an omission from the regulations that relates to those affected by coastal erosion. I will be very brief. The Flood Re scheme is providing many tangible benefits to those affected by flooding in North Norfolk, but the residents of villages such as Happisburgh, Trimingham and Overstrand have no similar protections from the threat of coastal erosion. I hope the Minister might consider bringing forward provisions to set up a coastal reinsurance scheme, to ensure that those affected by coastal erosion have insurance protection from the impact of erosion on their property. It is a problem affecting only a few thousand households, so it is far from a huge undertaking for the Government and industry, but for all those it impacts it causes daily worry and fear for the future.
If the Minister cannot make such a commitment to the Committee today, which I would understand, I would be delighted if she would be willing to meet me and residents in my area who are facing the challenges of coastal erosion, to discuss what we can do to ensure they are well protected. I would be delighted to welcome her to one of those villages to see the impact of erosion at first hand.
I am grateful to you, Ms Vaz, for allowing me to make these comments, and I look forward to hearing a positive and reassuring response for the Minister.
Emma Hardy
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. As has been mentioned, flooding affects so many of us. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, was right to highlight its mental health impact; we are united on that issue. It is no surprise that there has been lots of interest in the regulations, and I will do my best to cover all the points that have been raised. Not all of them were directly related to the SI, but those that were not were on no less important issues.
The shadow Minister mentioned the desire for eligibility for the Flood Re scheme to be extended. There are no plans at this time to make changes to the scheme; however, we keep all policies, including those related to flood insurance, under review, and hon. Members’ observations in this debate—and, to be honest, at DEFRA oral questions and in many other debates—are invaluable in helping to inform those considerations.
If any changes were made to the scheme in future, they would have to be able to secure appropriate reinsurance, which would be challenging in the current market. Indeed, the reason that the regulations are necessary is that it has been challenging to find affordable reinsurance for the industry. I just flag that none of the options are cost free; all of them come with a cost, and all of them would require being able to find the reinsurance in the market at the time. It might be worth putting this into the wider context in which we see the world, too—I will not go too far down the rabbit hole—and flagging that insurance is purchased globally and influenced by global events. The levy we are discussing would undoubtedly have to be increased if we were looking at any kind of increase to the scheme.
The shadow Minister also mentioned businesses. Business insurance operates very differently from household insurance; it is often bespoke, based on the individual nature of the business. Extending the scope of Flood Re to include businesses would fundamentally change the scope and the intention of the scheme, which was established to support householders who are unable to source affordable flood insurance. Any change to include any part of the commercial sector would necessarily create a new levy on all businesses, which is unlikely to be welcomed. Thinking through the implications of what the shadow Minister said, obviously, businesses are very different in nature, and if we were to create a similar scheme, we would be raising a cost on every business, in the same way that Flood Re works at the moment. There are already a number of products offered to businesses by industry, such as the British Insurance Brokers’ Association commercial property scheme, which is there to help small and medium-sized enterprises.
The shadow Minister also suggested including buildings built after 2009, but doing so would contradict planning policy. The national planning policy framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas of highest risk, including floodplains. Where development is necessary, and where there are no suitable sites available in areas with a lower risk of flooding, local planning authorities and developers should that ensure development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, and safe for its users and for the development’s lifetime. We are committed to building more high-quality, well-designed and sustainable homes, and creating places that increase climate change resilience and promote nature recovery.
Planning was also mentioned. I am wary that we are straying into another Department’s responsibility, but I will do my best to address the issues as they relate to flooding. We are committed to building new homes and promoting nature recovery. In July 2024, the Government issued a consultation, inviting views on proposed reforms to the national planning policy framework to achieve sustainable growth, including views on the potential improvements to planning policy for flood risk. If developments need to be in locations where there is a risk of flooding as alternative sites are not available, they should be flood resilient and resistant, and safe for their lifetime, and really importantly they should not increase flood risk overall.
The food resilience taskforce was mentioned. It has met as an entire body twice. The idea is that everybody on the taskforce meets—it has about 30 members—and then we commission sub-groups to deep dive into some areas. Those groups then report back to the main taskforce. For example, on nature-based solutions, which the shadow Minister and I both care about, a sub-group of the original taskforce went away and looked at that in detail. It will then report back to the main taskforce.
The main taskforce is like a large convening body that includes National Farmers Union representatives, a Cabinet Office Minister and representation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—all the bodies are represented—and we then go away and look at things in detail. As a result of the most recent taskforce meeting, a smaller group is going to do a deep dive into flood warnings. A smaller group from the taskforce—not all 30 members, but the relevant ones—will go away and do that piece of work, which then feeds back to the taskforce and reports back to everyone.
It is envisaged that the big group will meet just a few times a year, and in between smaller groups will do deep dives into some of the particular issues. Rather than getting 30 people together every week, it feels more sensible to get those people together to look at the bigger picture and then have smaller groups doing deep-dive work into individual issues. That is the structure of the taskforce; I hope that reassures the shadow Minister as to how we intend it to work.
On frequent flooding, the flood funding formula review is looking at how it all works. The shadow Minister is right to highlight that the previous Government had the flooding formula and then the frequently flooded add-on. They then had another add-on for nature-based solutions. My vision—of course, this is subject to consultation, so Members should feed in their views—is that the flooding formula should incorporate those people at risk of frequent flooding, as well as nature-based solutions. Rather than having a formula to which we are almost sticking things to try to make it work, the formula itself should encompass many of the different issues. That is going to be out for consultation and, as I say, I am keen to hear feedback through that consultation about how the formula will work.
The formula was originally based only on the number of properties protected, which meant that it seemed to disadvantage people from rural communities because they were not as adequately represented because, by their very nature, rural communities have fewer properties. It is really important that we look at how that works. The shadow Minister mentioned the importance of the frequently flooded aspect and, yes, that must be part of the formula—not an add-on but an integral part of it.
I completely agree that it is important to get the information that people need. Each of us as leaders in our local communities can have a role in this. It is not just about flood alerts. The other thing that I am currently playing with in my mind is my feeling that people do not know what to do when they get a flood alert. It is not just about getting a flood alert; do people know what they need to do in that situation? I am thinking about how we can work across the House not only to encourage all our constituents to sign up for flood alerts but to say what they need to do when they get one. There are simple things—for example, so much damage could have been prevented in the last period of flooding if people had moved their cars. We want people to take those kinds of actions. How do we get that behaviour change so that when a flood alert comes people say, “Right, I’ve got to go and do this”? I am really keen to work with colleagues across the House on that.
Reinsurance and the increasing risk is also incredibly important. After this measure Flood Re will be buying three years’ worth of reinsurance, so for the next three years there will be enough reinsurance to cover all the properties needed. At the end of that three years, we might be here again talking about the flood insurance costs going up and having to rebuy it.
Coastal erosion is not part of Flood Re, because Flood Re is based on flooded properties, but I absolutely hear the hon. Member for North Norfolk’s point about the devastation caused by coastal erosion. My constituency is in Hull, but I am very near to the east coast and can see exactly what is happening there, where the roads and caravans are disappearing. I have nothing but sympathy and support for the people impacted. I know that East Riding of Yorkshire council has been working on this issue, and the hon. Gentleman’s local council will be working with the Environment Agency to come up with a coastal change plan. I encourage him to talk to the area director and the council and get them to explain their plan to deal with coastal erosion. DEFRA helps to fund that work, but it is not strictly part of the Flood Re scheme.
I hope I have covered most of the points raised, so let me turn back to the statutory instrument. I thank all Members for their support for the SI, which will ensure that Flood Re is able to purchase all the necessary reinsurance at the best possible price, so that it can continue to be dynamic in meeting the needs of those the scheme is intended to support. If the increase was not supported—although it is, so thanks everyone— Flood Re would have to look at other sources of income. It is good that it is not in that position. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Draft Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025
Keir Mather (Selby) (Lab)
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.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
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.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
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.
Keir Mather
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.