List 99 (Request 3)

Graeme MacLean made this Freedom of Information request to Department for Education

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Department for Education

I hear by request the following information from the department under HM Freedom Of Information Act 2000.

Can the department confirm that it has ever been known by the title of 'Department for Education and Skills' and if so may the department supply supply unto me:

A) Confirmation of the existence of 'List 99' in accordance to Section 142 of HM Education Act 2002.

B) If this list still exists, what actions or other denominators warrant placement on this list.

C) How many people are currently on this list.

D) What actions or other denominators was each person placed on the list for.

E) Were these persons, if any, placed on this register afforded a trial in a court of law before they were placed ion this list.

F) If persons on this list are made aware they have been placed on this list.

G) Is this list implemented, relivant, recognised or otherwise enforceable in Scotland ?

Thank you.

MacLean

Department for Education

Dear Mr MacLean

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence
received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you
are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2012/0051834

Thank you

Department for Education
Public Communications Unit
Tel: 0370 000 2288

Web: www.education.gov.uk

Twitter: www.twitter.com/educationgovuk

Facebook: www.facebook.com/educationgovuk

show quoted sections

Department for Education

1 Attachment

Dear Mr MacLean,
Thank you for your request for information in an email sent through
[1]www.whatdotheyknow.com , which was received on 30 July 2012. You
requested answers to eight questions about the former "List 99".  I have
dealt with your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the
Act”).
Under section 21 of the Act, the Department is not required to provide
information in response to a request if it is already reasonably
accessible to you. While the information you requested is all in the
public domain, and most of it is easily accessible on relevant websites,
it may be helpful to summarise main points below, with links to web-pages
where you can find more detail.
I confirm that this Department was called the Department for Education and
Skills from 2001 to 2007.

A) Confirm the existence of 'List 99' under Section 142 Education Act
2002?

Answer: All Acts of Parliament can be seen online at
[2]www.legislation.gov.uk . Section 142, and therefore List 99, was
broadly repealed in October 2009 under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups
Act 2006. It was replaced from that date by the children's barred list
maintained by the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). Persons who up
to October 2009 were on List 99 were considered by the ISA for transfer to
the ISA barred list. If the ISA decided to place them on its list, they
were then barred from 12 October 2009 (or any later date when a transfer
was completed) from entering any work that is regulated activity as
defined in the 2006 Act (regularly teaching or looking after children
etc.) as a result of being on the ISA list, instead of being on List 99.
Guidance on this was published at the time and is accessible through the
National Archives website, on the archived version of the then DCSF
webpages (but a copy is attached for ease; see p.17).

    

B) If this list still exists, what actions or other denominators warrant
placement on it?

Answer: Not applicable. No-one is added to list 99 any more - see answer
to A above.

    

C) How many people are currently on this list?

Answer: Generally not applicable, for reasons at answer to A above.
Numbers on the ISA children's barred list are published in annual reports
at [3]www.isa.homeoffice.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=428 . The only exception
is that a very few people are still on List 99 where consideration of
their transfer to the ISA list is being queried, in the courts or by an
internal review.

    

D) For what actions or other denominators was each person placed on the
list?

Answer: before List 99 was repealed, people were placed on it when the
Secretary of State decided they were unsuitable to work with children in
an education setting, either because of a conviction for one of a list of
specified offences, or following a referral by an employer. The ISA
transferred them to its list from October 2009 onwards if it decided that
they posed an ongoing risk of harm to children.

    

E) Were any persons placed on this list first afforded a trial in a court
of law?

Answer: Yes, in most cases, people were placed on List 99 only after /
because of a conviction in a court of law. Some were listed following an
employer referral; but following a listing decision by the Secretary of
State, there were various rights to make representations as to why the
person should not be on the list; to appeal to a Tribunal against a
decision; and to seek a review of a listing. There are similar rights now
in relation to the ISA barred list. Anyone who is the subject of a listing
decision can obtain further details from the ISA about rights now in
relation to the ISA lists.

    

F) Are persons on List 99 made aware they have been placed on this list?

Answer: the Government took reasonable steps to inform people when they
were placed on the list, and ISA now acts similarly. If people have
recently moved without leaving any forwarding address, and/ or have
changed the name that they are known by, it is possible in a few cases
that they might not receive the letter informing them, but even then, they
will generally be aware of the relevant conviction or employer referral
that led to the barring.

    

G) Is the list implemented, relevant, recognised or otherwise enforceable
in Scotland?

Answer: Yes, the Scottish Government recognises the ISA barred list. The
Protection of Vulnerable Groups (PVG) Act (Scotland) bars a person from
working closely with children in Scotland if the person is on the ISA
barred list under the law of England and Wales. Similar arrangements
existed previously in relation to List 99. See PVG scheme details at:
[4]www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/pvg/pvg_index.html  .

 

I have noted from [5]www.WhatDoTheyKnow.com that you also sent a copy of
this request to the ISA on 30 July, and received a reply to a similar
previous request from HO on 30 July.

If you have any queries about this reply, you can contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number below in any future communications.
If you were to be unhappy with the way your request has been handled, you
could make a complaint to the Department by writing to me within two
calendar months of the date of this letter.  Any such complaint would be
considered by an independent review panel, who were not involved in the
original consideration of your request. If you were not content with the
outcome of any such complaint to the Department, you could then contact
the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Yours sincerely,

Matthew Tagney
Child Safeguarding Division
[6][email address].uk  Tel 020 7783 8253.
[7]www.education.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2012/0051834.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
2. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
3. http://www.isa.homeoffice.gov.uk/Default...
4. http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/pvg/...
5. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
6. mailto:[email address]
7. http://www.education.gov.uk/

Dear Department of Education.

 

H) Can the service provide a list of all offences relevant to warrant one being referred to and/or placed on the barred list.

I) Can the service can confirm if an employee can refer there employer for placement on the barred list and if not why not.

Department for Education

Dear Mr McLean

Thank you for your recent email. A reply will be sent to you as soon as possible. For information, the departmental standard for correspondence received is that responses should be sent within 20 working days as you are requesting information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2012/0053687

Thank you

Department for Education
Public Communications Unit
Tel: 0370 000 2288

Web: www.education.gov.uk

Twitter: www.twitter.com/educationgovuk

Facebook: www.facebook.com/educationgovuk

show quoted sections

Department for Education

Dear Mr MacLean,
Thank you for your request for information in an
email sent through [1]www.whatdotheyknow.com, which was received on 3
August 2012.  This request has been dealt with under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).   We have interpreted your request as
relating to List 99 when it was in operation and have addressed your
questions as outlined in your enquiry.

 H) Can the service provide a list of all offences relevant to warrant one
being referred to and/or placed on the barred list. 

The statutory list of offences for which a conviction or caution would
lead to automatic inclusion on List 99 comprised, broadly speaking, sexual
offences committed against children under the age of 16. In addition, the
Secretary of State could include anyone on the list whom he deemed
unsuitable to work with children; and conviction of a particular criminal
offence may (or may not) have contributed to a decision that the
individual was unsuitable. A caution or conviction for a particular
criminal offence may also have contributed to a decision that the
individual had engaged in misconduct which would lead to inclusion on the
list.

Schedule 2 to the Education (Prohibition from Teaching or Working with
Children) Regulations 2003 S.I. 2003/1184 contains the list of offences,
and the conditions attached to those offences, which lead to automatic
inclusion on the List. The Regulations say that auto-inclusion as a result
of some of these offences gives rise to the right to make
representations. Schedule 2 gives a list of offences that gave rise to
auto-inclusion (some with the right to make representations, some without)
but any offence could be taken into account by the Secretary of State. 
The list of offences is in the public domain and may be found at:
[2]www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1184/schedule/2/made

As highlighted by Mr Tagney in his recent reply to you, from October 2009
under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, List 99 was replaced by
the children's barred list which is maintained by the Independent
Safeguarding Authority (ISA), an independent organisation. Any inquiry
regarding a list of offences relevant to their barring system would have
to be directed to the ISA.

I) Can the service can confirm if an employee can refer there employer for
placement on the barred list and if not why not. 

Under the Regulations, a “relevant employer” had to refer to the Secretary
of State any person whom he had dismissed (or would have dismissed had the
person not resigned) because of his/her unsuitability, misconduct or poor
health. A “relevant employer” meant:

(a)     a local authority,

(b)     a person exercising a function relating to the provision of
education on behalf of a local authority,

(c)     the proprietor of a school, or

(d)     the governing body of a further education institution.

The Secretary of State would then consider whether to include that person
in List 99. The reason for this was to ensure that people who worked with
children and who were found by their employer to be unsuitable for this
role - to the extent that they were dismissed by their employer - would
have the facts of their cases examined by the Secretary of State to see if
they should be included on the List. This was to prevent people who were
clearly unsuitable, but who had not committed a criminal offence, being
able to continue to work with children. However, there would be nothing
preventing an employee referring his/her employer to his/her employer’s
superiors,  for example a teacher referring a head teacher to the
governing body and then on to the local authority. The employer’s
superiors would then have been able to refer that employer to the
Secretary of State if they dismissed them.

I hope this addresses your questions satisfactorily.  However, if you are
dissatisfied with the way your request has been handled, you should write
to me within two calendar months of the date of this reply. This would
then be considered by an independent panel; not involved in the original
consideration of your request.  If you were not content with the outcome
of this consideration, you would then be able to contact the Information
Commissioner’s Office.
Yours sincerely,

John Shields
Child Safeguarding Division
[3]www.education.gov.uk

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2012/0053687.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
2. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/...
3. http://www.education.gov.uk/

Dear Department for Education.

Thank you. It seems the list not very secure in regards of human rights issues, there is a possibility that innocent people could or are be placed on it. I say this as there is mathematically a possibility that an innocent person can be placed on this list. The checks and balances are not proper nor sufficient if one is honest and keeping true to the judicial method of the established law courts that one would universally expect and it seems not to bias in regards the rights of the mentally ill however I personally worry about the fact that people can be placed on it without a relevant conviction in a court of law, without heabus corpus or just because the accused 'sounds suspicious' in the eyes of cooperate agencies or an elected politician. Especially since judgments of a criminal nature are to be left out of the remit of politicians such as the home sectary and in the hands of HM Justices.

While more than likely if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and acts like a duck its going to be a duck there is a possibility it might not be. This is a scientific fact.

There is the possibility it could be used for political aims. Not saying that it is just that it could be. I not list 99 is gone and the new barred list is in place, yet I wonder on list 99 how many outspoken Irish Catholics were placed on this during the troubles ? Or if today, an outspoken Muslim activist that is not involved in terrorism could be placed on it.

That’s why I think this list should be held more accountable to jury trials, before magistrates and the scrutiny of a defence solicitor, because ultimately it could in theory lead to a breach of the universal declaration of human rights if it has not already.

In short there could be as is suspected with VISOR to be some genuinely innocent people besmirched and treated unjustly.

That’s my thoughts, but I appreciate the open and frank delivery of information.

I consider this request fulfilled.

Thank you.

MacLean