An MHK is angry over a difference in safeguarding rules that mean a vulnerable adult’s death in custody may not lead to a serious case review.

Lawrie Hooper hit out at regulations for the new Safeguarding Board.

While they stipulate that a serious case management review must take place in the event of a child’s death in custody, it might not be required for the death of a vulnerable adult.

Mr Hooper voiced his anger in the House of Keys on Tuesday.

He tabled a question asking when it was decided that ’a serious case review would not be required in all circumstances where vulnerable adults die whilst in the custody of the constabulary or an institution’, or when detained under the Mental Health Act or under the care of the Department of Health and Social Care.

Mr Hooper (LibVannin, Ramsey) demanded: ’Why was the policy decision made that there is an absolute requirement for a safeguarding review to be undertaken in the case where a child dies in custody but not where a vulnerable adult dies in custody?’

Policy and Reform Minister Mr Thomas said there were already mechanisms in place for a review of the circumstances when any person died in custody so there was no need for the regulations to require a review by the Safeguarding Board in every case.

For the chairman of the Safeguarding Board to determine that a serious case management review was required, when it involved a vulnerable adult, they would have to be sure the issue involved more than one agency and ’importantly that there is learning to be gained’ by having a review, the minister said.

He added, however, there was nothing in the safeguarding regulations that precluded a serious case management review being undertaken.

The minister said the idea was to allow professionals to use their judgement. There was a Safeguarding Board with an independent chairman ’for a reason’, he said.

But Mr Hooper complained: ’I feel like I am banging my head against a wall here.’

He said his point was that professionals were being allowed discretion over whether a serious case review was required in the case of a vulnerable adult - who by definition needed care and protection - but that there was no such discretion in the case of a child’s death in custody and a review would have to take place.

’What is the reason for the difference?’ he asked.

Mr Thomas said the ’whole point’ of having the new version of Safeguarding Board - which replaced separate boards for children and vulnerable adults - was ’to have these professionals making these sorts of judgements’.

He added: ’I hope the member will accept there is a profound difference between the very rare cases of children passing away and adults.’

But the minister also pledged that should the need to amend regulations become apparent further down the line, he would be open to that idea.

The 2018 Safeguarding Act established the new board, on a statutory footing, and required it to develop rules and procedures for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and for safeguarding and protecting vulnerable adults.