I thank the Minister for introducing the order. It is a wide-ranging instrument that amends a number of Acts and has a bearing on very many people in different capacities who come into contact with children and vulnerable adults. We welcome measures that make life safer for vulnerable groups, but we seek reassurances that the order will not restrict opportunities for the vulnerable to experience fulfilling and varied lives. If regulations are too stringent, they may deter those who have much to contribute but who hesitate to come forward because of bureaucracy and other deterrents to which the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, referred. Regulations may also incur administration, which takes much needed time and funding away from front-line services.
We have a further general concern about lists, databases and the storage of information, all of which are of great benefit to us all in our everyday lives but can bring great harm if they are inaccurate; if the data are incorrectly analysed or are lost or corrupted, or if they are accessed by unauthorised bodies for use in unauthorised ways. The order amends the criteria for automatic barring which has no right of appeal. Will the Minister assure us that there will be sufficient opportunities for people to correct false or misleading information on their files? What safeguards are in place to ensure that this information will not be used for miscellaneous purposes?
We note that the consultation elicited 326 responses and very high levels of agreement, which gives us confidence that the order will be useful. We also welcome the definition of "relevant child care premises" to exclude, ""the home of a parent of at least one child to whom the childcare or child minding is provided"."
It is common sense and for the general good that parents can continue to help each other out in a personal and informal way without needing to be formally registered, and common sense to exempt people in their own homes. It excludes, for example, cleaners employed in the home.
We support the assurance that no fee will be payable by those in unpaid voluntary work—volunteers need every support; they are much needed and they make an invaluable contribution to working with vulnerable people—and that the fee for the Independent Safeguarding Authority scheme applications has been set at £28, which sounds modest enough not to be a barrier. We hope that that will be matched by speed and efficiency in processing applications, although we note that any person checking an individual will be able to do so by means of a quick and free online check and that there will be safety measures to preserve confidentiality. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that confidentiality, too, has been fully assessed.
The size of the workforce affected by the vetting and barring scheme is estimated to be some 11 million strong. This is a very large proportion of the workforce. Will the Minister say how guidance will be communicated to such a large number of people? How can the Government be certain that everyone involved in these amended regulated activities fully understands the implications of the changes, particularly during the transition phase?
We have concerns about the impact of additional regulation and administration on small businesses and the effect on workplace opportunities for young people. The Government are promoting work experience for all young people, not least those in apprenticeships, and it will be challenging to find sufficient places to meet demand. What assurances can the Minister give that these regulations will not be an additional disincentive to hard-pressed employers to take on young people?
My final query relates to the proposal to replace the Protection of Children Act list, the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list, List 99 and the court-imposed disqualification order regime with two separate but aligned lists. If this reduces bureaucracy, it will be welcome, but will the Minister say what the benefits are of this change when set against the costs of reconfiguring and transferring data?
With those comments and questions, we support the order and look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Regulated Activity, Miscellaneous and Transitional Provisions and Commencement No. 5) Order 2009
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Garden of Frognal
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 8 July 2009.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Regulated Activity, Miscellaneous and Transitional Provisions and Commencement No. 5) Order 2009.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c236-7GC Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:27:20 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_576067
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_576067
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_576067