Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I oppose the question that Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill because I believe it is excessive. It criminalises a regulated activity provider who uses someone who has not been subject to monitoring. The crucial difference between this clause and Clause 9 is that there is no requirement for the regulated activity provider to know, or have reason to believe, that the person could be any risk to children or vulnerable people. I do not mean to imply that the omissions set out in the clause are not serious; they certainly are. If carried out by employees, they may very well merit severe disciplinary action and even dismissal, and rightly so. However, I believe that the creation of offences targeted at those who make mistakes is excessive and unnecessary. Unfortunately, it is likely that mistakes will be made, especially while the new system beds down. Confusion could easily arise over the different checks that apply to those seeking to work, for example, in various types of therapy. Under paragraph 2(e) in Part 1 of Schedule 3, any form of therapy provided to a child is a regulated activity. However, under Clause 14(1)(a), ““complementary or alternative therapy”” is listed as one of the areas of exemption from the need to make a monitoring check for vulnerable adults. We will come to my Amendment No. 102 on that later. Meanwhile, ““therapy”” is listed as being a controlled activity relating both to children and adults, requiring guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State on engaging people in that activity, as covered by Clauses 18 to 20. It is easy to see how there will be scope for some confusion, especially in the early days, about what exactly is regulated, who is barred and who must be monitored. Proper training and guidance will be far more important than the threat of criminalisation in order to avoid contravening these measures. I do not believe that these offences and penalties will constitute a deterrent. It would be far better to develop a positive culture of care and safeguarding through the accreditation of whole organisations rather than having a set of criminal offences where it will often be difficult to pin the blame on any one particular person, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in a debate on an earlier amendment. Further, the fines referred to in the Bill would not be significant for a large organisation. Rather it would be the slur on its professionalism that would hurt more than the penalty. While I do not condone people being slipshod and committing offences of omission in relation to all these duties, I favour the carrot rather than the stick: training and whole-organisation cultures of safeguarding rather than criminal offences. Disciplinary action and sanctions of that kind would be far more appropriate in this case.