Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

The introduction of the new vetting and barring scheme marks a significant step forward in adult protection. Our intention is for the new scheme to apply as widely as possible across the vulnerable adults’ workforce. It will go beyond health and social care to cover a variety of other settings. However, it is important that the new scheme offers a broad degree of flexibility. In the health and social care sectors, where we know that the incidence of abuse is greatest, there will be a requirement to check the bar status of all those undertaking regulated activity, but in other areas it may not be appropriate to impose a blanket requirement on employers or providers to vet everyone undertaking such regulated activities. Therefore we have allowed for a number of exemptions under the new scheme. Amendment No. 103, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, deals with the prison and probation services which fall into this category. The exemption in relation to those services means that they will be afforded the flexibility to specify and undertake vetting requirements relevant and proportionate to their unique services. They will determine in guidance which staff it will be appropriate to check through the central vetting scheme. To put this into context, a prison officer working with juveniles poses a different level of risk to someone working in administration or in the offices of an adult prison. It is absolutely clear that the prison officer working with juvenile cases, as suggested by the noble Baroness, will be checked. As to Amendment No. 105 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, it is important that the scope of mandatory checks is proportionate to the potential risks presented. This is the case for providers of recreational, social and sporting activities, which are often provided by community groups such as Churches. We need to strike a careful balance between protecting vulnerable people and imposing a regulatory burden which would mean that services were no longer provided to those who need them. Leisure activities and educational courses designed for older and disabled people are a vital part of their inclusion in our communities. The isolation which might result from a lack of such services may increase the risk of abuse. I turn to Amendment No. 102. The Bill will bring about a cultural change in relation to adult protection. Many areas will be brought within a central vetting system for the first time. I note the concerns expressed on behalf of the Parkinson’s Disease Society that complementary and alternative medicine, which has been left without standard vetting procedures for many years, will now be included. This means that individuals practising complementary or alternative therapy will be able to be checked under the same vetting procedures as those working within the NHS. So those people who wish to use alternative therapies can check whether or not the people providing such therapies have been checked. It might even be a selling point for the providers of therapies; they could advertise that they have been checked. Where a complementary or alternative therapist is contracting directly with the NHS or other regulated independent healthcare providers, he or she will be placed under the same requirements as those working in the sectors, and the check will be mandatory. However, we must remember that mandatory checks can be imposed only where it is proportionate. Complementary and alternative therapies encompass a vast array of services. Adults accessing complementary and alternative therapy under private arrangements have the right to manage their own risks and take responsibility for the decisions they make. We cannot stipulate otherwise. I can assure the Committee that in the sectors where the exemption applies, vulnerable adults will not be unprotected—far from it. As I said, for the first time ever, those working with vulnerable adults in a variety of settings across the workforce will be subject to the same vetting and barring procedures. We will develop guidance for employers and providers, emphasising that checks should be made through good practice rather than legal force. Again, information and communication will be key in building this good practice. I ask noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.