Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I have given notice of my intention to oppose Clause 18 standing part of the Bill in order to probe the Government’s intentions. ““Controlled activity relating to children”” appears to be a sub-category used to cover further education and general health settings. Positions within those settings would be covered as regulated activity only if the contact with the children was carried out frequently, and all the rest would be controlled. There needs to be greater clarity about what constitutes frequent contact, and we have had some debates about that already in the context of Part 1 of Schedule 3, which is the threshold for certain activities in paragraph 2(1) of that part being regulated. In the bundle of notes with which the Minister provided us a few days ago, he refers, in regulation-making power 2(i), to guidance. Paragraph 23 tells us:"““The guidance will clarify for the purpose of employers the scope of controlled activity as outlined in the Bill so they are clear on the extent to which their employees will be covered by the definition. It will give examples of job roles that will be covered as well as more information on the meaning of concepts in the Bill such as frequent access to specific records concerning children and vulnerable adults””." In paragraph 24 we are told:"““Engaging a person in controlled activity brings with it a certain set of responsibilities as set out in the Bill and the guidance will provide a useful opportunity to remind potential employers of their duties in managing controlled activity””." The duties seem to very similar to those relating to regulated activity. In paragraph 25 we are told:"““The inclusion of this guidance-making power is also therefore to reflect the fact that barred people may present some risk to children and vulnerable adults if they do such work without extra safeguards being put in place. By outlining certain conditions which must be in place for a barred person to engage in controlled activity this guidance will help employers manage this risk appropriately””." I guess that employers will find it too much trouble to employ people who are on the barred list in controlled activities, so they may as well be included in these jobs under regulated activity. I rather doubt if employers will want to employ them at all in view of the fact that over the page we are told that these extra safeguards entail:"““Ensuring there is extra supervision of the barred person . . . Keeping the barred person away from areas specifically targeted at children and vulnerable adults . . . Introducing a longer probation period for the barred person . . . Drafting objectives for the job in conjunction with the individual that have been ‘risk-assessed’ to reflect their barred status . . . Monitoring access to specified records about children or vulnerable adults . . . Building into job contracts: boundaries of personal conduct””," and so on. These are all appropriate if you have concerns about someone working with children. It is in the light of this that the NSPCC has approached me and suggested that Clause 18, which introduces the concept of ““controlled activities””, should be deleted from the Bill and that everyone who works with children in any capacity should be regulated and treated as such by all the provisions of the Bill. That would be the effect if we removed Clause 18.