Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

The noble Baroness has made a number of good points; indeed she could hardly do otherwise since she spent a good part of her time reading out the note I circulated earlier to the Committee. In no way do I dissociate myself from that note. We are concerned that bars in relation to individuals should be proportionate and not excessive in the settings they cover, which I know has been a concern of the noble Baroness in earlier debates. We should act proportionately and accept that we are dealing with human beings who deserve to be treated properly and with respect. For that reason, we have not done as she suggests and deleted Clause 18, saying simply that all of these activities should fall within the scope of regulated activity. We believe that there are activities covered by this clause which should not be regulated activities preventing all individuals who are placed on the children’s barred list engaging in them. It may be possible for some to be employed safely in these posts because they do not entail any close involvement with children or vulnerable adults. Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Laming, gave us examples of where that might apply. We could multiply those instances. For example, an individual may be on the barred list because she lost her temper and hit a child while teaching in a school, but there is no evidence that she would present a risk of harm to children if she was, say, a receptionist in a dental surgery, which would be covered as a controlled activity. A reasonable person assessing the situation would agree that there is a distinction between those two types of activity which, in fairness and justice, is one that deserves to be made in the legislation. It is not right simply to treat all these activities simply as regulated activities. However, for that distinction to be made and for there to be a category of employment that is not regulated and therefore barred to those on the list, we need appropriate safeguards. The passage repeated from paragraph 26 of my note reflects our discussions so far with employers on what might be the appropriate safeguards. I should stress here that everything depends on the context. It may not be that all the safeguards set out in paragraph 26 would be appropriate. It is a list of the types of additional controls or supervisory arrangements that might well apply. We do not say that they need all be used in each individual case. The noble Baroness asked whether this would be worthwhile for employers. It is for employers to make that judgment. If an employer decides because of the nature of the potential risk that an employee might pose that the scale of the supervisory arrangements that it would be necessary to put in place would be so large that it would be impractical for the individual to perform their job, then the employer would conclude that they should not employ that person. But our view is that those decisions should be made fairly by employers. In the case of this controlled activity which does not involve frequent contact with children in the manner of regulated activity, these decisions should be left to employers with appropriate safeguards. On that basis, we believe that it is right for Clause 18 to stand part of the Bill, but we will continue to consult with stakeholders on what are the appropriate arrangements to recommend in guidance for those employing individuals who need to be controlled.