Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

After that marathon, I rise to oppose that Clause 40 stand part of the Bill. The clause provides for how Northern Ireland is brought under the Bill. It is important that new vetting and barring arrangements are taken forward on a UK-wide basis. They need both to reflect local circumstances and to knit together to form a seamless protection across each jurisdiction. Northern Ireland has tended to lead vetting and barring arrangements in the UK and there has been much investment from government, NGOs and the Children’s Commissioner’s office in system improvements—in particular, investment in good practice arrangements and through the unique accreditation arrangements contained in Article 18 of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (Northern Ireland) Order, which previously I have held up as a good example. Accreditation has strengths in relation to the types of organisations found in the faith, voluntary and sporting sectors. For example, a church will contain positions that are regulated, such as a Sunday school teacher, and those that are not—notwithstanding that children move across all those boundaries. Accreditation works to ensure that good standards are in place across the whole of the organisation, while requiring vetting and reporting on positions that are regulated. There is an emphasis in the Bill on regulation and sanctions. One of its major weaknesses lies in the assumption that vetting in itself will protect children and in regards to the need for vetting to be part of a good practice approach and positive measures. Accreditation arrangements, if added to the Bill, may significantly address that issue. I should therefore like to ask the Minister three questions. Why, if the Government are talking about UK consistency in vetting and barring systems, did they not consider adopting the concept of accreditation from Northern Ireland? Secondly, could accreditation be used as a positive method to system-improve vetting that takes it beyond simple checking of staff? It could be dovetailed with regulated and controlled positions. Thirdly, while certain posts, particularly in sporting and Church groups and in the voluntary sector will become regulated under Schedule 2(2), many activities in the organisations will not. So does the Minister accept that children move across those boundaries and have contact with adults in a wide range of ways? Accreditation would ensure that the whole organisation worked to make certain that children were protected. It is unfortunate that, because of the suspension of devolution and the limited provisions for Northern Ireland law-making at Parliament, a significant piece of social welfare legislation is being taken forward by a negative resolution clause. While I am concerned about making legislation this way, I would be happy to withdraw my objection to Clause 40 if the Minister could assure me on four issues: first, that the negative resolution clause will allow sufficient flexibility to facilitate the dovetailing and customisation of the main provisions in the Bill in Northern Ireland to suit local circumstances and issues; secondly, that there will be full consultation and involvement of interested parties and stakeholders in the development of the Order in Council and regulations in Northern Ireland; thirdly, that the arrangements will incorporate the unique accreditation provisions in the protection of children and vulnerable adults order which promote good employment practice and child-protection standards in non-regulated organisations; and, fourthly, that the IBB will ensure that it has a local Northern Ireland presence in case work and Northern Ireland expertise in barring decisions that relate to that jurisdiction. I wonder whether the Minister can help me on those matters.