I thank the Minister for a well-informed introduction. Noble Lords will be aware that when the Bill was discussed my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton made clear our view that protecting the most vulnerable in our society is of the utmost importance. For that it was essential that the Government should ensure that training and support are provided.
In declaring an interest in adult social care, I should say that my staff often work with vulnerable people. While I accept that CRB, POVA and POCA checks are asked for, will the Minister look at ensuring that the costs of these inquiries do not continue to increase as rapidly as they have recently as this will lead to less scrupulous employers taking short cuts. It is also important in terms of the impact on individuals who want to take up voluntary roles.
I want to touch on a point raised by my noble friend Lady Morris concerning the significance of a caution. People often accept cautions without understanding the full seriousness of the implications. Can the Minister tell us what action the Government have taken to ensure that the police are improving public understanding of cautions? To ensure clarity on this issue, in the case of crimes committed over 10 years ago, is the person who committed the crime then able to work with vulnerable children and adults? Further, if a crime was committed a long time ago but the conviction made more recently, does that allow the convicted person to work?
Again mainly for clarity, given that the Minister referred to automatic barring for foreign workers who may pose a threat, are we now linked into the European criminal database, Schengen Information System II? Without this system, how can we stop dangerous offenders who come from outside the country working with vulnerable groups? I ask this given that one in 10 carers working with children in the UK is from overseas, and that only three of the 26 countries concerned actually pass on any information to the UK about child protection registers. I am sure that the Minister will accept that this is a dreadful position and that the Government were wrong to reject amendments that could have assisted in providing protection in these vulnerable areas.
I wish to seek a further point of clarification. Social care staff barred from working with children and vulnerable adults may be unable to exercise their right to a fair appeal hearing when the system changes next year. David Pearl, a senior judge, has said that individuals would not be able to challenge a judgment of the Independent Safeguarding Authority if they considered the sanctions to be too harsh. The honourable Judge Pearl said that: "““This provision appears to be contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to a fair trial””."
What does the Minister have to say in response to the fears raised by this issue?
Finally, can the Minister elaborate further on why regulation 7 will mean that independent schools have to refer to the ISA rather than to the Secretary of State in cases where a member of staff appears to be unsuitable to work with children?
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Prescribed Criteria and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2008
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Verma
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 December 2008.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Prescribed Criteria and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2008.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
706 c39-40GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-05-23 23:11:01 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_515342
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_515342
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_515342