---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, too, welcome and support the main thrust of this important Bill but, like others who have already spoken, I do so with some caution. We must remember that the three lists currently in operation, in addition to that of the Criminal Record Bureau, were self-evidently designed to address the different needs of different services covering a different and wider range of employees and for different purposes. It is of course right that, as far as possible, those lists should be combined to make the information more accessible, but I suggest that that will be no small task, not least because across the country decisions are being made almost daily which will have to be properly recorded in those lists and properly tested. The lists could not have been combined during the years of paper-based systems, but now that we have the new technology available to us, it is possible. Nevertheless, I urge the Government to take the time to ensure that the new system is both reliable and efficient. Experience suggests that national computerised systems are often not without their problems. The system will have the potential to affect people’s lives, for good or ill, in very important ways, so getting it right is essential. Speed should not be at the expense of efficiency and reliability. Detail is of such importance in these matters. Like other noble Lords, I am concerned about the necessity to have two separate lists: one for children and the other for vulnerable adults. If there must be two lists, can the Minister assure the House that there will be efficient links between the two? Otherwise, as has already been referred to, someone could be barred from working with under-18 year-olds but could be appointed to work with over-18 year-olds, some with severe disabilities. Will the Minister also assure the House that these lists will in due course cover the whole of the United Kingdom, and will he also address the points that have already been made about those who come to work in this country from other EU countries? I understand in some ways what the Minister meant when he twice referred to a shared responsibility in his opening address, but I take this opportunity to urge the Government to ensure that there is no doubt in future that the responsibility for the employment and the performance of staff rests squarely with the employing organisation. I say that because only the employer can assess the suitability of a candidate for any post. The employer must be accountable for the quality of service and the safety of its users. This, of course, applies to those who do not appear on any list, but there should be no ambiguity about where the responsibility lies for the safety and well-being of vulnerable people. Unless a person is barred, the appointment will very often be made on the basis of an assessment of risk. Of course I understand that there will be those who believe that once a person has a criminal record, they are ruled out from being appointed to any job in which they may come into contact with vulnerable people. This, in my view, is both unrealistic and unacceptable—unrealistic because there is no huge untapped reservoir of potential recruits for often low-paid and very demanding posts, and unacceptable because potential employees have rights. These decisions must be seen to be reasonable at all times. I will not detain your Lordships long at this time of the evening, but let me just mention a few examples from my experience. The form of application that we used had a section for convictions which made it clear to everyone that any and every conviction had to be recorded, and that failure to record a conviction might jeopardise the applicant’s position. Yet, time after time, we received information from police checks which the applicant had not recorded. I recall an applicant leaving the section blank. When his criminal record was checked, it was found that he had a conviction for possessing cannabis. When challenged about this, he replied, ““Oh, that. It happened while I was at university, but I have long put that behind me””. Another criminal check on an applicant revealed that the person had a conviction for taking a vehicle and driving it away with no licence or insurance. When challenged, he said, ““Oh, but that’s a motoring offence. It’s not relevant to this task””. Another applicant had recorded an offence of assault, but the check revealed a conviction for grievous bodily harm—an altogether more serious matter. On further inquiry, however, it emerged that two youths had got into a fight, blood was shed by one, and the more serious offence was therefore the conviction. Another applicant recorded a conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse, but further inquiry revealed that, when he was 18, he got his younger girlfriend pregnant. Would barring apply to all these circumstances? I think not, bearing in mind the range of different tasks that are being considered and the different degrees of risk that will have to be taken into account in each circumstance. That is why I think it is essential that we in no way weaken our commitment to ensuring that the employer is responsible for ensuring that the staff who are employed are suitable to the task, and that the employer takes into account the nature of the post that is being advertised, the degree of contact with vulnerable people, the level of supervision, and the record of the applicant since the conviction. It is for the employer to take the decision and to justify that decision as it applies both to vulnerable people and to the rights of the applicant. It is important to protect vulnerable people, but it is also important that we do not undermine the enthusiasm of those who genuinely wish to help others. That, of course, includes volunteers. I also urge the Minister to emphasise the importance of ensuring that those organisations that supply agency staff must also be held accountable for the quality of staff whom they employ. Agency staff may move from post to post, almost on a daily basis, to provide cover for those who are absent for any reason. The supplying organisation, which of course charges a fee for its services, must be accountable for the staff on its books. In that context, I invite the Minister to outline the appeal mechanism, not least because we must recognise that in this work staff are often exposed to the danger of malicious allegations which can have a devastating impact on them and their families. I am sure that I need not dwell on that, but it adds emphasis to ensuring that the legislation must have proper safeguards which are built in for everyone, openness and transparency. In supporting the Bill, I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that there will be transparency, fairness and reasonableness for all concerned.