---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 60:"Page 3, line 12, at end insert—" ““(4) The Secretary of State must annually review the list of regulated activity and consider all appropriate additions.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. I am pleased to see that Clause 5(3) states that the Secretary of State may make an order to amend the meaning of,"““regulated activity relating to children””—" and,"““regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults””." However, Amendment No. 60 adds a new subsection requiring an annual review of the categories of regulated activity. This review would ensure that all new positions have been considered for inclusion as a regulated activity. Some of these areas of activity change rapidly and it is important that we should provide an annual review as a further safety net to guarantee that the list of regulated activities is kept up to date in this ever-changing employment world. Amendment No. 63 ensures that the schedule covers advice and guidance provided over the internet, over the phone, in writing or through any other means. A number of services provide guidance and counselling for young people through the internet and mobile phone technologies. These new technologies allow many vulnerable young people to communicate their problems in a way that makes them feel less vulnerable and more in control than in a face-to-face disclosure. That is the thinking behind many telephone helpline services offered by reputable organisations such as Childline; there is also the NSPCC’s ““There4me”” website and telephone service. However, I am keen to ensure that anyone who is providing advice and guidance for young people through modern media and communications methods and who is placed in a position of trust in that way are properly checked by the IBB, hence my Amendment No. 63. Amendment No. 64 inserts in page 42, line 14, the words,"““any activity in which there is access to substantial amounts of children’s data in regards to paragraphs (a) to (e)””." That would include those who have access to children’s data as a regulated activity. Following fairly recent legislation—the Children Act—more and more children’s data are being collected by various organisations. Therefore, it is essential that the Bill should cover people with access to such data, which would enable them to find out how vulnerable a child is—perhaps the child is being dealt with by the social or probation services or has certain health problems. It is not too difficult for somebody who has knowledge of IT systems and access to such data to find out facts about a child that make that child particularly vulnerable, which could be exploited by someone with nefarious objectives. We just do not want potential abusers to gain the sort of access to children’s private data, probably including their home addresses, that would put them in a better position to coerce and manipulate those children, perhaps to groom them for sexual activity or something of the kind. That is the reason behind Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.