Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 23 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill (HL).


Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

I also welcome many of the Government amendments in this group. I want to address amendment No. 3, which it is important to support. Surely we can all agree that this scheme is going to work only if there is excellent communication to inform employers, workers, parents and other people about the new system. The Bill and all its details are difficult enough for us in the Chamber to grasp. It will be especially difficult for those who have to work with it. I therefore believe that there must be absolute commitment to a good communications system. I envisage, through amendment No. 3, a communications strategy from the IBB, which will be implemented at various local levels. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that he envisages local groups, organisations and local authorities participating in disseminating the information. Has the Under-Secretary considered a kite-marking scheme, which would integrate the requirements of the law and best practice in communication with some of the other processes that must accompany the Bill? The vetting and barring scheme is only one tool in keeping children and vulnerable adults safe. There needs to be a culture of vigilance and training for staff, good child protection policies, a good system of checking references and so on. It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary considered a kite-marking scheme for all the different organisations that might be involved in communication and implementing best practice on all the important matters that will make the measure work and achieve what we want when we look back at the sequence of events, which was greatly informed by the Bichard inquiry. Focusing on necessary aspects such as communication and the culture of vigilance will be additional to including some protection for overseas workers. If there are strong processes and everyone is looking out to ensure that employees have the training that they claim and references have been adequately checked, that would provide more comfort about the overseas workers’ position. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) but appreciate that it is difficult to devise concrete proposals. We would all therefore like the Under-Secretary to deal with the position of overseas workers. There is no quick fix, but genuine rewards, such as a kite-marking scheme, for implementing the processes on the ground would be useful. The hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned the quality of data throughout our debates. She has been persistent on that important point and I hope that the Under-Secretary will address that issue. I want to ask a question that the hon. Gentleman did not answer earlier. How can we communicate with private foster carers when we do not know who they are because there is no compulsory registration scheme? I would be grateful for an answer.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1264-5 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Disclosure of information Conditions of employment Criminal records Devolution Fees and charges Electronic surveillance Foster care Governing bodies Information Internet Local government NHS Northern Ireland Recruitment Older people Mental capacity Pornography Monitoring Staff Powers of attorney Offences against children Scotland Registration Vetting Schools Vulnerable adults Sexual offences Regulation Safety Wales Voluntary work Independent Safeguarding Authority
Legislation
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk