---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

My Lords, as I said earlier, the provisions in the Bill need to be complemented by other positive measures to promote good employment and safeguarding practice. We often find examples of good practice in the devolved parts of the United Kingdom. When we discussed this before, I raised the matter of the kitemarking accreditation system in Northern Ireland and asked the Minister whether his department could consider introducing something similar here. Much has changed in the Bill since it left us, and I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance further to consider that suggestion. It may not need to go in the Bill but it would be helpful to know whether the Government intend seriously to consider such a move, once the new Act has bedded down, as a natural development of good practice. The big advantage of this scheme, which is in the process of being rolled out, is that it will benchmark non-statutory organisations, which currently do not have a duty to vet and report, against a number of high standards. In fact, why do we not pilot such a thing in one region of England in parallel with the rollout of the measures in the Bill? On another cross-border matter, I am particularly glad about Amendments Nos. 179 and 188, as, in the past, there has been considerable concern about whether appropriate information has been passed from police forces in Scotland to those in England when abusers have moved residence. I hope that that situation will be ironed out when the Scottish system is in place and the IBB is in contact with it.