---

Independent Safeguarding Authority

I would like to add my own comments on the tragic death of David Taylor. He was not only a great member of our party, but a great socialist and a personal friend, whom I shall miss greatly. Leaving that sadness to one side, may I say how much I enjoy serving under your chairmanship again, Mr. Olner, and wish you and everyone else a happy new year? It will obviously be an interesting year politically, and it is a novel experience to make the first speech of the new year in this Chamber. I welcome the opportunity to initiate the debate and would like to make several important points that I believe need to be highlighted and acted upon. What I will say is intended to reflect and support the campaign mounted by the TUC and Unison on the issue—hon. Members might be aware that I am a joint co-ordinator of the Unison parliamentary group. I acknowledge that since I requested the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister has accepted in full the recommendations made by Sir Roger Singleton. However, it is necessary to note that the scope of the Singleton report was specific. The review covered only those who volunteer with children, but of course the current definition of frequency applies to both children and vulnerable adults, whom, as I am sure that the Minister will agree, should be equally protected. I must place on record that the trade unions and other professional bodies involved in protecting vulnerable adults and children strongly endorse the principle of public protection. The terrible events at Soham and other cases in recent years have demonstrated that case to be unquestionable. However, several issues raised by the creation of the Independent Safeguarding Authority and its impact on working people need careful consideration. The Minister will be fully aware, as we all are, that the public debate has understandably been dominated by high-profile media coverage—perhaps rather populist in tone—of the impact of the ISA scheme on voluntary groups such as scouts and local football clubs. Although those groups play a valuable—or even essential role—and are vital to society and local communities, much less coverage has been given to the impact of the scheme on the caring professions and public services, and the many thousands who entered their vocations in those professions and services to protect and assist the vulnerable and children, especially. It is that specific dimension of the debate that I wish to address today. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the public will be best protected by a system that is risk-based and proportionate, and that addressing such issues intelligently will have a positive impact. I wish to highlight substantive concerns relating to ISA that trade unions and other professional bodies have raised. Several concerns have been brought to my attention by the TUC coalition, which has been working to develop a constructive response to the ISA scheme. I understand that a productive meeting took place with my hon. Friend the Minister early in November, which was attended by, among others, Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison. Three key issues were raised at the meeting, the first of which was the cost of registration and the impact that it might have on low-paid or part-time staff, particularly women. The second concern was about the duplication of registration for a number of individuals who are already on a professional register, such as nurses, midwives, doctors, social workers and teachers, all of whom are required to maintain a professional registration as a condition of their employment. The final issue raised was the lack of an appeals process under the current legislation. Although individuals can appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal, as things stand that can be done only on a point of law or fact. The tribunal is not allowed to hear evidence on appropriateness, which can be challenged only by judicial review. I shall address each of those points in turn. In order to appoint someone to a post that allows them to work with or have access to vulnerable adults or children, an employer, organisation or individual must first ensure that they meet the knowledge requirements and possess the skills for the post. People are also subject to a criminal record check for all relevant employment posts. Unison and the TUC are calling for the costs of registration to be borne by the employer as part of its recruitment costs. The Home Office has indicated that that is, in any case, a one-off cost, as monitoring will then be ongoing for all employees. That being the case, it is reasonable and appropriate that employers fund the associated registration costs. If an employer is securing the services of an individual, surely ensuring their safety and suitability to be in that working environment should be included within its recruitment costs. All the trade union organisations have expressed concern about registration fees' impact on individuals. In particular, Unison has questioned why a school meals cook or catering assistant working a few shifts a week should pay the same registration fee as a head teacher. That is surely unfair and inequitable by any standards. It is too early to assess the future impact on services, but we could, for example, face the spectacle of an individual having to pay to register so that they may serve school children their meals, but not facing such requirements in a local supermarket canteen. In those circumstances, an individual might choose to work in a supermarket and not apply to work in schools, to the detriment of the school meals service and contrary to the individual's initial preferences. Robust arguments have been put to me by the TUC coalition and Unison about the impact on those who are already on a professional register yet will have to register with both ISA and their professional regulator. With the current proposals, under the definition of "harm", the professional regulators could spend more time referring cases to ISA than investigating them and taking professional decisions on whether or not a person should remain on the register. I understand that several regulators have expressed similar concerns about the impact that the ISA process will have on their fitness-to-practise processes. To illustrate that point, I shall refer to a relevant case, which has been provided to me by Unison, of a nurse working in a mental health trust who, in restraining a service user, used a control and restraint technique that caused bruising. The service user complained and stated that the use of the technique breached their human rights and caused them harm. They also made a written complaint to the regulator, the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Having investigated and referred the case to a fitness-to-practise hearing, the panel concluded that although the use of control was appropriate, the nurse did not use the correct technique as their training was not current. The panel therefore decided to issue the nurse with a one-year caution and recommended updating their control and restraint training. As the examples and definition of harm issued by ISA are so broad, however, that case would now also have to be referred to the authority. ISA would then consider all the information and might write to the person indicating its intention to place them on the banned list. The nurse would then have eight weeks to submit a statement to put forward their case. Their only opportunity to challenge appropriateness at that stage would be via judicial review. However, if the allegation was more serious, a judicial review at that stage would prevent ISA from concluding its decision, thus placing the individual concerned on the banned list. In seeking to find a viable solution to the potential dilemma, Unison and the TUC have suggested a slight change to the appeal process that would enable the Care Standards Tribunal to hear all the evidence, including that relating to appropriateness. That would not cause delay to the ISA decision-making process, but ensure that any person whose livelihood would be taken away from them would have the opportunity to seek redress and challenge and examine all the evidence. Indeed, Unison and the TUC have also suggested that any person who was on a professional register should have their case heard and concluded by the relevant professional regulator first. Each of the regulators would jointly agree with ISA a protocol for referring relevant cases. That would avoid the current duplication, enable the case to be heard and all the material facts to be considered and taken into account, and allow decisions to be made and conclusions to be reached more quickly and efficiently. The Royal College of Nursing, in particular, has added its own emphasis to the need for a right to a fair hearing for individuals. Currently, appeals and hearings can be only paper-based and, as I said earlier, made only on a point of fact or law. The RCN believes that that breaches the European convention on human rights. It also emphasises the unnecessary duplication of registration that I referred to earlier, and is concerned that there is a lack of clarity surrounding how ISA will work alongside professional regulators such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The RCN believes that that could lead to conflicting decisions by the two bodies. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the TUC coalition and all its constituent organisations support the principle of public protection. However, several requirements proposed by the legislation might have a negative impact if regulators become weighed down with a 20-page referral form and are unable to meet their statutory obligation of public protection. The public can best be protected by a risk-based and proportionate system, and addressing these issues will have a positive impact and measurably improve statutory requirements and the safeguarding system which, in other respects, are both necessary and appropriate. I look forward to hearing the comments of other hon. Members and what I hope will be a positive response from my hon. Friend the Minister.