---

Independent Safeguarding Authority

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that. All of us as Members of Parliament have had issues brought to us by our constituents. However, one major issue is not the offence but disclosure and ensuring that people understand at the time that, if they accept a caution, it may affect their future. Education and information for people at that stage is crucial to the whole process. I agree that the new way of dealing with offences and the changes have implications for people, but although it is proportionate—a major offence should not be dealt with in that way—they need information, so that they know about the effect that that will have on them. There are many people whom we believe will be ideal for the profession, and the last thing that we should do is set up a host of hurdles for those who are willing, particularly younger people who are looking at the caring professions. The economic climate has changed, and a lot of younger people are now looking to the public sector for their future vocation. For many people, it is a vocation to be a midwife or a nurse or to work in a school. Therefore, there will be increased demand, but let me reiterate that many of those people will be relatively low paid. There appears to be no mechanism to take account of that—it might be a head teacher who applies, as was mentioned earlier, or a dinner lady—and we need to give that issue some attention. My hon. Friends have said, quite rightly, that ensuring that the employer pays the initial fee for joining the register would take away many of those obstacles. It would make people feel that, if they enter a profession, the commitment from the employer is there. Having checked with local trusts in my constituency, I accept that many employers will be prepared to do that, but there is no mandatory fixture for them to say that they will pay. I believe that good employers will pay that fee, but that might not happen in some organisations. We need everybody to be certain that the issue will be dealt with in that way. My hon. Friends raised the issue of volunteering. We are greatly relieved that volunteers will not only be dealt with proportionately through the changes already made, but that they will not have to foot the bill for any of the work that they do. Many of us know of local organisations where people dedicate their time and energy to making lives better for our constituents. Nevertheless, we should consider one issue: it is good that volunteers will not be asked to pay, but that is based on the principle that 11 million people in work will contribute in some way, either through the employer or personally, to allow the system to function properly. Once again, is it fair to allow the dinner lady to subsidise volunteering? Pleased as we are that volunteers will not pay, is it right and proportionate that those on lower incomes will contribute? Those are just some of the issues. I completely support the principle and the notion behind the authority, as does the impressive coalition of good, sound organisations that have come together to consider the matters in detail and provide a sense of proportionality about what is needed to protect our professions. None of us wants the authority to fail or to be ineffective—it flows from the Bichard inquiry, which was set up after the Soham murders. If we could have prevented those murders by having a more effective register, we would have wanted to do so. Therefore, it is in a spirit of support and of wanting the authority to function that we appeal to the Minister this morning to look at these matters in detail and to respond as positively as she can.