The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families (Ed Balls):
I am today publishing Sir Roger Singleton’s report on the
Vetting and Barring Scheme, "Drawing the Line", together with the
Government’s response. I am placing copies of both in the House
library.
Parliament legislated for the new scheme in the 2006
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act. The legislation received
overwhelming support, within Parliament and beyond. We recognised
then, as we do now, that it is essential to ensure that children
and vulnerable adults are properly safeguarded and that we do
everything we reasonably can to protect them from those who seek to
do them harm.
Our aim throughout has been to develop an approach which
is proportionate, balanced and effective, with the scheme operating
in a way which is neither burdensome nor bureaucratic, or
off-putting to potential volunteers in children’s settings, while
still meeting the concerns of parents.
I wrote on 14 September to the hon member for Huddersfield
(Mr Sheerman), chair of the Select Committee on Children, Schools
and Families; I have placed a copy of my letter in the House
library. My letter noted that some concerns had been expressed
about the interpretation of one particular aspect of the scheme;
that is the degree of contact with children which should trigger
the requirement to register with the Independent Safeguarding
Authority (ISA).
Deciding which situations should be covered and which
should be excluded is undoubtedly a difficult judgement. That is
why Baroness Morgan and I asked Sir Roger Singleton to check that
the Government has drawn the line in the right place on this issue
and to advise whether any adjustments should be made.
We are very grateful to Sir Roger for his very thorough
work on this over the last three months, during which he has
consulted a wide range of key individuals and organisations,
including relevant unions, inspectorates, voluntary organisations,
faith groups and local charities and clubs. His work was also
informed by a survey of some 1800 parents carried out by the
National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations.
The Government welcomes and accepts all 10 of Sir Roger’s
recommendations, which provide us with a strong basis on which to
take forward the next phase of the scheme’s implementation. Taken
together, we believe these recommendations strike the right balance
between the need to protect the vulnerable on the one hand, and the
importance of having a scheme which is proportionate and which is
based on some fundamental guiding principles, consistently applied,
on the other.
Sir Roger sets out two such fundamental guiding principles
in his report, and these underpin both his overall approach and all
his specific recommendations.
The first principle is that where parents exercise their
own judgement about who should care for their children that is
entirely a private matter in which the scheme should not interfere.
But where parents give that choice to an organisation, such as a
school, club or group and cease to be able to make a personal
decision about which adult provides the care or teaching etc, then
registration should be required, subject to how often the contact
takes place between the adults and the children.
The second principle is that the statutory requirements
laid down should go no further than is necessary for the safety and
protection of children, At the same time, it is also necessary, and
appropriate, to recognise that some organisations will choose to
require registration in situations of exceptional vulnerability,
whether or not the frequency test is met; for example, if the
person will be expected to provide intimate personal care for a
severely disabled child. This allows for a degree of local
flexibility and recognises everyone’s responsibility for
safeguarding.
The Government endorses both these principles, which are
already enshrined in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.
As Sir Roger notes in his report, public misunderstanding has led
to concerns that the scheme risks intruding inappropriately into
family life. It is not and it never will be this Government’s
policy that this should happen. We therefore strongly welcome the
first two recommendations in Sir Roger’s report, which make this
absolutely and unambiguously clear.
The Government also welcomes Sir Roger’s recommended
adjustments to the scheme’s requirements that follow from
application of these guiding principles to real life situations,
namely:
Changing the definition of "frequency" within the scheme
from once a month or more to once a week or more. This covers
regular repetitive activity;
Making a parallel change to the "intensive" definition,
from three or more days in a 30 day period, or overnight, to four
or more days in a 30 day period, or overnight. This covers the
circumstances where there is contact over a short space of time
which is not necessarily repeated;
Removing the requirement to register with the scheme if
regulated activity is carried out frequently in different settings
(such as schools) rather than taking place frequently in a single
setting;
Raising the minimum age at which young people should be
required to register from 16 to 18, where the regulated activity in
which they are engaged is organised as part of their studies – for
example a community service programme involving volunteering work
with children or vulnerable adults;
Allowing workers from overseas who bring their own groups
of children or vulnerable adults into this country to be exempt
from registering for up to 3 months for the work they do with the
children or vulnerable adults they have brought to the UK;
and
Regarding school exchange visits lasting less than 28
days, where the overseas family accepts the responsibility for the
selection of the host family, as private arrangements which are
exempt from the scheme.
We believe that these adjustments to the scheme are
proportionate and that they will be supported by parents, employers
and by those who work or volunteer with children and vulnerable
adults. The changes they will bring about are faithful to the two
fundamental principles of allowing parents to make their own
private arrangements without interference, and ensuring that
requirements set by the state do the minimum necessary to protect
children and the vulnerable.
Sir Roger’s report also invites the Government to
undertake further work in three areas:
To review the registration requirements for self-employed
private health practitioners. As the law currently stands, when a
patient attends one of these practitioners it will be a private
arrangement and therefore although the practitioners may register
with the scheme, there will be no requirement for them to do so.
However, the intimate nature of medical treatment may suggest that
these practitioners should be registered. The Department of Health
will lead on this review in collaboration with my Department and
the health care regulators;
To review whether there is a continuing need for the
separate class of work with different requirements, defined in the
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 as "controlled activity".
Controlled activity refers to certain tightly defined ancillary and
support activities, mainly in FE colleges, NHS settings and Local
Authorities. Far fewer people are potentially covered by
"controlled activity" than by "regulated activity". Sir Roger
invites the Government to take stock of whether controlled activity
is a necessary part of the scheme. My Department and the Department
of Health will take this review forward together, in collaboration
with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills;
To review the statutory requirements, and the Government’s
advice, for CRB disclosures on those who work with vulnerable
groups when they are already registered with the ISA. We had
already undertaken to carry out this work once the scheme had
settled in.
The Government will take forward these three reviews in
the New Year.
The changes recommended by Sir Roger will impact on the
numbers of people who will have to register. Initial estimates by
the Home Office indicate that Sir Roger's recommendations will lead
to approximately 2 million fewer individuals needing to register
with the Vetting and Barring Scheme. This suggests that the new
figure of those who will have to register with the Scheme lies in
the range of 9 to 9.5 million. The Government is working to
produce more detailed estimates and will include them in a revised
impact assessment to be published shortly.
Sir Roger rightly underlines in his report the need for
renewed efforts to communicate the details and safeguarding
benefits of the scheme. The Government will therefore commission
communications activity to help explain the scheme. We will also
act swiftly to dispel any myths and misunderstandings about the
scheme with updates to the briefing notes that are on our website
and which I have sent to hon Members. We will also reflect all of
Sir Roger’s recommendations in the full guidance on the scheme that
we intend to publish in the New Year.
Sir Roger Singleton's report can be found
here.
Return to previous page
