Paved with good intentions?

Here is a thought provoking article about the new ISA ('Independent Safeguarding Authority') ... you know the people who want to look after our children 'properly':

Our aim is to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults.

Substantially I think Pete is right. I am worried and find some serious ambiguity here and my brief wandering round their website hasn't helped me much as I don't have time at the moment to wade through pages of pdfs. (I admit too that even if I did I might not be up to understanding the legal stuff and its full implications):

'Unsuitable':
-says who?
- on what authority?
- using what criteria?
- on what evidence?
- assessed by who?
- with what safeguards?
- once deemed 'unsuitable' is that a permanent state of 'uncleanness'?
- or once deemed 'suitable' is that a permanent state regardless of future conduct?
- how much is it costing (who)?

I think that the phrase 'working with' might need some defining too:
- for financial gain?
- for an established charity or voluntary association?
- just regular and sustained service of children not biologically or legaly bound to the adult concerned? In which case, how regular, and how sustained?

And what about 'children and vulnerable adults'?
Is this the state taking care of 'it's own house' (i.e. 'state' schools, 'state' homes etc.) [... I mean, it has centrally taken on educating many many children, so it should at least do it well and not employ murders as school janitors type thing. Now it is working at that, and if you want to be part of that whole thing, then this is the deal.] or is this the state taking care of everyone's house?

Please show me how it is that I have no reason at all to be worried!