---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

The amendments seek to ensure that where individuals were not subject to vetting procedures as they existed prior to the commencement of this legislation—for example, an individual who was not checked against List 99, POCA or POVA, and/or did not obtain a CRB disclosure—they will have to go through the vetting process. As drafted, the offence in Clause 8 for individuals who engage in a regulated activity with the permission of a regulated activity provider without being subject to monitoring will apply only where an individual applies for a new job after the commencement of these provisions. Similarly, the offence that applies to regulated activity providers who knowingly permit an individual to engage in regulated activity without being subject to monitoring, and the offences to apply to regulated activity providers and appropriate officers who fail to make an appropriate check before permitting an individual to engage in regulated activity, will apply only where the individual applies for a new job after the commencement of the provisions. Offences will not be committed if an individual is already in employment before the commencement of this clause until such time as the Secretary of State specifies by order. We entirely understand the noble Baroness’s concern that individuals who have not been through vetting procedures who are already in employment when the legislation is commenced may pose a risk to children or vulnerable adults. However, we believe that this concern is properly addressed in the new IBB scheme. First, by requiring applicants to new jobs to be subject to monitoring, the majority of the workforce will in fact be covered within three years, and an estimated 88 per cent within five years, based on new entrants, movers and re-checks alone. Secondly, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to require individuals who are already in employment in regulated activity to be subject to monitoring through Clause 8(5) and (8). Clause 45 allows us to apply that power at different times for different sectors of the workforce. It is my right honourable friend’s intention to use these powers to ensure progressive coverage of the children and vulnerable adult workforce. In doing so, we will need to balance carefully the need to protect vulnerable groups with the need to ensure effective implementation by avoiding a ““big bang”” approach which would impose unmanageable, immediate burdens on employers, including costs—a concern raised earlier by the noble Baroness. We will therefore seek to phase in the new obligations to check the status of existing employees. I hope the Committee will think that that is a responsible way to proceed in the circumstances.