---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

As the Bill has progressed through both Houses, few matters have been more subject to debate and examination than what has come to be known as the ““frequency test””. Similarly, many of our key stakeholders have engaged us in constructive discussions about our intentions for that. In the Bill, ““frequently”” is key to the definition of most forms of regulated activity. For the bar, the requirements to check and the requirements to be subject to monitoring to apply, the activity in most contexts has to be carried out frequently. Debate has focused on two critical issues: first, whether barred individuals should be able to undertake any work involving close contact with vulnerable groups, and secondly, how employers and individuals should interpret the term ““frequently””. The Government amendments cover both issues. For the application of the bar, the concern put to us is that even very brief or occasional contact with a barred person constitutes too great a risk. We have received several representations from stakeholders, including the NSPCC, about that. We have listened carefully to the debate and further considered our original position. Consequently, I am now moving amendments that would prevent people on a barred list from engaging in regulated activity and make it a criminal offence for an employer to engage them, even when the activity was brief or occasional. I hope that the House will support that, although, after dividing on amendment No. 201, I am not sure whether that will happen. However, that is the rationale behind amendments Nos. 29 and 38, the result of which would be that, when an individual was barred, he would be barred—full stop. That is the right way forward. It means that a barred volunteer would be prevented from helping out at a summer youth camp, even if it took place over only a day or two. However, we recognise that, in an emergency, it may be necessary for barred individuals to engage in a specific regulated activity and that to criminalise them for doing so would be counter-productive. Amendments Nos. 28 and 37 create a defence when a barred individual has to engage in regulated activity to prevent harm and when no one else is around who could engage in that specific activity. That is intended to cover only a limited range of situations, for example, when a doctor barred from working with children has to administer first aid to a child who has had an accident in the street. Amendments Nos. 31, 43, 48, 141, 145, 146, 149, 156 and 159 will make consequential changes on that modified approach to the application of the bar elsewhere in the Bill. I should also mention that amendment No. 42 means that the frequency of an activity will also be irrelevant in relation to the requirement on personnel suppliers to ensure that an individual whom they supply is subject to monitoring. Also in that territory, amendments Nos. 143 and 158 are intended to ensure, for example, that a barred parent can enter a school to attend their child’s parents’ evening or that an individual on the adults’ barred list can visit their sick mother in a care home. However, a barred person who carries out an activity in a school, for example, with the opportunity for contact with vulnerable groups will be prevented from doing so where the activity involves work, paid or unpaid, in connection with the purposes of the school. While a barred person will now be barred from regulated activity of any duration, we believe that the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring should still apply only when the amount of contact is above a certain threshold. Our amendments will clarify that threshold, taking on board our debates on the issue. Amendments Nos. 140, 142, 153, 157 and 169 set out the circumstances in which the Government intend that the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring should kick in. They ensure that activities that take place overnight will be regulated activity. They also define contact taking place on three or more days in a 30-day period as regulated activity. Those circumstances are referred to in amendment No. 169 as the ““period condition””. Similar revisions are made to the definition of controlled activity by amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 64. That means that employers will be required to check, and individuals will need to be subject to monitoring, if they are operating, for example, a conference crèche for children that lasts for three days or longer.