---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6. I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. These amendments relate to offences in the Bill. In the first place, they seek to ensure that offences are clear and apply to the right people. To that end, they clarify who is defined as a regulated activity provider. Amendments Nos. 4 to 6 ensure that responsibility for making checks before individuals engage in regulated activity will now rest with the person or body ultimately responsible for that activity. We have removed Clause 17, which provided for offences to be committed by employees, and replaced it with a new clause, inserted by Amendments Nos. 72 and 73, providing that those who are acting or appear to be acting on behalf a regulated activity provider or personnel supplier will commit an offence if they are at fault. We recognise that while the regulated activity provider has overall responsibility for making checks and employing appropriate staff, the offence may be the fault of an employee or someone else acting on behalf of the regulated activity provider, and they should also be responsible in these situations. For example, an employee of a sports centre who fails to check on an individual being employed to teach children’s tennis lessons, because they did not know it was a requirement to check, would not commit an offence. The owner of the sports centre, or if it is a company the sports centre itself, would have committed the offence. However, if the centre manager asked the employee in question to carry out the check and they deliberately did not do so, the individual would commit an offence under the Bill. We have also made important amendments to the requirement to check. Clause 15, as it left this House, provided an easement from the requirement to check where an individual works in more than one NHS position at the same time; for example, a permanent NHS employee who also undertakes temporary NHS work on their day off. We now agree that relevant independent healthcare providers providing NHS services under contract with the NHS should also benefit from this provision, hence Amendments Nos. 65 to 67. The new clause inserted by Amendment No. 60 gives the Secretary of State the power to place a requirement on holders of certain positions to be subject to monitoring, and to place requirements on an appropriate person to check. We plan to consider with the Charity Commission whether it would be appropriate to require checks, and in what circumstances. There might, for example, be a requirement on the chair of the trustees, or a person nominated by the trustees and checked by the Charity Commission. Amendments Nos. 43, 44, 45, 48, 59, 139 and 237 clarify how employers can comply with their duty to check that an individual is subject to monitoring and therefore not barred. Enhanced disclosures provide more information than an online check, which can help employers assess whether an individual is suitable for a particular position. Enhanced disclosures are currently required in sectors involving very close contact with children, such as schools and children’s homes. These amendments provide the power to require employers in certain sectors to obtain an enhanced disclosure prior to a person beginning work, or to require the employer to take steps to obtain a disclosure before work commences and at the same time require an online check on an individual’s status. That will allow supervised employment to begin while waiting for an enhanced disclosure. The new schedule inserted by Amendment No. 237 also explains what information a regulated activity provider must obtain from a personnel supplier or a contractor. For example, a girls’ dance school that hires a teacher from an agency can rely on written confirmation that the agency has no reason to believe that the individual is not subject to monitoring, and has registered to be told if the individual ceases to be monitored. However, if the employer was required to get an enhanced disclosure through regulations under the Bill, they would be required to obtain a copy of the enhanced disclosure from the agency. As the House is aware, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform met yesterday to consider the amendments made to the Bill in the Commons. Amendment No. 237A reflects the advice of the committee on the appropriate parliamentary procedure for orders made under paragraph 14 of the new schedule inserted by Amendment No. 237. That paragraph gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the new schedule to alter what appropriate verification is. That power is needed to give the scheme the operational flexibility it needs in the future. The committee has advised that such a power to amend primary legislation should be subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure. The Government accept that view, and this amendment implements the recommendation. Amendments in this group also strengthen the provisions within the Bill in relation to personnel suppliers, such as employment agencies and businesses. Amendment No. 238 ensures that an employment business will commit an offence if it supplies an individual to engage in regulated activity where it has failed to ensure that the individual is subject to monitoring. Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 35, 36 and 37 ensure that a personnel supplier will commit an offence if it knowingly supplies an individual who is barred, or not subject to monitoring, to engage in regulated activity for any person, not just for a regulated activity provider, even where the activity takes place only occasionally. With regard to controlled activity, Amendments Nos. 90, 89 and 152 provide the power to place a series of mandatory requirements on employers through regulations. We will use these to require employers to make checks and put in place the necessary safeguards when employing a barred person. Amendments Nos. 19, 38 and 50 ensure that an individual under the age of 16 who is engaging in regulated activity is not required to be subject to monitoring. In addition, those permitting or supplying the individual to engage in regulated activity commit no offence by doing so and are not required to check whether the individual is monitored. This will ensure that 15 year-olds who go on two weeks’ work experience at a primary school are not required to go through the scheme and the school is not required to make a check in such cases, which would be ridiculous. These amendments strengthen and clarify the way in which the scheme will be enforced and I commend them to the House. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.—(Lord Adonis.)