---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91. I shall speak to the other amendments in the group, all of which relate to various aspects of information flows within the scheme. They make changes to the online checks provided for by Schedule 4. We want to ensure that the scheme is easy for employers to use so that it effectively supports them in their recruitment decisions. Making the information that they need available quickly and easily online is a key part of that. Employers are required to ensure that all individuals engaged in regulated activity are ““subject to monitoring””. That means that the individual has applied to the scheme, that he or she is not barred and that the Secretary of State is undertaking regular checks of key information sources to identify new information about the individual, delivering the continuous updating mechanism recommended by Sir Michael Bichard. We propose that the online check should show whether an individual is subject to monitoring, but not whether they are barred. As the Bill sets out, those who are barred cannot be subject to monitoring, and employers in regulated activity can only use people who are subject to monitoring. Therefore, showing whether an individual is subject to monitoring effectively ensures that employers do not recruit barred individuals. Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 move the provisions of how a check is made from Schedule 4 into two new clauses, one of which provides for the mechanics of the check and one for the information that is released. Amendment No. 104 also delivers the commitment made on Report in this House to place a duty on local councils to inform direct payment recipients about the vetting and barring scheme. That was a matter of great concern to your Lordships. Amendments Nos. 103, 106 and 107 make similar changes to the notification system. They place more detail about the system in the Bill and change the information that is released. Employers who have registered an interest in an individual will be told that he or she has ceased to be subject to monitoring and so cannot be engaged in regulated activity. Amendments Nos. 125, 132 to 134, 131, 135, 136 and 137 provide for supervisory authorities and professional regulatory bodies to receive more information, including confirmation that the individual is barred. They also consolidate the way in which supervisory authorities are defined. That information is required by those bodies to help them carry out their inspection and regulatory functions. Amendments Nos. 108 and 100 create new information offences. The first will criminalise anyone making a false declaration to access individuals’ information illegitimately. The second criminalises employers who force individuals to provide the information about their criminal records history which they receive when they apply to be monitored. Amendment No. 181 adds data held by both the IBB and the Secretary of State in connection with his functions under this Bill to Section 56 of the Data Protection Act, the effect of which is to criminalise employers who force individuals to make subject access requests for data under the Data Protection Act as a condition of employment. Amendment No. 101 expands the role of the independent monitor to include reviewing all decisions by the police to withhold police information from an individual under Clause 21 and to review a sample of the information that is provided to the vetting and barring scheme by the police. That was another issue of great concern during the passage of the Bill through this House. The independent monitor’s role, as set out in Clause 23, covers only police information in connection with CRB criminal records disclosures. The amendment adds police information in connection with applications for monitoring. This change responds to some of the points that the Joint Committee on Human Rights raised in its report. Amendments Nos. 141, 114 and 116 make it clear that a finding of fact, such as in court proceedings or an employment tribunal, is not necessary for the purpose of any referrals to the IBB. That is because there may be no such proceedings in all the cases where we wish there to be a referral to the IBB. In the Bill as drafted that was made clear in some, but not all, of the referral provisions. The amendments remove any doubt. These amendments provide for more streamlined flows of information within the scheme and so will improve its operation. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 91.— (Lord Adonis.)