My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

commons amendments

[The page and line references are to Bill 194 as first printed for the Commons.]

[The full text of the amendments can be found at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/157/06157.1-7.html]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group, which all relate to the establishment of the Independent Barring Board and the funding of the scheme.

The main purpose of the government amendments relating to funding is to place more detail and precision in the Bill in the provisions for the fees and funding of the Independent Barring Board. The Bill as published contained only a power to prescribe the fee. The amendments place more detail in the provisions. For example, they allow for differential fees in respect of volunteers.

Amendments Nos. 92, 99 and 167 are designed to provide flexibility for the Secretary of State in setting the vetting and barring scheme fee, and they give the Secretary of State power to fund the IBB directly. Clause 21 currently allows the Secretary of State to set and receive a fee from applicants for monitoring. However, we want to set a fee that will enable the scheme to break even during its first five years of operation. Amendment No. 99 achieves that.

Amendment No. 92 clarifies the Secretary of State's power to waive the fee for those who undertake regulated activity on a voluntary basis. Currently, volunteers receive CRB checks free of charge and we undertake to continue that approach. Amendment No. 167 puts in place a mechanism for funding the IBB. The monitoring fee will be payable to the Secretary of State, not direct to the IBB. The IBB will be a free-standing statutory body, so we need to provide a power for the Secretary of State to pass funding to it. Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 ensure that arrangements for presenting IBB accounts to Parliament are in line with current practice.

Finally, Amendments Nos. 1 and 171 create a new schedule setting out provisions to ensure that staff and property may be transferred from the Secretary of State to the IBB, enabling the organisation to benefit from the experience and skills of staff already engaged in similar activity.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment No. 1.—(Lord Adonis.)

My Lords, before commenting specifically on the first group of amendments, I should like to make a couple of general comments. Although, on the whole, we welcome the fact that the 250 new amendments coming to us from another place improve the Bill and make the Government's intentions clearer, I must express our concern about the lack of time to prepare for today's debate. Both opposition party teams are the same teams who handled the Education and Inspections Bill, which completed its stages in your Lordships' House only at midnight on Monday. We then had about 16 hours to lay amendments, during some of which time we were having a well earned sleep. That is why neither opposition party has had the opportunity to lay any amendments, although we welcome the three government amendments that accept the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Speaking personally, it has taken me a day and a half to read all the relevant material. Unfortunately, I reached my conclusions about what needed further questioning too late to lay any amendments on which to hang the debate. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will forgive me for raising those concerns in a more general way when we discuss each group. However, I must ask why we needed so many very late amendments. Was the Bill so very badly drafted? Could the need for all these amendments be the result of the Government's failure to follow up the Bichard inquiry sufficiently urgently, so that the Bill was drafted in a great hurry in response to a public outcry about paedophiles working in schools?

Members in this House and in another place have had to raise a great many issues that had not been adequately addressed in the original Bill. Fortunately, the Government have listened in the nick of time, although that makes it very difficult for opposition parties to scrutinise properly what they have done, and I cannot guarantee that we have not missed anything. I hope that the usual channels and the Government’s business managers will consider what I have said very seriously. It is more than just a whinge to say that we have had to work even harder than usual in the past few days. This is a very serious matter.

The Bill is a good example of the need for enough time for proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, as well as of the listening qualities of the Minister in this House, who has been open to improving the legislation in response to our concerns, for which I thank him. In many cases, proper scrutiny had to wait until the Commons stages, but a lot of the pressure started here in your Lordships’ House, where the Bill began.

My only comment on this group of amendments on the funding and the establishment of the IBB is to welcome Amendment No. 92 in particular, which allows the IBB fee to be waived for volunteers. Many noble Lords talked about this when the Bill was in this House, as we know that numerous charities were anxious about being able to afford their liabilities under the Bill.

My Lords, I shall speak to a couple of amendments. Amendment No. 99 is a hugely significant amendment that was added to the Bill at the 11th hour in another place. Despite consistent questioning on funding proposals for the scheme both in this House and in another place, this substantial change was introduced only at the last minute, with almost no time to produce a compromise. Indeed, the short title of the Bill, which we scrutinised more than six months ago, contained the words:

“Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner”.

Yet Amendments Nos. 99, 167 and other consequential amendments provide for exactly that.

In the debate on ways and means in another place, my honourable friend Tim Loughton detailed the inflation-busting rise of £2 in CRB checks. I also ask noble Lords to consider the Government’s record on spending on computer systems within their proposed budget. My main concern is that the amendment amounts to a tax on job applications by another terminology. After all, the sums will all go into the Consolidated Fund for the Chancellor to do with as he wishes. Parmjit Dhanda, the Minister in another place, gave no exact figure for the cost that could be incurred by fees. Nor did he say what those fees would be. All we have to go on is that fees will be charged for costs that “have been incurred” or which the Secretary of State “thinks will be incurred”.

Her Majesty’s Official Opposition do not want to hinder the progress of the Bill, which we have broadly supported, or to stop the good intentions behind the underlying measure. However, we are concerned that, so far, the Government have not answered our questions at all. I hope that the Minister will show that the Government are taking the funding of this scheme much more seriously than they have in another place.

I shall briefly discuss Amendment No. 171, which is on secondments. I believe that it is a direct response to the amendments that I tabled at earlier stages of the Bill, and I am grateful to the Minister for tabling it. The original idea was to ensure that, by allowing secondment places for a certain time, people of a high calibre would be running the IBB. As a result of the amendment, there will be a greater incentive for people in related fields to work for the IBB. Secondments will enable individuals to gain an understanding of the criminal barring and checking scheme, and to enhance practice in their original professions.

My Lords, I appreciate that the time to consider these amendments has been constrained. We are in the usual period at the very end of the Session when there is great pressure on time, and I can only express my regret to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that we did not have longer to consider the amendments. I, too, was up until midnight on Monday, and then had to get on top of a completely separate Bill. I entirely sympathise with the points that she made. If it is any consolation, there has at least been an equality of misery across the Chamber in this respect.

Part of the reason why we have so many amendments is to consider the points that were raised in this House, which we have sought conscientiously to respond to. They were on difficult issues such as the definition of pornography, the amount of work the barred individual should be able to engage in and the vexed issue of the definition of “frequently”, which occupied us for a good deal of time. We have sought to respond to a whole set of issues in amendments, many of which are detailed and technical.

I believe that the Bill that has come back to us is much better as a result. I note that Mrs Maria Miller, speaking for the Opposition at the last stage of the passage of the Bill through another place on 23 October, commended the Government,

“for the way in which they have listened to the arguments, and for their willingness to amend the Bill and thus—we hope—improve it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/06; col. 1348.]

We, too, hope that it is improved by this process.

I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, welcomed Amendment No. 99 and the support that it gives to volunteers. I am sorry that I am not in a position to say more to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, on costs but I can state again that we expect annual operating costs to be in the range of £16 million to £18 million a year over the first five years of the scheme, starting in 2008-09. We are continuing to refine our estimates as we develop the operating model for the scheme. The budget for setting up the scheme is £16.6 million over the three financial years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. This figure for annual operating costs is additional to the costs of the existing CRB disclosure and related processes, which amount to about £78 million per annum.

Putting those two figures in perspective, we accept that additional costs will arise from the scheme, but the great bulk are those already incurred in managing the existing CRB disclosure and related processes, which cost nearly £80 million a year, as I said. Because we have not entirely refined the cost model, we are not in a position to give the revised figure for the CRB checks. We expect it to be higher than the current £31 for a standard disclosure and £36 for an enhanced disclosure, on the basis of the figures that we have given to Parliament. We believe that the costs will continue to be reasonable and that the great bulk of the costs involved in the scheme are those already incurred in managing the existing CRB scheme.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I will also speak to the other amendments in this group.

These amendments concern the extent of the new vetting and barring scheme. The House will recall that under the Bill there is regulated activity, which is completely barred to any individual on the children’s barred list and the adult’s barred list respectively. There is also controlled activity, in which a barred individual may engage, but the employer or other person with responsibility for managing them will be required to take steps to ensure that any risks are appropriately managed.

Amendments Nos. 8, 142, 206 and 254 ensure that it is an offence for a barred person to foster or provide care and accommodation to children. Any organisation that arranges a placement will be required to check and ensure that the carer is subject to monitoring and is not barred. The amendments also ensure that a foster carer is able to take day-to-day decisions concerning their foster child, as would a parent, without being required to check every individual who helps to care for that child.

Amendments Nos. 18, 205 and 208 bring provisions for childminders in Wales into line with those already in the Bill for childminders in England. The effect is that registered childminders and childminders who would be required to register but for the fact that they do not care for children under the age of eight will commit an offence if they mind children when barred or are not subject to monitoring.

Amendment No. 214 adds deputies to the definition of regulated activity in relation to children in Schedule 3. Amendments Nos. 217 and 233 ensure that, where an activity is carried out by a member of a group of children or vulnerable adults on behalf of, or under the direction of, a person engaging in regulated activity within the group, the group member will not be engaged in regulated activity. This would ensure, for example, that a school sports team captain will not be engaging in regulated activity.

Amendments Nos. 210 and 220 ensure that those people driving vehicles used only for the purpose of transporting children or vulnerable adults will in prescribed circumstances be engaged in regulated activity. Amendments Nos. 215 and 234 ensure that an individual on either barred list will be prevented from working for the IBB. Following discussion with the industry, we have amended the Bill to ensure that while chat room moderators will be subject to the scheme, IT staff who do not see the content of the messages or contact service users will not.

In respect of vulnerable adults, Amendments Nos. 226 to 234 ensure that regulated activity includes local councillors with social services responsibilities, trustees of vulnerable adults’ charities, the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales and all Commission for Social Care Inspection inspectors. Amendment No. 146 narrows the circumstances in which a pregnant woman or a nursing mother is considered vulnerable to those in receipt of social care services, as was our original intention.

We have also made important amendments to the exemptions for employers from the requirements to check contained in Clause 14. Amendments in this group fulfil the commitment we gave to your Lordships that complementary therapy and all prison and probation officers will be subject to the requirements of the scheme and that other aspects of the clause, including housing, leisure, educational, and recreational activities, would be subject to a sunset clause, so that the exemption for such employers would be time-limited.

On controlled activity, amendments in this group ensure that those with access to specific records, such as social services and education records, will now be covered by the definition of controlled activity. As we committed to do in this House, we have also brought the provision of direct payments into the definition of controlled activity, which meets our intention to cover all social care staff. Since these amendments concern matters raised by noble Lords, I believe that they will commend themselves to the House.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Adonis.)

My Lords, I should like to press the Minister on private fostering, which is covered by a number of amendments. We welcome the government amendments relating to monitoring and private fostering arrangements. However, while the Bill now gives parents the option to carry out a monitoring check prior to placement, private fostering arrangements are regulated under the Children Act and a set of regulations pertains specifically to this situation. These regulations place requirements on parents and local authorities, the latter of which are charged with visiting and monitoring the welfare of children placed in such arrangements. That being the case, there would seem to be a serious gap if social services did not ensure, as part of their monitoring arrangements, that an enhanced criminal record check was carried out in respect of the carers in the placement. Children who are privately fostered may be especially vulnerable to abuse and I strongly suggest that a change is also made to the Children Act regulations to require this check to be carried out by local authorities once a private fostering arrangement has been notified to them or comes to their attention in another way. This will ensure commonality of practice between private fostering and other regulated activities under the Children Act. Indeed, none of this can be done if the private fostering arrangement has not been notified to the authorities, which, of course, is voluntary for the time being. That still concerns us because it may be an offence for someone who is barred to foster a child privately, but the problem is identifying and catching them. We cannot do that if we do not even make them liable to notify the authorities.

I should like also to say something about overseas workers and those coming into the UK to do weekend locum work. There is a problem in Northern Ireland with workers who work in regulated positions there, but live outside our jurisdiction in the Republic of Ireland. The issue of overseas workers was a feature of our debates in your Lordships’ House. On the one hand, we do not wish to penalise those who come to work in the UK, but, on the other hand, we need to be aware of the limitations to vetting and barring arrangements in their host country. This issue alone demonstrates that vetting is but one safeguard and it is important that this message is conveyed in particular to parents who rely on the new monitoring scheme. In terms of overseas workers, does the Minister agree that in the online monitoring scheme, it might be helpful to have a drop-down reminder for parents and employers when the monitoring check status involves someone who has been resident outside the UK? This could involve advising them that monitoring has been possible only from the date of their entry into the UK and encouraging the employer or parent to ensure that other checks such as references are pursued.

Secondly, given that doctors and other health professionals are coming to the UK to do short-term weekend locum work, how will it be possible to monitor when someone works here but is not resident? I would be interested in the Minister’s views on these issues. However, I do welcome the Government’s response in this group of amendments to pressure from this House not to exempt complementary and alternative health services from the terms of the Bill, along with their decision to include probation services and prison officers.

Perhaps I may now ask about Amendments Nos. 138 and 140 which bring those in Crown employment within the requirements of the Bill. This includes the National Assembly for Wales. Can the Minister tell us what consultations have been held with the Assembly and whether he is satisfied that there will be no unforeseen and undesirable consequences of this measure? Before I leave this group, I want to ask the Minister about the Government’s thinking in relation to Amendment No. 146, which includes expectant mothers receiving community care services in the definition of vulnerable adults. What is it about being pregnant that makes a woman vulnerable? It seems to me that most pregnant women enjoy robust good health and are quite capable of looking after themselves, so I am a little curious about the Government’s thinking on this matter.

My Lords, regarding Amendment No. 62, we are pleased that the Minister has brought back an amendment in answer to our concerns at previous stages of the Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I am glad to see that alternative medicine has been erased from Clause 14, and it is right that prison officers will have to undergo checks. However, I remain concerned that no checks will be made on other staff in young offender institutions who may have just as close a proximity to young people as prison officers, and who would certainly have frequent proximity under the new definition in the Bill. Furthermore, I am very concerned that the sunset clause will not apply to ending the exemption for other staff in young offender institutions. I remind the Minister of the words of his noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon at Third Reading in your Lordships’ House. She stated that,

“those working in young offender institutions who are currently checked by the Prison Service—that is, those working closely with prisoners in a caring or supervisory role—will also be checked”.—[Official Report, 7/6/06; col. 1345.]

Yet I cannot see the conclusive evidence in these amendments that this has been achieved. I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on how these amendments will function.

With regard to fostering, covered by Amendments Nos. 8, 142, 206 and 254, we support these measures to ensure the safety of children in fostering and to allow foster carers to take day-to-day decisions concerning their foster children without being required to check every individual who helps to care for them. Foster parents are therefore able to take decisions as any parent would.

Amendment No. 145 gives the Secretary of State the power effectively to define what constitutes a family relationship. There are several problems with the amendment. It provides:

“The Secretary of State may by order provide that an activity … either is or is not

(a) carried out in the course of a family relationship;

(b) carried out in the course of a personal relationship”.

To my mind, the activities carried out within a relationship make up the relationship itself, so this amendment provides an inroad into legalising or criminalising components of a family relationship.

There are several other problems with the amendment, not least because it leaves the order-making power to the Secretary of State alone, and subject only to the negative procedure. It seems to conflict with Clause 43(1) which states:

“This Act does not apply to any activity which is carried out in the course of a family relationship”.

My honourable friend the Member for Basingstoke, Maria Miller MP, asked the Minister in another place a number of questions about the need to have this amendment, and given that on the surface there seem to be so many problems with it, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why it is so necessary.

Amendment No. 146 ensures that pregnant women and nursing mothers are not classified as vulnerable adults unless they are receiving community care services particularly targeted at this group. I thank the Minister for taking on board our suggestions. To classify them as vulnerable just because they are pregnant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has suggested, reminds me of the unreconstructed thinking towards women that I thought had been discarded after the advent of feminism. We think it is sensible, though, to extend the protections of the Bill to women receiving community care or health services as there are obvious vulnerabilities in those situations.

With regard to Amendments Nos. 218 and 235, I hope the Minister can assure the House that any orders to provide the changes will be brought before both Houses for affirmative resolution. I am concerned that there is no apparent affirmative procedure in the amendments as they stand. Although I am sure the Minister will state that these amendments have been brought into play in the interests of flexibility, I would be grateful if he could give some examples of the kinds of situations in which he expects them to apply. There is already a provision for barred people to assist in emergencies and I find it hard to imagine such a situation. The classification of barred activities has been much debated during the course of the Bill, none more so than under Clause 14. I am sure the Minister will recall the objections we had to the inclusion of prison officers in the list of exemptions.

My Lords, on the latter point, it was precisely because of those objections that we have now included prison officers and probation officers.

In her remarks, the noble Baroness asked a large number of questions. I may need to respond to some of them in writing because they are technical in nature, but I hope I can deal with some now.

On the vexed issue, which we accept is difficult, of family relationships and where they end and care beyond the family begins, we are clear in respect of Amendment No. 145 that activities carried on in the course of a family relationship or a personal relationship, where there is no commercial consideration, are outside the scope of the Bill. As I have said before, we do not want the Bill to intrude into private family life. Amendment No. 145 gives the Secretary of State a power to prescribe circumstances in which an activity may be said to be carried out either within or outside the definition of a family relationship or a personal relationship in Clause 43. We intend to use this to provide that in certain, clearly specified situations activities involving individuals that would normally be considered a private, family or personal relationship as defined in Clause 43 will not be treated as such.

This ensures that we have some flexibility to respond to cases where activity should be within the scope of the Bill, even where it is carried out by a family member or a friend. Examples would include those who act on behalf of those who lack capacity as a deputy, an attorney or who are appointed by DWP to look after someone’s benefit or their pension. These kinds of activities are frequently undertaken by those who are close to the child or vulnerable adult concerned, but they are also activities of a public nature involving the relative or friend concerned in duties that have legal consequences and obligations. In these examples the activities concerned are not entirely private, even when carried out by relatives or friends.

We had many discussions in our earlier debates about protecting those who lack capacity. I believe noble Lords will agree that they do not want a barred person to act in a capacity such as I have indicated above. We will use the regulation-making power to ensure that family members or friends acting as deputies, attorneys or who are appointed by DWP are within the scope of the scheme.

As to the issue the noble Baroness raised on pregnant women, it is precisely to meet that point that the amendments limited coverage in relation to pregnant women from the original wider definition. It is now limited to those, as she said, in receipt of community care services. All other persons receiving community care services are vulnerable adults and we believe it would not be right to exclude expectant and nursing mothers from this.

I am informed that the officials of the National Assembly for Wales have consented to Amendment No. 140, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred. The amendment removes immunity from prosecution for the staff of the National Assembly, which means that a person will commit an offence if he engages in regulated activity for the National Assembly while not subject to monitoring or while barred. A member of staff of the National Assembly may be prosecuted for failing to make an appropriate check on a person when that failure is a result of his act or reckless default. That position is in line with that for Crown employees generally and will help the National Assembly to ensure that the duties that the Bill places on it are correctly carried out by its staff.

The noble Baroness raised the question of overseas staff. We expect schools to be vigilant in carrying out checks in respect of overseas staff. Ofsted makes it clear that local authorities check the suitability of staff from overseas and take all available precautions to ensure that they are safe to work with children. We advise that all checks are carried out and that employers take extra care with other checks on overseas candidates, and seek information about the person’s criminal history from their country of origin wherever possible. As I said when we debated this issue before, the CRB provides advice to employers about countries from which it is possible to obtain such information and how to obtain it in a readily available and standardised format. We are amending regulations to make CRB checks mandatory for all overseas staff, including those who have never lived in the United Kingdom.

On the issue of communicating to private foster carers, as my honourable friend Parmjit Dhanda said in another place, we recognise the need for a widespread and ongoing communications campaign. In relation to the requirement to check and be subject to monitoring, we recognise the need to communicate to language schools and other organisations that set up and have control over placements for children. In addition, there are also requirements in the Children (Private Arrangements for Fostering) Regulations 2005 to notify a local authority of a proposal to foster a child privately. This applies to all private fostering arrangements as defined in the Children Act. At the point of notification, local authorities should tell the foster carers about the circumstances in which the new monitoring and status provisions apply. We will issue guidance in relation to this. Authorities are required to promote awareness within their area of the need to notify private fostering arrangements to the relevant local authority.

In respect of Amendments Nos. 218 and 235, I am told that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was satisfied that the order-making powers in these amendments were subject to the negative resolution procedure. I hope that that deals with most of the points, but I shall deal with the others in writing.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

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 of 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.

My Lords, this group of amendments clarifies considerably many aspects of the offences that were raised in your Lordships’ House. A pragmatic balance needs to be struck between the need to get the checks done before somebody starts work and implementing arrangements for supervised monitoring of the person who has started work if the check has not come through. I rather suspect that a number of employers and the IBB will have cause to be grateful for that measure when they have to do a lot of checks very quickly when the body is first set up. I hope that it does not all go horribly wrong. However, the balance is probably about right.

I have two questions which have been suggested by the NSPCC. I shall be happy if the noble Lord prefers to respond to them in writing. First, what is his understanding of the role of regulators such as the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection in ensuring compliance with the Bill’s requirements through regulation and inspection? Secondly, how does he intend to ensure compliance monitoring of regulated activity providers in the community and voluntary sectors who come outside the remit of statutory regulation? Does he agree that that issue should be built into funding streams from government and statutory bodies?

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 19, 38 and 50 ensure that an individual under the age of 16 does not have to be checked. We are very pleased that this measure has been included. I remember mentioning to the Minister many months ago at an earlier stage of debate that we did not want the Bill to encroach unwittingly on the lives of innocent parties, and that we hoped the unintended consequences would not be intrusive. These amendments will address that problem. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will be vigilant in preventing possible function creep of the Bill and that the Minister can reassure noble Lords that orders taken extending the remit of the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

My Lords, I can answer one of the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, concerning the arrangements for monitoring compliance with the Bill’s requirements and how criminal offences will be prosecuted. Inspectorates such as the Healthcare Commission and CSCI already have a role in monitoring compliance with statutory requirements, including ensuring that services are operating safely and are not putting vulnerable groups at risk of harm. Safeguarding has always been a priority for inspectorates and we see no reason why this should not continue.

The police and the CPS will be responsible for investigating and prosecuting the criminal offences created under the Bill. We should remember that those bodies which come outside the remit of statutory regulation will be equally liable for prosecution for a failure to comply with any of the requirements created under the Bill. I do not want to commit to any extra measures being taken until there is further evidence on how well the scheme is working.

I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that orders amending regulated and controlled activity are subject to the affirmative procedure.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7 to 14.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. As noble Lords will recall, there was no part of the Bill that was subject to more difficulty than what has come to be known as the “frequency test”.

For the application of the bar, the concern previously put to us was that even very brief or occasional contact with a barred person constitutes a risk too far, not least because of the difficulty of defining “very brief” or “occasional”. We listened carefully to those views, and Amendments Nos. 16 and 31 reflect the revised view, supported by all parties, that we should prevent a person on a barred list engaging in regulated activity and make it a criminal offence for an employer to engage them even where the activity is brief or occasional. We do recognise, however, that in an emergency it may be necessary for a barred individual to engage in a specific regulated activity and that to criminalise them for doing so would be wrong. Amendments Nos. 15 and 30 create a defence where a barred individual has to engage in regulated activity to prevent harm and where there is no one else around who could engage in that specific activity. That is intended to cover only a very limited range of situations where, for example, 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. 203 and 224 are designed to ensure, for example, that a barred parent would be able to enter a school to attend their child’s parents’ evening, or that an individual on the adults’ barred list would be able to visit their sick mother in a care home. However, a barred person who carried out an activity in a school, for example, with the opportunity for contact with vulnerable groups, would be prevented from doing so where the activity involved 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, the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring should still apply only when the amount of contact is above a certain threshold.

Amendments Nos. 200, 202, 219, 223 and 236 set out the circumstances in which the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring 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. These circumstances are referred to in Amendment No. 236 as the “period condition”. Similar revisions are made to the definition of controlled activity by Amendments Nos. 74, 75 and 82. That means that employers will be required to check, and individuals will need to be subject to monitoring, if they are working in, for example, a conference crèche for children that lasts for three days or longer. Similarly, a volunteer helping out at a school campsite would need to be subject to monitoring if they were looking after the children overnight. It will be optional for employers to check individuals engaged in regulated activity lasting for less time than those circumstances specified in the period condition.

Beyond those situations, the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring will still apply when an activity is carried out “frequently”. Frequently will take its normal meaning and, as has been said previously in this House, guidance will set out the Secretary of State’s broad interpretation that the term will cover activities that are carried out once a month or more often. However, to provide a measure of protection for employers and individuals who have followed this guidance, Amendments Nos. 22, 42 and 54 require the court to take into account the extent to which employers and individuals have followed the Secretary of State’s guidance when imposing penalties for a failure to comply with the regulated activity requirements. The amendments meet concerns raised in this House about the definition of “frequently” and its practical effects. I believe that they will be welcomed.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.—(Lord Adonis.)

My Lords, we have great concerns about defining frequency of contact with children, and we are very glad that most of the loopholes in the Bill have now been closed. I confess that I still have a slight concern about the fact that a barred person could work in, say, a conference crèche that does not operate overnight for up to three days, and do so every two months without monitoring.

Of course, children’s defence against this being exploited by an unscrupulous person lies in the employers having good recruitment and child protection policies in addition to the measures in the Bill—and the vigilance of other members of staff who know what to look for. That relies on them having received appropriate child protection training. We should encourage all employers who have anything to do with children to ensure that their staff have that.

My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Baroness has just said. All the provisions and procedures in the Bill will amount to very little if employers do not observe good recruitment practices and do not have effective child protection policies.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 17 to 85.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 86 to 88. I shall speak to the other amendments in the group, all of which are minor and consequential.

Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 adjust references to National Health Service legislation in the Bill to ensure that they are consistent with those in the NHS consolidation Bill. Amendment No. 97 updates the name of the UK Passport Agency to its new name, the Identity and Passport Service. Amendment No. 253 will allow a police officer on secondment to the IBB to remain a member of the police pension scheme. Amendments Nos. 260 and 261 repeal parts of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 that became redundant following the repeal of disqualification orders through an amendment made in this House at Third Reading. There are amendments of similar gravity throughout the Bill.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 86 to 88.—(Lord Adonis.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 89 and 90.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

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.)

My Lords, on the amendments relating to information flows, is the Minister satisfied that the IBB, when it receives information that raises serious child protection issues, irrespective of barring decisions, will share information appropriately with social services? It is quite possible that, as a result of referrals, the IBB may process key pieces of information giving a fuller picture about an individual than a local social services department is able to gather.

Secondly, in a situation where an individual who is barred from working with children has children of his own, will the IBB ensure that a referral is made to the appropriate social services department so that a child protection assessment can be carried out on those children? Will the local social services in the area where the barred person resides be informed of a person’s barred status?

The vetting and barring scheme, however well it operates, can only ever be part of the picture of protection for children and vulnerable adults. Can the Minister understand the worries of many of us that the Bill will be seen as a be-all and end-all? Once organisations are satisfied that they can comply with the measures in the Bill, they may consider that they have “done” child protection. What are the Government doing to ensure that they encourage all appropriate organisations to have sound protection and reporting policies, a child-friendly ethos and enough staff training? We welcome Amendment No. 101, which expands the remit of the independent monitor and ensures that police force practice in this area is compliant with human rights principles.

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness that the independent barring board will have the freedom to share information as appropriate with other bodies including social services departments, as she mentioned. We would expect the IBB to have robust standard procedures for doing that. On the procedures that will be followed in respect of children of barred individuals, and how that will be taken forward, I do not have chapter and verse to hand, but I undertake to write to the noble Baroness about that issue.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 92 to 142.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 and 144. I will speak also to the others in the group.

These amendments relate to the operation of vetting and barring in the devolved Administrations. They will enable the Government to deliver the commitments that they have made to ensure that the vetting and barring scheme operates successfully across the United Kingdom. These commitments include that a person who appears on a barred list kept by the IBB or by Scottish Ministers will be barred from working with children or vulnerable adults across the entire UK, and that the relevant authorities across the UK will share information so that information that could lead to barring can be considered by the IBB or Scottish Ministers, as appropriate, regardless of where in the UK the information first came to light.

Amendment No. 143 enables provision to be made in future to take account of forthcoming Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation. Scotland is making provision for its own vetting and barring scheme. Northern Ireland will make its own provisions, which will work in parallel with those in England and Wales and allow the IBB to make barring decisions about individuals living and working in Northern Ireland. Both the Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation will be finalised after the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill has completed its passage. Secondary legislation made under this new clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure if it amends provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill or confers a power to make secondary legislation.

Amendment No. 153A responds to a recommendation by the Delegated Powers Committee. It will ensure that the order-making power in Amendment No. 143 is subject to affirmative resolution, whether it makes an amendment to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill or to any other Act of Parliament. We are grateful for the committee’s thorough scrutiny of the Bill, and are happy to accept its recommendation in this regard.

Amendments Nos. 179 and 188 provide that the IBB must not include a person on a barred list where Scottish Ministers have already made a decision whether to include the person on their list and the IBB has no new evidence. This will prevent a person from being considered for more than one jurisdiction’s list on the basis of the same information and therefore needing to go through different representation and appeals procedures in each jurisdiction. The intention is that the effect of inclusion on the Scottish, Northern Ireland, or England and Wales lists will be a bar from regulated activity across the UK.

The amendments also give the Secretary of State an order-making power that he can use to ensure that a person is considered for listing by the most appropriate barring authority, rather than by the barring authority that happens first to become aware of information that could lead to listing. For example, we intend that if the IBB receives information about a person who is not subject to monitoring in England and Wales, but who is a member of the Scottish scheme, Scottish Ministers and not the IBB should consider new information on that person’s case.

Amendment No. 190 provides that the Secretary of State must tell Scottish Ministers where the IBB includes a person on a barred list. This will allow Scottish Ministers to ensure that the person cannot work with either children or vulnerable adults in Scotland.

Amendment No. 144 provides that certain powers to make secondary legislation, to the extent that they affect Wales, are to be exercised by the Welsh Ministers. These are powers that significantly cut across devolved matters, such as the requirements around checks for school governors. This clause also requires the Secretary of State to obtain the agreement of Welsh Ministers before exercising secondary legislation-making powers that provide for requirements and powers that will affect the National Assembly for Wales in its functions as an inspectorate. Amendment No. 191 provides that the IBB may provide information to Welsh Ministers relevant to their functions—formulating policy and monitoring delivery of that policy.

These amendments will ensure that the vetting and barring scheme operates successfully across the UK and I commend them to your Lordships’ House.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 143 and 144.—(Lord Adonis.)

My Lords, as I said earlier, the provisions in the Bill need to be complemented by other positive measures to promote good employment and safeguarding practice. We often find examples of good practice in the devolved parts of the United Kingdom.

When we discussed this before, I raised the matter of the kitemarking accreditation system in Northern Ireland and asked the Minister whether his department could consider introducing something similar here. Much has changed in the Bill since it left us, and I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance further to consider that suggestion. It may not need to go in the Bill but it would be helpful to know whether the Government intend seriously to consider such a move, once the new Act has bedded down, as a natural development of good practice. The big advantage of this scheme, which is in the process of being rolled out, is that it will benchmark non-statutory organisations, which currently do not have a duty to vet and report, against a number of high standards. In fact, why do we not pilot such a thing in one region of England in parallel with the rollout of the measures in the Bill?

On another cross-border matter, I am particularly glad about Amendments Nos. 179 and 188, as, in the past, there has been considerable concern about whether appropriate information has been passed from police forces in Scotland to those in England when abusers have moved residence. I hope that that situation will be ironed out when the Scottish system is in place and the IBB is in contact with it.

My Lords, I have to confess that, as I am not the Minister personally responsible for the development of the IBB in the scheme, I had not been paying attention to the development of our thinking on kitemarking and to how we might evaluate the experience of Northern Ireland in this regard. However, I will draw the noble Baroness’s remarks to the attention of my honourable friend Parmjit Dhanda. I am sure that he has been considering this issue, and I shall write to her about it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 145 to 152.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

153: Clause 46, Page 29, line 30, at end insert—

“( ) by order under section (Devolution: alignment)(1) if it contains provision amending this Act or confers power to make subordinate legislation,”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 153 and do propose Amendment No. 153A as an amendment thereto.

153A: Line 3, leave out “this” and insert “any”.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 154 and 155.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 156. I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group.

These amendments concern the criteria and arrangements for placing individuals on the barred lists. They respond to a variety of issues raised in previous debates and include provisions to enable the transfer of individuals from the existing barred lists.

Amendments Nos. 196 and 197 clarify that no one under the age of 18 will be automatically barred as a result of offences committed or orders, such as sexual offences prevention orders, made when they were under the age of 18. I know that that was another issue of concern in the House when we first debated the Bill.

Pornography was much debated in both this House and another place. Amendments Nos. 173 to 177 and 181 to 186 align the references to pornography in relation to the vulnerable adults’ and the children’s barred lists, fulfilling commitments that I made on Report. Any behaviour involving pornography that harms a child or vulnerable adult is already covered under the harm provisions. These amendments catch any other conduct involving pornography that may indicate a risk to the vulnerable but not necessarily harm them.

The Bill already grants the Secretary of State the power to give guidance, and the amendment adjusts this provision to ensure that guidance can be given about what is inappropriate behaviour involving violent pornography. It is intended that this should be used so that acceptable behaviour involving adult pornography is excluded from consideration.

Amendments Nos. 172, 178, 180 and 187 make clear in the Bill that a two-stage test applies in discretionary barring cases. Where someone is being considered for barring because he has engaged in “relevant conduct”, such as behaviour that has harmed a vulnerable individual, the IBB must first be satisfied that the individual has engaged in that behaviour and then decide whether it is appropriate to bar the individual. Where someone is being considered because they may pose a risk of harm to vulnerable groups, the IBB must first be satisfied that the individual poses a risk of harm and then decide whether it is appropriate to bar the individual.

Amendments Nos. 156 and 250 create a new clause and new schedule specifying powers to transfer individuals from existing barred lists to the new barred lists relating to children and vulnerable adults. These amendments add detail to the provisions that were already in the Bill. Paragraph (1) of the new schedule allows the Secretary of State to require the IBB to advise him on decisions under current schemes to ensure a smooth transition. Paragraphs (2) and (3) relate to children and vulnerable adults respectively, enabling the Secretary of State to make an order setting out the procedures to be followed for transition.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has highlighted a procedural uncertainty in relation to the power to “prescribe” in Amendment No. 250; Amendment No. 250A resolves this uncertainty. Amendment No. 250 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe the procedure to be followed by the General Teaching Council for England when considering an application to be eligible to be registered as a teacher from someone who is ineligible for GTC registration due to having been on List 99 because of professional misconduct and who is not included in the children’s barred list. The intention was that the amendment should make similar provision to enable Welsh Ministers to prescribe through regulations procedure in relation to the General Teaching Council for Wales.

Amendment No. 250A clarifies the procedural matters raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, particularly in relation to the Welsh Ministers’ power, supplementing the general provisions in relation to subordinate legislation in Clauses 60, 61 and 64. It also puts beyond doubt that the regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Amendment No. 199 ensures that a court will inform an offender that, as a consequence of conviction for specified offences, they will shortly be barred automatically by the IBB. That provides clarity at the earliest possible moment for the individual in question.

Finally, Amendment No. 170 gives the IBB a power to make ex gratia compensation payments to any individual adversely affected by IBB maladministration.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 156.—(Lord Adonis.)

My Lords, I shall comment on two amendments. It seems that Amendment No. 195 on foreign nationals goes some way to allowing for overseas workers to be included on the children and adult’s barred list if they are deemed to be on a corresponding list. Will a record be kept of the dates on which monitored overseas workers arrived in the UK? Can the Minister inform the House whether or not this will constitute a full check on workers from overseas applying to work, paid or unpaid, in regulated activities? I cannot help but feel that Ministers in this and another place could have done more in response to the amendments of my honourable friend in another place, the Member for Basingstoke, and comments and concerns that we raised in your Lordships’ House, which would have implemented some serious provisions for overseas workers.

Amendment No. 199 relates to a defence for barred individuals who have not understood the legislation. I am pleased that the courts will have to inform a person when he has been included on a barred list. The Minister in another place had clearly read through the recommendations, made by noble Lords on these Benches, that there needs to be good communication with those who have been barred in order to prevent attempts to work in inappropriate roles, on the basis that not all decisions will be perfect. It is important that individuals are made aware of effective charges brought against them. However, the Minister in another place has already indicated that there is a possibility for the remit of the Bill to extend. Parmjit Dhanda said that:

“Over time, we would like as many people as possible to be monitored in the vetting and barring scheme”.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 13/7/06; col. 146.]

Amendment No. 159, among others, will allow the Secretary of State to enforce the extension of that remit. Yet Clause 7(3) clearly illustrates potential systemic failures, where an individual will be able to cite misunderstandings of legislation as a defence. My honourable friend in another place, Maria Miller, has highlighted the problem. Legislation that allows for its own complexity as a defence rather hoists itself with its own petard. I should be grateful for some reassurance from the Minister on the matter.

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the later comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. This is a very complex Bill and it is important that everybody understands it as well as possible, particularly those who are subject to its measures.

We welcome Amendments Nos. 196 and 197, which make it clear that no one under 18 will be barred from working with children or vulnerable adults without the right to make representation. Children and young people who commit offences, particularly of a sexual nature, need to have their risks assessed in a different way from adults. I pay tribute to my honourable friend, the Member for Mid Dorset and Poole North, Annette Brooke MP, for her relentless pursuit of this issue.

We know that as many as 16 per cent of children may have been abused. They often go on to abuse in their turn, thus perpetuating a terrible cycle of abuse. Research shows that targeted interventions can be highly effective in reducing risk, even for those children and young people who are at higher risk of continuing harmful behaviours. We know that juveniles commit about a quarter of all sexual offences and that there is clear evidence that many of them have suffered abuse or trauma themselves. Those who go along the criminal justice route are unlikely to have their needs adequately assessed, let alone addressed and treated. I therefore hope that the addition of representation in this legislation will mean that children who display sexually harmful behaviour will have their situations addressed on a case-by-case basis and have the appropriate services provided.

I thank the Minister for Amendments Nos. 173 to 177 and 181 to 186, which align the treatment of pornography with barring people from working with children and vulnerable adults, in response to inconsistencies to which I drew attention when the Bill went through your Lordships’ House.

I also welcome Amendments Nos. 192, 193 and 195, which allow the IBB in the future to automatically bar someone who is included on a specified barred list from another country. The issue of foreign workers exercised us all in the light of the fact that currently there are no equivalent foreign barred lists, and provision for screening is very patchy. However, we are now establishing a piece of legislation which we all hope will work very well. I ask the Minister, if he is in consultation with his counterparts in other countries—in particular our partners in Europe and especially the new accession countries—to share the experiences which the Government will gain from the operation of this Bill. I am sure that we would like to help other countries to get up to our standard, should the Bill turn out to work as well in practice as we all hope it will, since it will in the end also help us when their nationals come to work here with our children and vulnerable adults.

Finally, on Amendment No. 199, which is on the duty of the court to inform somebody that he is barred, will the Minister confirm that guidance will specify that the court and the IBB—whoever is responsible for telling a person from what he is barred—also has a duty to ensure that the information has been received and is not lying unopened on some doormat at an address at which the person has not lived for years? I am still receiving mail for people who have not lived at my London address for the past six years. Can he give me that assurance?

My Lords, on that latter point I speak from deep memory from our consideration of this precise issue last time, so I may need to follow this up with a letter to the noble Baroness. As I recall it, all such notifications are sent by appropriate recorded delivery, for which a signature is required. Therefore, although we cannot absolutely guarantee that documentation will be taken in, this gives reasonable assurance that the document will be properly received or returned to sender. If there has been any update on that position in the last few months, I will let the noble Baroness know. It is probably deeply dangerous for me to speak from memory in giving her a direct response to that.

On foreign offences and inclusion on foreign barred lists, a point also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I should stress that the current barring schemes—POCA, POVA and List 99—are based on employer referrals and can take account of any information that they receive, including foreign offences, if notified by the UK police of allegations of behaviour abroad. I am advised that there has been a case where an English employer has referred an individual to the POCA scheme as a result of allegations of behaviour when abroad while working for the employer and that that has resulted in a bar.

We envisage the provisions for specifying foreign barred lists as prescribed criteria under the new scheme as taking account of future developments in other countries. We are aware of the operation of barred lists in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to our fellow European states and the new accession countries. She asked whether we will be in communication with them. We will certainly continue to be in communication with them, whether for the purposes that she specified—that they might have things to learn from us—or for the purposes of us being able better to secure information from them about the history of individuals as they present themselves to work with employers in the United Kingdom. I can give those assurances and I will cover any other matters in correspondence.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 157 to 165.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166. The amendment removes the Lords privilege amendment.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 167 to 236.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

237: After Schedule 3, Insert the following new Schedule—

“Schedule

Appropriate Verification

Part 1

Default position

1 (1) A regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if, during the prescribed period—

(a) he obtains relevant information relating to B in pursuance of an application under section (Provision of vetting information), or

(b) he obtains a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to the regulated activity provider.

(2) “Relevant information” means—

(a) in relation to regulated activity relating to children, relevant information relating to children (within the meaning of section (Meaning of relevant information in section (Provision of vetting information));

(b)in relation to regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults, relevant information relating to vulnerable adults (within the meaning of section (Meaning of relevant information in section (provision of vetting information)).

2 (1) A regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if—

(a) an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B is issued during the prescribed period,

(b) the application for the certificate is countersigned on behalf of the regulated activity provider by a registered person (within the meaning of Part 5 of the Police Act 1997), and

(c) the regulated activity provider obtains from the registered person the information mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) derived from the certificate.

(2) The information is—

(a) whether B is subject to monitoring, and

(b) whether the Independent Barring Board is considering whether to include B in a barred list in pursuance of paragraph 3 or 5 or (as the case may be) 8 or 10 of Schedule 2.

3 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in an activity that is regulated activity,

(b) B engages in the activity with the permission of that and another regulated activity provider (C), and

(c) the permission mentioned in paragraph (a) does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.

(2) The regulated activity provider mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if, during the prescribed period, he obtains written confirmation from C—

(a) that C is appropriately registered in relation to B,

(b) that C has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity, and

(c) that C has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity.

4 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in regulated activity,

(b) B is supplied by a personnel supplier, and

(c) the permission does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.

(2) The regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if, during the prescribed period, he obtains written confirmation from the personnel supplier—

(a) that the personnel supplier is appropriately registered in relation to B,

(b) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity, and

(c) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity.

Part 2

Prescribed verification

5 A regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if, during the prescribed period—

(a) he ascertains in the prescribed manner whether B is subject to monitoring in relation to the activity, and

(b) he takes prescribed steps to have an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to him.

6 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in an activity that is regulated activity,

(b) B engages in the activity with the permission of that and another regulated activity provider (C), and

(c) the permission mentioned in paragraph (a) does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.

(2) The regulated activity provider mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if he obtains from C—

(a) a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to C during the prescribed period, and

(b) the confirmation mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) during the prescribed period.

(3) The confirmation is written confirmation—

(a) that C is appropriately registered in relation to B,

(b) that C has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity,

(c) that C has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity, and

(d) that no information has been disclosed to C in pursuance of section 113B(6)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) in connection with the enhanced criminal record certificate.

7 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in regulated activity,

(b) B is supplied by a personnel supplier, and

(c) the permission does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.

(2) The regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if he obtains from the personnel supplier—

(a) a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to the personnel supplier during the prescribed period, and

(b) the confirmation mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) during the prescribed period.

(3) The confirmation is written confirmation—

(a) that the personnel supplier is appropriately registered in relation to B,

(b) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity,

(c) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity, and

(d) that no information has been disclosed to the personnel supplier in pursuance of section 113B(6)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) in connection with the enhanced criminal record certificate.

Part 3

Prescribed verification

8 A regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if, during the prescribed period, he obtains a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to the regulated activity provider.

9 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in an activity that is regulated activity,

(b) B engages in the activity with the permission of that and another regulated activity provider (C), and

(c) the permission mentioned in paragraph (a) does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.

(2) The regulated activity provider mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if he obtains from C—

(a) a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to C during the prescribed period, and

(b) the confirmation mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) during the prescribed period.

(3) The confirmation is written confirmation—

(a) that C is appropriately registered in relation to B,

(b) that C has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity,

(c) that C has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity, and

(d) that no information has been disclosed to C in pursuance of section 113B(6)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) in connection with the enhanced criminal record certificate.

10 (1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a regulated activity provider permits B to engage in regulated activity,

(b) B is supplied by a personnel supplier, and

(c) the permission does not have continuous effect for a period exceeding the prescribed period.

(2) The regulated activity provider obtains an appropriate verification in accordance with this Part if he obtains from the personnel supplier—

(a) a copy of an enhanced criminal record certificate relating to B issued in relation to the personnel supplier during the prescribed period, and

(b) the confirmation mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) during the prescribed period.

(3) The confirmation is written confirmation—

(a) that the personnel supplier is appropriately registered in relation to B,

(b) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is barred from the activity,

(c) that the personnel supplier has no reason to believe that B is not subject to monitoring in relation to the activity, and

(d) that no information has been disclosed to the personnel supplier in pursuance of section 113B(6)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50) in connection with the enhanced criminal record certificate.

Part 4

Definitions and power to amend

11 In this Schedule “enhanced criminal record certificate” means—

(a) in relation to regulated activity relating to children, an enhanced criminal record certificate issued under the Police Act 1997 containing suitability information relating to children (within the meaning of section 113BA of that Act);

(b) in relation to regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults, an enhanced criminal record certificate issued under that Act containing suitability information relating to vulnerable adults (within the meaning of section 113BB of that Act).

12 For the purposes of this Schedule an enhanced criminal record certificate is issued in relation to a regulated activity provider, or personnel supplier, only if—

(a) he countersigned the application for the certificate as a registered person for the purposes of Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50), or

(b) the application was countersigned on his behalf by such a person.

13 For the purposes of this Schedule a regulated activity provider, or personnel supplier, is “appropriately registered” in relation to B if—

(a) he is registered in relation to B under section (Notification of cessation of monitoring),

(b) his registration relates to monitoring in relation to the activity that he has permitted or supplied B to engage in, and

(c) he has notified the Secretary of State of the address to which communications are to be sent in connection with his registration.

14 The Secretary of State may by order amend the preceding provisions of this Schedule for the purpose of altering what constitutes obtaining an appropriate verification.”

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 237 and do propose the following consequential amendment to the Bill—

237A: Page 29, line 33, at end insert—

“( ) by order under paragraph 14 of Schedule (Appropriate verification)

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 238 to 249.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

250: After Schedule 4, insert the following new Schedule—

“Schedule

Transitional provisions

Advice by IBB

1 IBB must provide the Secretary of State with such advice as he requests in connection with—

(a) any decision in relation to the inclusion of a person in the list kept under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14);

(b) any decision in relation to the inclusion of a person in the list kept under section 81 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c. 14);

(c) any decision in relation to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 (c. 32) in relation to a person.

Existing restrictions relating to children

2 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who is—

(a) included in the list kept under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (individuals considered unsuitable to work with children);

(b) disqualified from working with children by virtue of an order of the court under section 28, 29 or 29A of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;

(c) subject to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 (prohibition from teaching etc).

(2) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as he thinks appropriate—

(a) requiring IBB to include the person in the children’s barred list;

(b) requiring IBB to consider including the person in the children’s barred list;

(c) as to circumstances in which the person may make representations to IBB and the time at which such representations may be made;

(d) modifying the provisions of this Act so as to enable the person to engage in regulated activity of such description as is specified in the order in such circumstances as are so specified;

(e) modifying anything done under paragraph 13 or in paragraphs 14 to 19 of Schedule 2 in connection with IBB’s consideration of any matter relating to the person.

(3) An order under this paragraph may contain provision—

(a) enabling the General Teaching Council for England to make determinations on an application by a person who has ceased to be subject to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 in relation to his eligibility for registration under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998;

(b) enabling the General Teaching Council for Wales to make determinations on an application by a person who has ceased to be subject to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002 in relation to his eligibility for registration under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998;

(c) for the Secretary of State to prescribe the procedure in relation to an application as mentioned in paragraph (a);

(d) for the Welsh Ministers to prescribe the procedure in relation to an application as mentioned in paragraph (b).

Existing restrictions relating to vulnerable adults

3 (1) This paragraph applies to a person who is included in the list kept under section 81 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (individuals considered unsuitable to work with certain adults).

(2) The Secretary of State may, by order, make such provision as he thinks appropriate—

(a) requiring IBB to include the person in the adults’ barred list;

(b) requiring IBB to consider including the person in the adults’ barred list;

(c) as to circumstances in which the person may make representations to IBB and the time at which such representations may be made;

(d) modifying the provisions of this Act so as to enable the person to engage in regulated activity of such description as is specified in the order in such circumstances as are so specified;

(e) modifying anything done under paragraph 13 or in paragraphs 14 to 19 of Schedule 2 in connection with IBB’s consideration of any matter relating to the person.

Existing restrictions: supplementary

4 An order under paragraph 2 or 3 may—

(a) modify any criminal offence created by this Act;

(b) create any new criminal offence,

but the penalty for an offence created by virtue of this paragraph must not exceed level 5 on the standard scale.

Modifications relating to monitoring

5 (1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that in relation to permission to engage in regulated activity having effect during the transitional period, references in section 11(1) and (1A) to ascertaining whether B is subject to monitoring in relation to an activity have effect as references to ascertaining whether B is barred from that activity.

(2) The transitional period is the period—

(a) beginning with the commencement of section 2, and

(b) ending with the commencement of section 21.”

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 250 and do propose Amendment No. 250A as an amendment thereto.

250A: Line 51, at end insert—

“(4) In sub-paragraph (3)(c) and (d) ‘prescribe’ means prescribe by regulations made by statutory instrument.

(5) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(c) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament

(6) Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(d) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.

(7) Sections 46(5) and 48(1) apply to power to make regulations by virtue of sub-paragraph (3)(c) or (d) as they apply to power to make regulations under this Act.”

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 251 to 262.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o’clock.