Clause 7
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]
9:15 am
Maria Miller (Shadow Minister (Education), Education; Basingstoke, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 136, in clause 7, page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
The amendment was originally intended to be read alongside another amendment, which unfortunately was not selected. We have made the Minister’s office aware of that, so that he understands the tenor of this debate. The amendment seeks to remove from the Bill the defence of an individual not knowing that they were barred. We shall seek to add a further amendment to ensure that the clause makes it clear that it is an offence for an individual intentionally to mislead an employer about their barred status.
As we know, the clause creates an offence, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, of seeking to engage in regulated activity if barred. It also allows for an individual to put forward a defence of not knowing that they were barred from regulated activity, or that they could not reasonably have been expected to know that they were barred. It is clear from those particular provisions that it is not the Government’s intention to criminalise people who may have been barred but for whatever reason are not aware of that situation.
This debate was had in the other place but we feel that it is important to continue it. The reason why we tabled the amendment is that a broad scope of regulated activities is included in schedule 3, meaning that many thousands of people who are not involved directly in teaching or caring will fall under the schedule’s provisions. It is easy to imagine a situation where an individual who has been barred may not be fully aware of the wide range and extent of the activities that are covered in the barring process.
The vetting procedure would, for the most part, ensure that any of those barred people would not be able to work face-to-face with any vulnerable groups covered in the Bill. As the Minister will be aware, the criminal act includes seeking or offering to engage in activity from which an individual is barred; it is not only working with vulnerable groups or children, but offering or seeking to engage in that employment. It is important that we focus on that point.
As I said, this is an important issue that was debated at length in the other place. Indeed, Lord Adonis provided clarification on Report on the issue. In underlining the need to address it, he set out quite a lot of detail on how the procedure will work, particularly on how barred people will be informed of their status. The system sounds robust, but its complexity—the number of activities that will be subject to monitoring and barring—means that more discussion is needed.
The Minister has assured us on a number of occasions in the debate that there will be a great deal of communication about the Bill with those who are barred and with the employers of those who will be monitored or subject to barring. Our concern is that the Bill’s complexity means that people could put themselves forward for employment without any intention whatever of undertaking a criminal act, and that they will be criminalised and subject to quite severe penalty. The amendment, hand in hand with subsequent amendments that would include a requirement of intention to mislead, is a way of closing what we feel is a loophole in the Bill. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether any further thought has been given to the issue since the debate in the other place.