Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I heard the context of the hon. Lady’s proposed amendments and I am sympathetic to her sentiments. In his reply, will the Minister explain why the Government decided to draw the clause so broadly that individuals will have to prove that they did not know, rather than prove that they  were acting misleadingly? The narrower definition would be much more likely to criminalise the people that the Government are seeking to criminalise, and would avoid catching many others who would not otherwise be caught under the umbrella.

The Government obviously intend to protect vulnerable children and adults rather than criminalise such other people, but there is already plenty of other legislation with that purpose, and it is inappropriate to criminalise those who, as the hon. Lady said, may not understand the full scope of regulated activity. They may understand that they have been barred from one activity but, as we discussed on Tuesday, there is difficulty in defining exactly what is meant by regulated activity and it is perfectly conceivable that a barred person may not appreciate that other forms of activity may bring them into the category that would cause them to be criminalised. Will the Minister therefore say why the Government decided to draw the provision so broadly and whether they might consider an amendment on Report that would narrow the definition?

See this speech in context