Clause 7
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]
9:15 am
Parmjit Dhanda (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Gloucester, Labour)
First, it is important to say that I entirely understand what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) said about intentionally misleading. We are at one on that—it is the Government’s intention that it be covered in the Bill. The amendment relates to the clause that will make it a criminal offence for a barred person to engage, seek to engage or offer to engage in a regulated activity. However, it is a defence to prove that the person did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that he was barred. The amendment would remove the defence.
Paragraph 12 of schedule 2 imposes an obligation on the IBB to take all reasonable steps to notify a person that he is barred. Clearly, it would be unfair to penalise individuals who did not know that they were barred because, despite best efforts, the IBB had been unable to contact them. We hope that such situations are kept to a minimum, but removing that defence would criminalise people unreasonably. We do not seek to do that; hence, we oppose the amendment. However, underlying the amendment is a concern to ensure that barred individuals who apply for work without realising that such work is a regulated activity are not criminalised. That also covers what the hon. Member for Brent, East was trying to say.
I understand hon. Members’ concern, and we do not wish to criminalise individuals unfairly. However, we will ensure that the scheme is well publicised and we will issue guidance to provide further detail about what type of activity will be a regulated activity. Furthermore, when an individual is informed that they are barred, the intention is that the types of activity for which they are barred will be explained to them.