---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their amendments that relate to the offences in Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 which ensure that barred individuals do not engage in regulated activity; and that regulated activity providers and personnel suppliers do not permit or supply individuals to engage in regulated activity if the individuals are barred or not subject to monitoring. The amendments are intended to ensure that individuals, regulated activity providers and personnel suppliers understand their responsibilities and do not commit offences through lack of knowledge or understanding. We entirely share those objectives and I hope that I can set out provisions that will meet those concerns. Amendment No. 54 is intended to require the IBB to notify an individual when they become barred. We agree entirely that every reasonable attempt should be made to notify an individual when they have been barred and we cannot imagine the circumstances in which the IBB would not attempt to do so. We share the understandable desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to see that this obligation is in the Bill. We will further consider whether such a requirement should be made explicit in legislation, for precisely the reasons she gave, as to the gravity of individuals’ decisions thereafter, if they are barred. I would like to accept her amendment outright, but I am told that I cannot do so because it does not make explicit who the requirement to notify individuals falls upon. But we will consider amending the Bill to meet the noble Baroness’s objective for there to be a requirement on the IBB to notify individuals where they are placed on the children’s or vulnerable adults’ barred lists. We will seek to bring an amendment on Report. The offence created by Clause 7, for seeking to engage in regulated activity if barred from that, is serious. Therefore, it would not be fair to penalise those individuals who do not know that they are barred because the IBB could not for whatever reason contact them. Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 would remove the defence that an individual did not know that they were barred and redefine the circumstances in which an individual committed an offence for seeking to engage, offering to engage, or engaging in regulated activity from which he was barred. Under the amendments, the individual would commit an offence only where he intended to mislead the regulated activity provider or the IBB. We understand the noble Baroness’s objective is to ensure that where an individual knows that he is barred, he would not commit an offence if he seeks to engage in regulated activity. If he does not understand that it is a regulated activity, and is not therefore intending to mislead the employer or organiser, then provision should be made. We certainly do not wish to criminalise individuals unfairly. However, we intend to ensure that the scheme is well understood, and guidance will be issued providing further detail about what types of activity will be covered by ““regulated activity”” before the commencement of the Act. Furthermore, when an individual is informed that he is barred—as I said, we are planning to introduce an amendment placing an obligation on the IBB to undertake such a process—that communication will include explanation about the types of activity from which he is barred, not merely the fact that he is barred, but the types of activity from which he is barred. We intend to put time and resources into an effective and widespread communications campaign with all affected parties, before and while implementing the Act. We will continue to talk to the wide range of stakeholders with an interest in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, as we have already done, and will consult them on how we can make that information process as effective as possible. However, we are reluctant to go down the path set out by these amendments. They leave open a loophole allowing individuals who know that they are barred from an activity to engage in it without committing an offence. If a barred individual does not, under these amendments, intend to mislead a regulated activity provider—for example, he tells the employer that he is barred and the employer permits him to engage in the regulated activity—under the amended clause, the individual would not be committing an offence. We believe that, under those circumstances, he should be. However, it remains essential that an individual does not know that he is barred or could not be reasonably expected to know. We have therefore drafted the exception in Clause 7(3), which is more appropriate and should remain part of the Bill. Amendment No. 86, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is intended to ensure that an offence is not committed by an individual who engages in regulated activity without being subject to monitoring where he did not know, or could not reasonably be expected to know, that he should be subject to monitoring. Again, we understand the noble Baroness’s concern about criminalising individuals who do not understand the requirements upon them; we certainly do not wish to criminalise individuals unfairly. However, as I have explained, we intend to ensure that the scheme is well understood and that guidance is issued to help individuals and employers understand their responsibilities—in particular, providing further detail about what type of activity will be covered by ““regulated activity”” and the requirements on individuals to be subject to monitoring and not to be barred before engaging in the activity. Together with a well resourced communications campaign, we will take every reasonable step to ensure that there is no reason why individuals would be unaware that they were required to be subject to monitoring. Furthermore, that requirement will, in the main, apply to only those individuals engaging in regulated activity with the permission of a regulated activity provider. These regulated activity providers will be under a duty to check, and will therefore reinforce the message to individuals that they must be subject to monitoring. I stress that ignorance of the law is no defence for breaking it. We are concerned that the effect of this amendment would be to provide such a defence, which might undermine its purpose. The court can always look at a person’s circumstances in any sentence for a breach of the law. Amendments Nos. 90 and 98, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would require the Secretary of State to set out arrangements for monitoring in guidance accompanying the legislation, I believe that the purpose of these amendments is to find out how we will communicate to employers their responsibilities to check and to ensure their employees are subject to monitoring. The arrangements that I have set out for an intensive communications campaign with employers—on which we are already engaged, in our discussions with stakeholders—will substantially meet that point. Regulated activity providers may become aware that an individual is not subject to monitoring through making an appropriate check of relevant information, via an application under Schedule 4; via an application for a full enhanced disclosure; or because the Secretary of State notifies him that an individual he employs is no longer subject to monitoring because, for example, he has withdrawn from the scheme. I have stressed our commitment to communicating to employers and individuals their responsibilities under the scheme. I hope that noble Lords will agree that, under the circumstances, these amendments are unnecessary.