I do not think that we will reach agreement on that point, because we regard it as disproportionate to give barring information in a situation that is not appropriate for barring—that is, where there is not regulated activity. The concept of the barred status of individuals not appearing on certificates for positions falling outside regulated activity is not new; that has been the case. The key changes of our provisions are to the scope and extent of regulated activity, not the application of barring provisions, which remain the same. We have changed the scope.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of people who are barred being able to have access to children on an infrequent basis under the current scheme—for example, as volunteers in schools. That is the case at the moment. I think people who were barred could have access to children three times a month—that is, infrequently. Under the old regime—or the current regime, I should say—if there was infrequent contact, people did not have to be checked. They could be checked, but it was not mandatory. There will always be people who have some contact with children whom parents cannot check. There were under the previous Government's scheme: as I say, if contact was infrequent, people were not necessarily checked. We cannot eliminate risk entirely, but we believe that we are minimising it.
The hon. Lady raised the case of a former teacher who was barred from three schools where the information was not passed to the police. That teacher went on to volunteer at primary school, working one-on-one with 10 kids. As I have said, the enhanced CRB check would not show the information, because the case was referred to the ISA, but we are saying that in future that information should be passed to the police. More importantly, volunteers in an unregulated situation will be supervised. It is crucial that employers and organisations understand what is appropriate in terms of supervision and, therefore, what is regulated or not regulated activity, which we will come to later. The law would then be involved, because it would be against the law to employ someone or have them in unregulated activity if the barred status had not been checked. However, we will come to that in due course.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Featherstone
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
533 c238 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:24:09 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771621
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771621
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771621