Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

Perhaps I may make two points in response to my noble friend, who has raised an issue of legitimate concern. My first point is that the amendment she is proposing would, of course, go significantly beyond the existing scope of the Bill. This legislation is concerned with the regulation of activity in this country and not, implicitly, in other countries, which is what would be covered by the taking away of passports. For that reason, we have not gone into this area in our examination of the issues within the Bill. That is not to say it would not be possible to extend it, but it is not our current view of what the scope of the Bill should be. I accept that there was only one foreign travel order made in 2004–05. However, I am told that we are working with the police and others to explore how the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 might be put to the best possible use. It must be borne in mind that foreign travel orders represent only one tool available to the police to prevent overseas travel should it be necessary to do so. For example, all those on the sex offenders’ register are required to notify the police of any foreign travel of three days’ duration or more. Failing to notify the police of foreign travel, as well as breaching the terms of a foreign travel order, is an offence punishable by a sentence of up to five years in prison. We do not feel that the barring scheme is the appropriate place for my noble friend’s proposal. However, it is a perfectly legitimate concern and I owe it to her, after the Committee, to explain how we believe the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will be put to the best possible use to meet the points she has raised. I hope to be able to give her a satisfactory reply in that regard.