---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I thank the Minister for his response to my amendments. On Amendment No. 60, I accept that the Secretary of State may make an order to amend the meaning of ““regulated activity””, but I am concerned about how often he will do so, what the triggers will be and how he will decide what constitutes the need for the review. The Minister mentioned ““events””. That worried me because it could mean that somebody has been abused because a new category of regulated activity was not covered by the regulations. I am still a little concerned about that, but I am encouraged that the Minister said that the IBB can suggest changes to the categories of regulated activity. I hope the Secretary of State will take that on board because the IBB will have its finger on the pulse. The Minister said that Amendment No. 63 is not necessary because any form of guidance or advice means through any medium. It is not obvious to me that it is, and if it is not obvious to me, it is not obvious to anybody else. I fail to see why those three little words ““by any medium”” could not be included on the face of the Bill. I suspect I might get support on that from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Like her, I am encouraged by what the Minister said about the Internet Task Force and we will wait to see what comes out of it. Amendment No. 64 is about people with access to data about children. The Minister said that such people will already be covered if they have access frequently or are in one of the establishments, such as schools, that are covered by the Bill. But we have the word ““frequently”” again, and we do not really know what it means. That worries me. The Minister said that he will probably be coming forward with a government amendment to extend the proceedings to employers where people have access to health or education records, so I shall leave this issue until I see what he comes forward with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 5 agreed to.