---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

The hon. Gentleman is right in that clause 7 includes the defence that one"““could not reasonably be expected to know””." The problem is that it refers to three different scenarios in clause 7(1), as I pointed out earlier, of someone who seeks to engage, offers to engage or actually engages. Clause 7(3) is not comprehensive enough to defend everybody against all three scenarios—acts that someone might have committed inadvertently. That is why it is necessary to introduce an intent provision. Surely it is better to have to prove intent—that someone intended to engage in regulated activity, intended to offer to do so or intended to actually engage in it. The Minister mentioned earlier that communication of the requirements of the Bill will be essential, and we remain to be convinced about how the Government will undertake such a big task. It would be better to provide for a proper defence, which shows that someone did not just drift into committing the offence. The onus should be on the prosecutor to prove that the person had the intent to commit the offence.