---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

No, that is not our aim. Clause 7 aims to prevent paedophiles from working in schools, not to punish them. Many other items of legislation deal with the punishment of paedophiles. Clause 7 would provide a safety net, and we do not believe that it is drafted appropriately. We should make it clear that those caught by the clause should be penalised only if it is their intention to mislead. We have had an extensive debate about many of the confusions in this extremely complicated Bill. If the scope of regulated activity is enlarged by the Secretary of State during the making of regulations, it is likely that people will not know the full extent of such activity that may apply to them. If there is a decent vetting procedure, it should prevent people who are barred from getting through, so the purpose of the provision should be to criminalise those who act in a misleading way—for example, by giving a false name in a job application—not those who may inadvertently get something wrong. Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 relate to clauses 11 and 12 and make a similar point. Although the Minister said that he does not want employers or regulated activity providers to be criminalised inadvertently, I am not clear which changes in the legislation would enable that to happen. We suggest that the addition of the word ““negligently”” might get around the Government’s problem. I am not sure what the Government’s solution is, so I hope that he will make clear how he intends the safety net to be set up. It is common to use the word ““negligent”” in legislation when an act that is not of itself criminal may have such a detrimental impact that we make it or the failure to carry it out criminal. The word ““negligent”” is often used in such cases. Practice suggests that it is a useful word. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points I have made.