---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

First, on guidance on frequency for the courts, the Secretary of State will issue guidance on his broad interpretation of the term, ““frequently””. When a regulated activity offence has been committed, and the court is deciding a sentence, it must consider the extent to which the employer or individual interpreted ““frequently”” in line with the Secretary of State’s guidance. If the court reaches a different interpretation of ““frequently””, the intention is that it will be more lenient in its sentence if the offender has adhered to the guidance. For example, an employer may be prosecuted in court because he did not make a check for an activity that took place once every six weeks; instead, he made checks only once every four weeks, because that was what was recommended in the guidance. The amendments will essentially provide a measure of protection for employers and individuals who have to interpret ““frequently””. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) spoke about ““frequently””, and wished that the provisions went further, so that checks could be made on people who are employed for under two days or a week, or who are not employed for overnight periods. Organisations are allowed to do that—they are well within their rights to do so. Under the Bill, a school or other organisation is entitled to make that check if it wishes to do so. With regard to people who are not monitored, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and I mentioned the example of someone falling ill in the street, and a person giving them emergency first aid. If someone is not monitored, they are not part of the scheme, and may never have applied to be part of it, so there is nothing to prevent them from administering first aid or helping in an emergency. It would be different if they did so frequently, as a job—