---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. As a Member who served on the Committee, she is knowledgeable about the Bill. I am sure that she will contribute to the debate that we will have on communication. We have tabled further amendments to pick up on that very issue. We need to make sure that there is a clear line of communication and that both employers and employees understand the true implications. If the Secretary of State is able to vary those who are covered by the Bill and extend the Bill’s remit, we need to make sure that it is clear how that is to be communicated to those who may already have been included on the barred list. We will pick up on that issue. Amendment No. 45 introduces an interesting and new concept to the Bill, perhaps clarifying further the way in which the Bill will work. However, I would appreciate hearing the Minister’s thoughts—particularly in relation to where the courts are being invited to consider how an individual has attempted to interpret the issue of frequency when any judgment is being brought to bear as a result of a misdemeanour. Perhaps he could take the time offered by the debate to explain why that has been proposed at this stage and what has provoked the inclusion of amendment No. 45. Amendment No. 59 introduces a closer definition of frequency, which my hon. Friends and I welcome inasmuch as that has been talked about from the beginning of the debate on the Bill—particularly by Lord Adonis in the other place. Bringing in some clarification at this point is useful. However, although amendment No. 59 contains a definition of frequency that involves the same person carrying out an activity"““on more than two days in any period of 30 days””," it also still includes the term ““frequently””, almost as if that were a separate issue. I would welcome clarification from the Minister on whether the Government intend to have two meanings for the word ““frequently””: the tighter meaning of"““more than two days in any period of 30 days””," and also an alternative meaning. If the Government do not intend there to be two meanings, why are both terms referred to quite specifically in the same amendment? We would have hoped to tease that out in Committee, but the provision was not in the Bill at that point. Finally, amendment No. 92 gives the Secretary of State the ability to define by order what is or is not a family relationship or a personal relationship. That is quite a new area of discussion and I would welcome the chance to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. To revert to the original statement by the Minister for Children and Families, the Bill should not intrude on family relationships. Conservative Members are therefore puzzled by the need for the Secretary of State to have the flexibility to move an order that would define a family or personal relationship. In the interests of time, those are the only amendments that I will cover because we need to debate several others further down the selection list. However, I would welcome the Under-Secretary’s response to them.