---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

I do not propose to detain the House for long on this group of amendments, especially as we had a lengthy debate on the last group we dealt with. I welcome some of the amendments that the Minister has just whizzed through, in particular the new provisions in respect of the treatment of children who could be caught up without any intention at all in some of this legislation. That matter was raised by Committee members of all parties. As always, I welcome additional safeguards in respect of affirmative resolution procedure for some of the measures, which the Minister has mentioned. I want briefly to discuss the six amendments, which are meant to be constructive, in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Those dealing with harm were not debated in Committee, when we should perhaps have debated that issue at length. Amendments Nos. 204 and 205 would add to the Bill definitions of harm that are in no way controversial; indeed, I do not understand why they are not already in clause 27 and the Bill’s glossary. The Bill would be enhanced if we added to clause 27 the original definitions of harm given in the Children Act 1989, along with the definitions given in further amendments to that Act, and as contained in the Adoption and Children Act 2002—I remember debating them—which include harm being caused by exposure to the ill treatment of another. The latter definitions were concerned with the impact that scenes of domestic violence might have on vulnerable children, and a dignity definition was also added later. Amendment No. 205 would also add the following, further definition of harm:"““In this section harm includes intentionally or negligently causing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer financial loss or deprivation.””" That is particularly pertinent to those who take advantage of vulnerable adults, be they the elderly and infirm or those with learning disabilities. Such people might be harmed by somebody defrauding them, in effect, of their funds, livelihood or property. It is clear that harm would be done to them in such circumstances, because they would suffer a financial loss or some form of deprivation resulting from that loss. Such deprivation could apply in various other circumstances, including those where the treatment of children was an issue. The amendments would be a useful addition to the Bill and would make it absolutely clear how all-encompassing harm can be. Harm is not simply a question of punching somebody on the nose; there are many other ways of causing harm to an individual, particularly a vulnerable individual, without being as unsubtle as that. Our other amendments in this group—Nos. 11, 13, 12 and 7—deal with the burden of proof and are linked somewhat to the previous debate, so I shall not go into them in great detail. Amendment No. 11 would remove the very woolly and subjective word ““thinks”” from clause 27 and replace it with the more legalistic term ““has reason to suspect””. Amendment No. 13 would replace the word ““if”” in schedule 2 with the phrase"““on the balance of probabilities””." It is a shame that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) is not here, because he could apply his legal brain to that amendment and either cast it out on the basis that it is a double negative, or agree with it in order to enhance the Bill. We need to include a definition for lower thresholds of proof, which is what amendment No. 12 seeks to do. Of course, in law ““beyond reasonable doubt”” is at the top of the hierarchy of proof, followed by ““balance of probabilities”” and ““has reason to suspect””. In summary, amendment No. 11 would replace ““thinks”” with the latter phrase, and amendment No. 13 would replace ““if”” with ““balance of probabilities””. Similarly, amendment No. 12 would replace ““thinks”” in schedule 2 with the phrase ““has reason to suspect””, and amendment No. 7 would replace the word ““thinks”” in line 9 of schedule 2 with the phrase ““has reason to believe””. I hope that the Minister will welcome these amendments, rather than displaying the petulance that he displayed when we considered our amendments in the previous group, through which we were trying to be helpful. We were certainly not in the business of furthering the activities of paedophiles through those amendments, as he rather clumsily suggested, I think, earlier. The amendments in this group try to establish some basis in law for the fairness that we want to provide for everybody concerned. This legislation will work only if it is practical and is seen to be workable and fair by everybody concerned. If it is not, it simply will not work, and we will end up pursuing and prosecuting a lot of people who are in fact innocent of the charges set out in this legislation, and who certainly never had any intention of abusing vulnerable children and adults. In the process, we could well miss the genuine wrongdoers who are able to circumvent the law, and on whom our priorities should surely be placed in trying to ensure that the legislation is workable. These are constructive amendments, tabled in an effort to enhance the Bill and to make it more watertight. As such, I hope that the Minister will respond to them in a rather more positive and less churlish way than he did to our amendments in the previous group.