---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

Yet again, we are considering an important string of amendments—important because ““frequent”” and ““occasional”” have been among the most problematic terms in the Bill and have given cause to considerable debate in the House and in the other place. Also, a great many representations have been made by stakeholder groups. The Government’s original position in Committee, when they were pressed on the matter, and indeed on Second Reading, was that those definitions did not require further clarification because they would take their ““everyday meaning””—despite the fact that both terms are relative and that there is no generally accepted everyday meaning for either ““frequent”” or ““occasional”” in English law. Many hon. Members, including those on the Conservative Benches, felt that to leave such a key concept undefined would be to store up a great deal of trouble, not to mention create extra work for the army of lawyers that has clearly been involved in drafting the Bill. Therefore, we are glad that the Government have worked over the summer, through a working party including many reputable organisations, to reconsider the position and take into account some of the debate in Committee. The tabling of amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 64, which tightly define ““frequently”” as any two-day period occurring in a 30-day period, has allowed us to start to get a feeling for what is meant here. Amendment No. 169 takes that welcome clarification a little further by specifying that that new ““period condition””, as it is called, is also satisfied if the activity in question occurs between 2 am and 6 am, covering another area that was debated hotly in Committee regarding overnight stays. That activity also needs to give the opportunity for face-to-face contact with children or vulnerable adults. No doubt the wording is better than the original, but Conservative Members feel that there is room for a little more improvement. Before we get on to that, I want to ask the Minister to provide further clarification on amendments Nos. 33, 45 and 49, which, again, will introduce a new idea to the Bill on Report. Those amendments provide that the courts may take into account the extent to which employers and individuals guilty of offences under clauses 8, 10 and 11 have taken account of guidance as to the meaning of ““frequency””. We have not debated that previously, and it would be interesting to know the Government’s intent. As we have said, the vetting and barring system must be robust— the reason for the Bill is that the current system is not robust. It must also be simple for employers and employees to navigate and understand; otherwise, it will not move us forward. The amendments might suggest—perhaps the Minister will elaborate—that the Government think that the new rules will not be well understood, and that employers and employees may unintentionally misapply the rules and be guilty of criminal offences. Is the Government’s intention to try to provide a caveat in case of misunderstanding? If so, we might need to discuss that further. Perhaps the Minister will also enlighten the House as to how often he expects the provisions to be used, and whether he will monitor them to assess whether there is a fundamental flaw in the working of the Bill. Will he tell us how he will conduct that monitoring, and what actions will be taken? As many hon. Members and other groups have mentioned, the amendments also touch on the need to communicate clearly to employers and employees their rights and responsibilities under the law, and to inform barred persons which activities they can and cannot engage in. The system is complex, so it is imperative that the Government communicate adequately to all concerned, as we have discussed. However, amendments Nos. 33, 45 and 49 imply an expectation that in at least some cases people will commit offences due to a lack of understanding of the rules. By tabling the amendments, perhaps the Minister has inadvertently reiterated the official Opposition’s case, which is supported by our Liberal colleagues, that further communication is needed. On a related point, we are also concerned that the Bill does not do enough to involve those on the front line who will try to implement this increasingly complex legislation, particularly employers. In Committee, the Government said that there was a great difference between different settings, so the idea of one definition of frequency simply would not work, and that flexibility was needed to ensure that the Bill would work in practice. Obviously, the Government have slightly changed their position, and now have a much tighter definition. Our amendment No. 199 would provide a little more of what the Government have been trying to achieve in the Bill—not just providing a structure and a process but engendering a culture of vigilance among those dealing with children and vulnerable adults—and could be just what the Minister is looking for. It allows employers to use their own professional judgment to determine what constitutes a frequent activity in relation to their own setting, but only if the definition were equal to or less than that contained in the Bill—two days in any 30-day period. The amendment would put some of the responsibility on those who must implement the Bill, rather than perpetuate a tick-box culture in which it is felt that as soon as the Bill has been put in place, everything that is required has been done. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the amendment. The maximum period defined by amendments Nos. 56, 57 and 64 would not be threatened, but more people would be involved in the process. Amendments Nos. 28 and 37 would allow barred persons to engage in regulated activities in emergency situations, of which the Minister gave an excellent example. Again, we have not debated the issue previously, so perhaps the Minister needs to provide a little further explanation. Although we have not tabled an amendment because of lack of time, given the extent to which certain individuals look for loopholes in the law—let us not revisit Kazakhstan at this stage, but I would tell the House that its capital is Almaty—does not he think that the two amendments may have a perverse consequence? Amendments Nos. 28 and 37 would give barred persons a right to engage in regulated activities in an emergency. For instance, a doctor who is barred would be able to administer first aid to a child who had collapsed. What would apply in a situation in which an individual who is not monitored, as opposed to barred, wants to provide emergency assistance to a child or vulnerable adult? It could be argued that such a person would be in a worse situation than one who has been barred. Perhaps the Minister needs to provide further explanation, but there is no provision in the Bill to allow those who are not monitored to administer what would otherwise be defined as a monitored activity. Last week, there was a wonderful example, which I am sure that the Minister heard about, of a lollipop man being taken ill. A local council did not feel it appropriate to permit any other individual to help children cross a road, and the police unfortunately could not supply the manpower. Instead of having an adult help them cross the road, children had to cross a major road, which had been associated with a number of fatalities, by themselves. Will the Minister clarify whether amendments Nos. 28 and 37 would mean that a barred person would be able to help a child who was in danger trying to cross a road? Would the non-monitored person be at a disadvantage? I am sure that the Minister has already thought about that potential perverse outcome of the Bill, but because we cannot debate the issue further, given the lateness of tabling, I would very much value his feedback.