---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

My Lords, regarding Amendment No. 62, we are pleased that the Minister has brought back an amendment in answer to our concerns at previous stages of the Bill. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I am glad to see that alternative medicine has been erased from Clause 14, and it is right that prison officers will have to undergo checks. However, I remain concerned that no checks will be made on other staff in young offender institutions who may have just as close a proximity to young people as prison officers, and who would certainly have frequent proximity under the new definition in the Bill. Furthermore, I am very concerned that the sunset clause will not apply to ending the exemption for other staff in young offender institutions. I remind the Minister of the words of his noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon at Third Reading in your Lordships’ House. She stated that, "““those working in young offender institutions who are currently checked by the Prison Service—that is, those working closely with prisoners in a caring or supervisory role—will also be checked””.—[Official Report, 7/6/06; col. 1345.]" Yet I cannot see the conclusive evidence in these amendments that this has been achieved. I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on how these amendments will function. With regard to fostering, covered by Amendments Nos. 8, 142, 206 and 254, we support these measures to ensure the safety of children in fostering and to allow foster carers to take day-to-day decisions concerning their foster children without being required to check every individual who helps to care for them. Foster parents are therefore able to take decisions as any parent would. Amendment No. 145 gives the Secretary of State the power effectively to define what constitutes a family relationship. There are several problems with the amendment. It provides: "““The Secretary of State may by order provide that an activity … either is or is not""(a) carried out in the course of a family relationship;""(b) carried out in the course of a personal relationship””." To my mind, the activities carried out within a relationship make up the relationship itself, so this amendment provides an inroad into legalising or criminalising components of a family relationship. There are several other problems with the amendment, not least because it leaves the order-making power to the Secretary of State alone, and subject only to the negative procedure. It seems to conflict with Clause 43(1) which states: "““This Act does not apply to any activity which is carried out in the course of a family relationship””." My honourable friend the Member for Basingstoke, Maria Miller MP, asked the Minister in another place a number of questions about the need to have this amendment, and given that on the surface there seem to be so many problems with it, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain why it is so necessary. Amendment No. 146 ensures that pregnant women and nursing mothers are not classified as vulnerable adults unless they are receiving community care services particularly targeted at this group. I thank the Minister for taking on board our suggestions. To classify them as vulnerable just because they are pregnant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has suggested, reminds me of the unreconstructed thinking towards women that I thought had been discarded after the advent of feminism. We think it is sensible, though, to extend the protections of the Bill to women receiving community care or health services as there are obvious vulnerabilities in those situations. With regard to Amendments Nos. 218 and 235, I hope the Minister can assure the House that any orders to provide the changes will be brought before both Houses for affirmative resolution. I am concerned that there is no apparent affirmative procedure in the amendments as they stand. Although I am sure the Minister will state that these amendments have been brought into play in the interests of flexibility, I would be grateful if he could give some examples of the kinds of situations in which he expects them to apply. There is already a provision for barred people to assist in emergencies and I find it hard to imagine such a situation. The classification of barred activities has been much debated during the course of the Bill, none more so than under Clause 14. I am sure the Minister will recall the objections we had to the inclusion of prison officers in the list of exemptions.