---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

My Lords, on the latter point, it was precisely because of those objections that we have now included prison officers and probation officers. In her remarks, the noble Baroness asked a large number of questions. I may need to respond to some of them in writing because they are technical in nature, but I hope I can deal with some now. On the vexed issue, which we accept is difficult, of family relationships and where they end and care beyond the family begins, we are clear in respect of Amendment No. 145 that activities carried on in the course of a family relationship or a personal relationship, where there is no commercial consideration, are outside the scope of the Bill. As I have said before, we do not want the Bill to intrude into private family life. Amendment No. 145 gives the Secretary of State a power to prescribe circumstances in which an activity may be said to be carried out either within or outside the definition of a family relationship or a personal relationship in Clause 43. We intend to use this to provide that in certain, clearly specified situations activities involving individuals that would normally be considered a private, family or personal relationship as defined in Clause 43 will not be treated as such. This ensures that we have some flexibility to respond to cases where activity should be within the scope of the Bill, even where it is carried out by a family member or a friend. Examples would include those who act on behalf of those who lack capacity as a deputy, an attorney or who are appointed by DWP to look after someone’s benefit or their pension. These kinds of activities are frequently undertaken by those who are close to the child or vulnerable adult concerned, but they are also activities of a public nature involving the relative or friend concerned in duties that have legal consequences and obligations. In these examples the activities concerned are not entirely private, even when carried out by relatives or friends. We had many discussions in our earlier debates about protecting those who lack capacity. I believe noble Lords will agree that they do not want a barred person to act in a capacity such as I have indicated above. We will use the regulation-making power to ensure that family members or friends acting as deputies, attorneys or who are appointed by DWP are within the scope of the scheme. As to the issue the noble Baroness raised on pregnant women, it is precisely to meet that point that the amendments limited coverage in relation to pregnant women from the original wider definition. It is now limited to those, as she said, in receipt of community care services. All other persons receiving community care services are vulnerable adults and we believe it would not be right to exclude expectant and nursing mothers from this. I am informed that the officials of the National Assembly for Wales have consented to Amendment No. 140, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred. The amendment removes immunity from prosecution for the staff of the National Assembly, which means that a person will commit an offence if he engages in regulated activity for the National Assembly while not subject to monitoring or while barred. A member of staff of the National Assembly may be prosecuted for failing to make an appropriate check on a person when that failure is a result of his act or reckless default. That position is in line with that for Crown employees generally and will help the National Assembly to ensure that the duties that the Bill places on it are correctly carried out by its staff. The noble Baroness raised the question of overseas staff. We expect schools to be vigilant in carrying out checks in respect of overseas staff. Ofsted makes it clear that local authorities check the suitability of staff from overseas and take all available precautions to ensure that they are safe to work with children. We advise that all checks are carried out and that employers take extra care with other checks on overseas candidates, and seek information about the person’s criminal history from their country of origin wherever possible. As I said when we debated this issue before, the CRB provides advice to employers about countries from which it is possible to obtain such information and how to obtain it in a readily available and standardised format. We are amending regulations to make CRB checks mandatory for all overseas staff, including those who have never lived in the United Kingdom. On the issue of communicating to private foster carers, as my honourable friend Parmjit Dhanda said in another place, we recognise the need for a widespread and ongoing communications campaign. In relation to the requirement to check and be subject to monitoring, we recognise the need to communicate to language schools and other organisations that set up and have control over placements for children. In addition, there are also requirements in the Children (Private Arrangements for Fostering) Regulations 2005 to notify a local authority of a proposal to foster a child privately. This applies to all private fostering arrangements as defined in the Children Act. At the point of notification, local authorities should tell the foster carers about the circumstances in which the new monitoring and status provisions apply. We will issue guidance in relation to this. Authorities are required to promote awareness within their area of the need to notify private fostering arrangements to the relevant local authority. In respect of Amendments Nos. 218 and 235, I am told that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was satisfied that the order-making powers in these amendments were subject to negative resolution procedure. I hope that that deals with most of the points, but I shall deal with the others in writing. On Question, Motion agreed to.