Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 79, which would remove the words ““or vulnerable adult””. It would have the effect of making checks against the barred list mandatory where someone is commissioning regulated activity which is for the benefit of a vulnerable adult other than himself or herself. Typically this situation arises where a friend or family member is helping someone who lacks the capacity to manage their own affairs unaided. This amendment, in our view, is not only to protect the vulnerable person; it also provides reassurance to the member of the family or friend who is commissioning the work on behalf of someone else. In the Bill as drafted, someone who hires personal assistants or other staff to work directly with a disabled person, whether using direct payments or other funding, will not have to obtain Criminal Records Bureau checks or checks against the barred list on potential employees, although they will be able to take them up if they choose. The amendment will not affect the situation of a disabled person hiring their own staff. Where a person has the capacity to understand what the checks are, they will be free to make their own decision about whether they wish to obtain them. However, where a vulnerable adult lacks the capacity to make such a decision, the situation is entirely different. The rationale for the amendment is that there should be a greater duty of care on someone who is not personally affected by the decision they are making. In these circumstances the friend or family member who is assisting the vulnerable adult would need to be redefined as a regulated activity provider in order for the checks against the barred list to be mandatory. We recognise that that places additional burdens on friends and family members who are assisting vulnerable adults, but in our view that additional burden is worthwhile because it provides them with the assurance they need to ensure that the vulnerable person is not made more vulnerable by the commissioning process. However, such people are already under a duty to take reasonable steps to promote the welfare of the person they are assisting. By clarifying the checks—and both the CRB checks and the checks against the barred list should be made on potential staff carrying out regulated activity—the welfare of vulnerable adults in these circumstances is being promoted. We believe that this is consistent with the principles of the Bill. I am sure that the Committee will realise that in many instances the person who is going into a home to assist a vulnerable adult has unsupervised access to the whole home and very often to the vulnerable person’s personal circumstances and financial arrangements including collecting pensions and the like. We believe that this minimum vetting is essential if we are to protect those who cannot organise their own care unaided.