Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

Crucial to this debate is the fact that direct payments are about putting individuals in control of the care and support they receive. In the spectrum of Amendment No. 107, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, while we wish to make checks available to individuals in receipt of a direct payment, we do not wish to enforce mandatory checking where it may not be appropriate to do so. This is particularly true in cases where a direct payments recipient may wish to employ a family member or friend. Consultation with stakeholders has given us a strong message that making checks mandatory in these cases would constitute an unnecessary and offensive intrusion into private life and that direct payments recipients want to retain the decision about whether or not to make a check. Amendment No. 107 seeks to remove the exemption for direct payments recipients. We believe that the decision on whether to vet staff should be taken by the individual. They will decide whether to make a check, and we will support them in that decision. Amendment No. 79, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, also refers to direct payments recipients who may wish to employ a family member or friend; we believe that checks would be intrusive in those circumstances. It is for that reason that we are resisting Amendment No. 79 which seeks to bring family members and friends who make private arrangements for vulnerable adults within the definition of a regulated activity provider. The amendment would mean that when a family member or friend acts as an agent for a vulnerable adult and makes arrangements to receive a direct payment on their behalf, they would also be responsible for ensuring that staff employed under the direct payment scheme were subject to central vetting requirements. That would also apply to private arrangements—for example, where an individual employed a care worker to look after his mother. We do not wish to impose central vetting requirements on such people or risk criminalising them where they fail to engage with the scheme. Instead, we prefer to offer them the flexibility of having the option of accessing the scheme, should they wish to do so. Where individuals need support to make their own decisions, of course they must be offered the highest levels of protection. However, we must balance that with respect for family life. We remain clear that the Government should not impose requirements that will prove burdensome and intrusive to family members or friends who are caring for loved ones—I refer to the 5.2 million carers who are doing such a brilliant job. It is also important that we trust those closest to vulnerable adults to make the right decisions on their behalf. Amendments Nos. 78, 94, 95 and 110 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would also impose certain obligations, backed up by an offence, on those who assist direct payments recipients in setting up, and arranging for, a direct payment. The obligations seek to ensure that these persons provide certain information and assistance in connection with the vetting and barring scheme to the payment recipient. We do not consider it necessary to set out such obligations in the Bill. In relation to Amendment No. 78, I have already stressed the importance of allowing individuals to retain the choice and freedoms that direct payments offer. Ultimately, direct payments recipients must retain the right to decide what services to buy and whether to become employers in their own right, should they wish to do so. With those rights come the responsibilities that all employers face, although I understand that they are the most vulnerable employers. It will be their decision whether the staff they employ go through central vetting; it will not be the decision of the local council or the support service. Individual budgets are being piloted but will encompass a wide range of services, and many of those services will be provided for elsewhere in the Bill. We agree that local authorities have a responsibility to support individuals who are in receipt of a direct payment or, in the future, an individual budget. In turn, these support services, as a matter of good practice, have a responsibility to notify direct payments and individual budget recipients about the vetting and barring scheme and of their right to engage with the scheme. As mentioned yesterday, information, and communication of that information, is key. We will assist local authorities in the provision of that information and ensure that what they provide is relevant. We will set out in guidance the importance of making barred status checks. We wish to create a culture where those providing support to direct payments recipients routinely assist them to access the scheme. We hope that that will result in checks being made as a matter of good practice rather than through legal force. However, we do not feel that it is necessary to set out good practice in primary legislation. In particular, we do not feel that imposing an offence is a proportionate response to what is, essentially, the need to ensure that individuals have proper and adequate information available to them. It might be argued that the Bill creates enough offences as it is without adding to them unnecessarily when the same result can be achieved by putting proper administrative procedures in place. We therefore feel that the effect of the amendment can be achieved through building on the existing practices set up to support direct payments recipients and, in time, those set up to support individual budget users. The fact that I have argued strongly against imposing requirements on direct payments recipients—and, in the future, on individual budget recipient, too—does not mean that they will be left unprotected. Anyone who is barred will be committing an offence if he works for a direct payment recipient. We believe that this is the correct approach to take and I trust that noble Lords will not press their amendments.