Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I have a great deal of sympathy with this group of amendments. Indeed, I am quite surprised that the exemptions listed have been included, for the reasons given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Buscombe. For example, in the provision of complementary or alternative therapy—which goes much wider than the provision of such therapy to people with Parkinson’s disease—those people are providing a therapy that puts them in a position of trust with the individuals concerned. Vulnerable adults will implicitly accept the goodwill and bona fides of the individuals providing that support. That is why they should be encompassed by the Bill’s provisions. I do not know whether some value judgment is made about complementary or alternative medicine by including it in the list. I certainly do not want to get into that debate. What is significant is that individuals presenting themselves for complementary or alternative therapies believe in it and are putting themselves in a position where their vulnerabilities can be exploited. Points have already been made about prisons and the probation service. I wonder about the consequences of abuse for the likelihood of reoffending. Finally, on Clause 14(1)(d) and (e), the exclusion specifically mentions organisations providing,"““recreational, social, sporting or educational activities””," outside the public authority. From my time in local authorities, I can recall that it was precisely in the area of provision of recreational, social and sporting activities to vulnerable adults that particular problems arose. I can think of a number of instances that were brought to my attention at the time. It is irrelevant whether the organisation is part of a local authority or part of a separate organisation. Those are precisely the circumstances in which vulnerable adults may well be subjected to all sorts of abuse and we should be providing the protection of the Bill.