My Lords, given the length of the debate and the time, I have junked most of what I intended to say and will keep it really brief. I can understand that at first sight Clause 2 looks as though it covers a range of relationships, but when issues arise and the police become involved, we have to remove any loopholes the perpetrator could use. Therefore, at least some of this group of amendments should be seriously considered to be added to the Bill. The less that is in doubt, the better. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot see how guardians are covered in Clause 2, so Amendment 6 is an absolute must to be considered to be put in the Bill.
7.30 pm
Neither Amendment 7 nor Amendment 11 appears to be covered in the way I read the clause. I appreciate that guidance will be issued and that the area of care is very varied. However, as the LGA brief makes clear, there needs to be consistent understanding across all the agencies involved. The LGA warns against a definition which might prevent someone giving care in some circumstances. For example, helping with finances can vary from very simple to incredibly complex. Can the Bill prevent domestic abuse via, for example, misuse of a lasting power of attorney? I would need to be satisfied on that.
Amendment 8 relates to forced marriage by including the parents and other family members. I can support this from direct constituency experience when I was in the other place.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who has just spoken, I do not understand Amendment 13. The note says that is intended to widen the definition in Amendment 12. It seems to me to narrow it.
Finally, I would like to hear from the Minister why Amendment 14 is already covered by Clause 2. I cannot see how it is and it appears that the circumstances, and the examples given by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, make it a crucial point to be added to the Bill in due course.