---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I shall speak to Amendment No. 55 in the group. I have listened with care to what other Members of the Committee have said on there being two lists as opposed to one. At Second Reading, I expressed my preference for a single list. If an individual is not suited to be with children, he is certainly not suited to be with vulnerable adults. That was the feeling across your Lordships’ House at Second Reading. I shall return to reflect upon one or two things that Members of the Committee have said today, but my amendment was tabled in the light of the Minister’s reply to our Second Reading debate and the notes that he kindly forwarded to the Members of the Committee before today’s meeting. A central tenet of the new scheme is to establish more consistent information sources. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has stressed the need for strong read-across and I agree with him. It is so important. Although in some circumstances an individual may present a risk to children or vulnerable adults but not to both groups, there will invariably be many circumstances in which a person presents a risk to both groups and should be included on both lists. I was interested to read in the Minister’s pre-Committee information note on automatic barring that the list of offences in each case will be consistent with offences resulting in an automatic bar without representations with respect to children, leading to an automatic bar with representations with respect to adults, and vice versa. That looks as though an implicit dialogue between the lists is proposed. I welcome that—indeed, I think it is crucial—and I am sure that noble Lords on the other side of the Committee would welcome it, but why not make that dialogue explicit? If that dialogue is not in place, I cannot help but wonder how some crimes can be so terrible that they merit automatic inclusion on one list but not even consideration by default on the equivalent list for an equally vulnerable group. Surely this is a Bill to safeguard many vulnerable groups simultaneously and consistently, not just one group at a time. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, who spoke in support of my amendment. I believe that a strong read-across is important, bearing in mind that in most instances we are talking about abuse of power over an individual; therefore, it must be right to err on the side of caution. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, prefers one list, which several noble Lords proposed at Second Reading. I have a feeling that the Minister may respond on that and I am perhaps being a little pre-emptive in saying that one list is not supportive of human rights. I hope that the Minister will expound on the reflections of those considering the human rights aspect of the Bill, most particularly on this point. The human rights of everyone must be taken into account, not just those of the individual. We are talking about the wider community as well. One of the reasons there has been so much criticism since the introduction of the Human Rights Act is that it has often been felt that the focus on the individual is too strong and that the rights of the wider community have been compromised. That worries me when considering this kind of Bill because we are talking about the rights of individuals who represent communities. In many instances, these individuals do not have a voice to speak out on their behalf. It is therefore important to approach the human rights issue with great care. I sometimes wonder, too, whether the notion of deterrence has disappeared from government thinking. We do not hear much about that these days and it concerns me that the focus is on finding solutions rather than on how we deter something in the first place. That point relates more to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, than to my own.