---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

I was going to respond specifically to the Minister’s point but I must take up the point just made by the noble Lord opposite. There are two issues here. If somebody is banned from working with children, there is a strong case for arguing that they should be banned from working with vulnerable adults or vice versa. Most noble Lords who have spoken so far have tended to believe that a variety of issues lead to a propensity to cause harm under other circumstances. It does not follow that that is the case in every instance. The Minister said that the Bill effectively achieved what most Members of the Committee seek: automatic consideration. I accept that that is one interpretation. But the Bill contains a set of proposals relating to a list for children and a set relating to a list for vulnerable adults, albeit that there is one single IBB, and the reason, I think, we have tabled our different amendments is that there are two different channels. Let us ignore for a moment those offences listed for automatic inclusion or those listed for inclusion subject to consideration of representation, where it is possible by listing to ensure that there is a read-across. Will the Minister confirm that, where there are concerns regarding behaviour or risk of harm, it will necessarily mean that the barring board looks at that behaviour to see whether it applies to the other category of person? If the employee or former employee has come to the attention of the barring board because, for example, a local authority has raised concerns or has reported a disciplinary matter to it, can we be assured that the board will look at it, not only in respect of the client group for which that matter has arisen, but in respect of the other client groups? What would be lost if that obligation on the barring board were made explicit somewhere in the Bill?