---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 3:"Page 36, line 14, leave out ““child””" The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the Schedule 2 definition of what sort of behaviour can be regarded as relevant conduct of a person being considered for the children’s list. It would change the phrase ““conduct involving child pornography”” to ““conduct involving pornography””, so that the scope would be wider. My amendment would then make it the same as the similar paragraph in the schedule relating to the adults’ list. If noble Lords look at the equivalent paragraph later in the schedule—paragraph 9(1)(c)—they will see that all pornography is included. I note that this is a legal activity that is being used to consider the person for the barred list, and I do not quarrel with that at all. But I think that certain kinds of behaviour relating to pornography that is not child pornography should give the IBB cause for concern—for example, the production of pornographic material; pornography involving violence or bestiality; or, perhaps even more obviously, involvement with pornography involving adult models dressed as or behaving as children. That is not illegal—it is adult pornography—but it should certainly give the IBB cause for concern. My amendment would leave in the important phrase that such conduct would be relevant only if the IBB thinks that it is inappropriate. It would not cover any kind of pornographic activity that a person might take part in; it would cover only such activity that the IBB considered inappropriate for somebody who might be going to work with children in any capacity. I understand that these two parts of the schedule were drafted by two different departments. The stuff relating to the children’s list was drafted by the DfES, while that relating to the adults’ list was drafted by the Department of Health. Is it a mistake that ““child”” has been inserted in one section but omitted from the other? If we accept that the IBB should consider candidates for one barred list also for the other—which I know the Government have accepted—we should also consider that the same range of activity should be considered by the expert panel, to see whether it is appropriate for a person to work with children or vulnerable adults. I hope that that explains my reasons for wanting to see both lists exactly the same as regards this relevant activity. Child pornography, of course, is absolutely relevant for consideration by the IBB, but I think that there are also categories of adult pornography that should be considered inappropriate. The IBB should be given the duty of considering it. I beg to move.