---

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may just complete my sentence, I promise that I will move on. As I said, there is a precedent for this procedure, so I would like the Minister to consider it. However, as an alternative we suggest an amendment to automatic barring whereby a person should be given the opportunity to make representations on why he should be moved from the children’s barred list or from the adults’ banned list where there are exceptional circumstances, but only in cases based on a caution. As I said, it is difficult to find examples from the current list, because they are pretty awful offences for which someone would end up on the barred list. The amendment would establish a presumption that certain people will be on the barred list but leave the possibility of exceptional circumstances. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern that"““the list of criteria for automatic inclusion on the barred lists has not been included in primary legislation””." It suggests that the lack of provisions on representation could create an incompatibility between the Bill and articles 6 and 8 of the European convention on human rights. Article 6 clearly provides a right to a public hearing. That has been described as a fundamental guarantee, the purpose of which is to protect litigants from the administration of justice in secret with no public scrutiny. The Bill provides for no public scrutiny. Case law has established that any procedures where civil rights are determined without hearing the parties’ submissions are incompatible with article 6. Our amendment would, in place of the automatic bar, give the IBB a power to allow people not to be placed on the list in exceptional circumstances. I stress that that would apply only in respect of a caution. For example, somebody who is just over 18 may not have realised the age of a girl with whom he has engaged in a sexual relationship. The IBB should have the scope to decide that the circumstances are so unusual that the person concerned presents no danger. Amendments Nos. 243, 244, 246, 245 and 248 deal with an issue that was debated at considerable length in the other place—the basis on which an assessment of the risk of harm might be made. It was suggested that a recently qualified counsellor—not many qualifications are required—might become concerned by comments made or fantasies expressed to them by a patient and could pass them on for assessment by a professional in the field. Of course, confidentiality issues are involved. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to the many amendments to which I have spoken.