Protection of Freedoms Bill

My Lords, as the Minister has explained, my Amendment 50B seeks to understand precisely what is meant by his Amendment 50A. I welcome the direction in which the Government are moving, and I hope that I will welcome the guidance as well. As he said, this issue caused some unease among noble Lords in previous debates, and there were some very powerful and very knowledgeable contributions on the last occasion. My amendment would take out the words ““in all the circumstances””. There has been reference not only to unease but many times to balance, which in a number of places in this Bill has been the approach taken. However, concern has been expressed that balance in this context may be more dangerous than we would like to think. I am not clear what is meant by ““the circumstances”” here. Is it a balance between what is required for the protection of children and the burden on those who are supervising? The Minister has said that it means more than simply ““reasonable””, and qualifies it—of course, ““reasonable”” is a qualification in itself. My concern, as he has anticipated, is that to add ““in all the circumstances”” would reduce the degree or quality of supervision required. It must mean something, otherwise it would simply say ““reasonable””. I do not think it adds; I fear it may detract. He has explained that it requires local managers on the ground to judge the risk—I think I am right in saying—in the circumstances of the particular activity. It still seems to me that ““reasonable”” alone would do the job. My amendment looks for confirmation that ““in all the circumstances”” is not a reference to the burden on those who supervise or who might supervise. I started by saying that I welcome the direction in which the Government are moving, and I would hate this phraseology to take us backwards from that. I beg to move.