Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Parmjit Dhanda (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 23 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill (HL).


Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [Lords]

The amendments reflect the concerns of hon. Members about unfairly criminalising individuals because of their lack of understanding of the scheme, and about the need for an effective communications campaign. Amendment No. 254 would mean that a barred person had committed an offence only if they engaged in regulated activity with the intention of misleading the IBB or a regulated activity provider. Through amendment No. 255, that would replace the defence that the Bill provides for a barred person who engaged in regulated activity without realising that they were barred. The amendments would create a loophole potentially allowing people who wanted to harm children and vulnerable adults to engage in regulated activity without committing an offence. I doubt whether that is the aim of Liberal Democrat Members, but it would be the consequence of their amendments.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1290 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Disclosure of information Conditions of employment Criminal records Devolution Fees and charges Electronic surveillance Foster care Governing bodies Information Internet Local government NHS Northern Ireland Recruitment Older people Mental capacity Pornography Monitoring Staff Powers of attorney Offences against children Scotland Registration Vetting Schools Vulnerable adults Sexual offences Regulation Safety Wales Voluntary work Independent Safeguarding Authority
Legislation
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk