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]
I understand that that is a regulated activity, but these provisions are not about the frequency of the activity provided by the provider, but how frequently an employee is at work. If the hon. Lady is asking about an employee who works for only two hours a month, that is a different question. If she is asking about regulated activity, that is defined by the nature of that activity. So, yes, I understand that that is a regulated activity. Similarly, a volunteer helping out at a school campsite will need to be subject to monitoring if they are looking after the children overnight. It will be optional for employers to check individuals engaged in regulated activity lasting less time than those circumstances specified in the ““period condition””, to which I think the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) will refer. Beyond those situations, the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring will still apply when an activity is carried out ““frequently””. The word ““frequently”” will take its normal meaning and, as I have said previously, guidance will set out the Secretary of State’s broad interpretation that the term will cover activities that are carried out once a month or more often. However, to provide a measure of protection for employers and individuals who follow that guidance, we have tabled amendments Nos. 33, 45 and 49, which will require the court to take into account when imposing penalties for failure to comply with the regulated activity requirements the extent to which employers and individuals have followed the Secretary of State’s guidance. We have listened carefully to previous debates, and I believe that those amendments will be welcomed, as they ensure that being barred means precisely that. They clarify when the requirements to check and to be subject to monitoring apply, and they reduce the risk of employers and individuals being unfairly penalised in circumstances where they have followed the Secretary of State’s guidance. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 450 c1318-9
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 14:02:26 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_354200
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_354200
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_354200