Proceeding contribution from Lord Sentamu (Bishops (affiliation)) in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 February 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
I go back to the Soham murders. Huntley happened to be a caretaker and these girls trusted him because he was the caretaker and they had seen him in school. On that day, there was no supervision. What happened to those girls? I would rather be on the side of stricter rules and in time try to water them down a bit than assume that, because someone is in a supervised role, they cannot do something worse when they are in an unsupervised role. The word ““supervision”” is very loose. Unless it is tightened up, people like me will still be left worrying about what happened to those girls. The caretaker was not in a supervised role at that particular point and that is when he did it.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 735 c116
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Criminal records Devolved matters Appeals Detainees Employment Immobilisation of vehicles Legislation Harassment Motor vehicles Parking Powers of entry Personal records Protection Metals Vetting Terrorism Security Right of search Theft Stalking
- Legislation
- Protection of Freedoms Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:17:25 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807609
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807609
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807609