Protection of Freedoms Bill — Clause 64 — Level of Supervision of Volunteers Working With Children for Exemption from Barring Regulations — 19 Mar 2012 at 20:00

The majority of MPs voted against requiring volunteers working with children to be under close audio and visual supervision, rather than just reasonable supervision, for them to be exempted from regulations barring people from working with children.

MPs were considering the Protection of Freedoms Bill[1]. The amendment rejected in this vote was:

  • That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 30 be made.

Lords Amendment 30[2][3] stated:

  • Page 51, line 11, at end insert—
  • “(2C) The reference in subsection (2B)(b) to day to day supervision is a reference to such day to day supervision as is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purpose of protecting any children concerned.””

Amendment (a)[4] stated:

  • Line 3, [Subsection (2C), second line] leave out from first ‘to’ to end of line 5 and insert ‘constant monitoring by an individual engaged in a regulated activity who is on the same site and able to maintain close visual and audio contact with the individual who is under supervision.’.

The amendments relate to Clause 64 of the Bill[5][6] titled Restriction of scope of regulated activities: children which amends the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 which is on the subject of the regulation of activities including teaching, caring for, advising or treating children.

The relevant subsection 2B(2) to which the amendments relate are on the subject of the level of supervision required for volunteers, which in the Bill as originally stood it stated:

  • any such work which is, on a regular basis, subject to the day to day supervision of another person who is engaging in regulated activity relating to children”

The Bill sought to remove supervised volunteers from the scope of regulated activity (activity which an individual can be barred from doing); the amendment which was the subject of this vote was on specifying that this supervision must be "close visual and audio contact" rather than merely being "reasonable" (as in the Lords amendment) or just "day to day supervision" as in the Bill as it stood.


Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con257 (+2 tell) 0084.6%
DUP0 2025.0%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 203 (+2 tell)079.8%
LDem43 0075.4%
Total:300 207081.1%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive