Protection of Freedoms Bill

There is not much time available, so I shall be brief. There was considerable discussion in Committee about the nature of ““supervision””. The Bill describes ““supervised work”” as being"““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””." That is a tight definition. Supervision must be ongoing, so a once-a-week meeting between the supervisor and supervised would not meet the requirement. The supervision must be on a daily basis and it must be done by someone who is in regulated activity themselves and, therefore, has been checked against the barred list. We believe that our proposals in this part of the Bill strike a better balance between the roles played by the state and the employers in situ in protecting the vulnerable. Those activities presenting the greatest risks, such as unsupervised work with children or vulnerable adults, remain subject to the central barring and vetting arrangements. We do not think those arrangements are necessary where regular supervision takes place on a daily basis. I should emphasise that that does not mean that checks should not, or cannot, be carried out in relation to work that falls outside regulated activity. Lastly, I wish to say that I am glad that the hon. Lady is pleased with our movement on statutory guidance.