That is very helpful. I am sure that the board will consider all the other matters. That may be sufficient grounds for allaying my concern because a single uncorroborated professional concern would then be assessed along with lots of other matters. If there were two sets of professional concerns, that would weigh in the balance more on one side than the other.
I still think that thought needs to be given to regulated activity providers so that they are aware that more note will be taken of a referral under circumstances in which more information is provided or more than one person is able to certify that there are professional concerns. Perhaps that can be addressed in guidance.
I have fewer concerns about local authorities and their duty to refer because a series of checks and balances applies internally. I am not convinced that the duty on a local authority as a social services authority is really any higher. There is the harm test; the second condition is that the local authority thinks that the person,
"““is engaged or may engage””,"
in regulated activity. That does not seem a very strong test. The person may engage in it in the future if that is the sort of thing in which he is interested.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Harris of Haringey
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 3 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
681 c267GC 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:54:11 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_319538
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_319538
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_319538