The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:Brown,
Lyn (West Ham) (Lab) †
Buck,
Ms Karen (Regent's Park and Kensington, North)
(Lab) †
Campbell,
Mr. Alan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)Clarke,
Mr. Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
(Con) Clegg,
Mr. Nick (Sheffield, Hallam)
(LD) †
Cox,
Mr. Geoffrey (Torridge and West Devon)
(Con) †
David,
Mr. Wayne (Caerphilly)
(Lab) †
Fabricant,
Michael (Lichfield)
(Con) †
Featherstone,
Lynne (Hornsey and Wood Green)
(LD) †
Garnier,
Mr. Edward (Harborough)
(Con) †
Gwynne,
Andrew (Denton and Reddish)
(Lab) †
Heyes,
David (Ashton-under-Lyne)
(Lab) †
Mactaggart,
Fiona (Slough) (Lab) †
Sutcliffe,
Mr. Gerry (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department)†
Thornberry,
Emily (Islington, South and Finsbury)
(Lab) Wright,
Mr. Iain (Hartlepool)
(Lab) †
Young,
Sir George (North-West Hampshire)
(Con) Mark Oxborough, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Seventh
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationThursday 6
July
2006[Mr. Bill
Olner in the
Chair] Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 20062.30
pm The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr.
Gerry Sutcliffe): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
(Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order
2006. I welcome you to
the Chair, Mr. Olner, and hope this important issue will be resolved
quickly and
fairly. The
draft order was laid before Parliament on 12 June 2006. The
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 allows ex-offenders not to
disclose certain old, spent convictions in an effort to improve their
employment opportunities with the effect of reducing reoffending. The
Act also makes it unlawful for record-keeping bodies such as the
Criminal Records Bureau to disclose details of such
convictions. The Act
grants powers to the Secretary of State to exclude application of those
general rules in relation to questions by particular
employers, bodies and proceedings. The rationale is to ensure that
employers and bodies offering sensitive positions, professions and
licences can access an applicant’s full criminal history before
reaching a
decision. That
power was exercised in 1975 when the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
1974 (Exceptions) Order came into force. The 1975 order has been
amended periodically to ensure that the criminal disclosure regime
keeps pace with changes in employment and public risk. The most recent
amendment was made in 2003. The current amendment seeks to introduce
technical changes as well as a limited number of substantive changes to
the 1975
order. Ministers made
a commitment last September to exempt some in-house football stewards
from the need to be licensed under the Private Security Industry Act
2001. We therefore seek to amend the 1975 order to give the CRB the
legal authority to carry out checks on football stewards at the request
of the Football Association or premier league. Lord Pendry recently
tabled an amendment to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill which would
exclude football stewards from the 2001 Act. The Government are
considering that, along with responses received to a recent
consultation on the licensing of security staff at sports events, and
will decide whether exemption remains the best course of action. In the
meantime, this amendment is needed to meet our commitment to introduce
CRB checks before the new football season
starts. The Housing
Act 2004 requires that from 2007 someone selling a residential property
must produce a valid home information pack. It will consist of a number
of documents, including a home condition
report. Only qualified home inspectors who are members of a
certification scheme approved by the Secretary of State will be able to
produce those reports. A vendor will be compelled to admit a home
inspector into their home and we believe that they will have a
legitimate expectation that the process used for vetting potential home
inspectors is as rigorous as
possible. This
amendment will ensure that the 1975 order maintains its
function as a safeguarding counterbalance to the rights that
ex-offenders enjoy under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act so that
those applying for the sensitive positions mentioned in the amendment
can be more securely vetted, and decisions will be fully informed and
based on past criminal
history. 2.33
pm Mr.
Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): I join the Minister in
welcoming you to our deliberations this afternoon, Mr. Olner. I shall
endeavour to be as brief and concise as the hon. Gentleman
was. On the face of
it, the order is a perfectly sensible and, in some respects, utterly
harmless amendment to the existing regime. It adds a number of jobs to
the exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 for, no
doubt, perfectly sensible reasons. However, it allows us to highlight,
if only briefly, three issues which are, although not strictly germane
to the order, worth
highlighting. The
Chairman: But they are not too far away from the
order. Mr.
Garnier: No, I shall not stray at all far, Mr.
Olner. I thank the
hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for her work when she was
Prisons Minister. It is not an easy job and she did her very best
bearing in mind the difficulties of her Department. I mean that in
nothing other than a proper sense. She may agree that the whole ambit
of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is ripe for review. This
amendment may be sensible within the current regime, but ex-offenders
are more likely to reoffend if they cannot get a job. It seems to me
that whatever one can do through legislation to make it easier for
reformed offenders to be employed needs to be considered. Now that the
hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) has that particular
responsibility, I hope that he will have some thoughtful ideas on how
to make it easier for ex-offenders to get back into
employment. Secondly,
in relation to CRB checks, we all know that over the past few years the
bureau has not exactly been a beacon of excellence. Anything that I can
do to encourage the Government to improve the management and
administration, and therefore the effectiveness, of the bureau is worth
doing. One of the
provisions deals with home inspectors. I sometimes find things
genuinely funny, and sometimes the Government simply amuse me. Home
information packs are a disaster waiting to happen. I cannot let this
occasion go by without sighing about the fact that the Government have
provoked me into talking about home information
packs—
The
Chairman: Order. They are not the subject of the
order.
Mr.
Garnier: I do not want to be excessively tiresome, but
annex A to the explanatory memorandum, headed
“Position/employment”, says at paragraph
(v): “Home
Inspectors—The Housing Act 2004 will require, from 2007, that
someone selling a residential property must have a valid home
information pack” and so
on. I do not want to prolong the debate, as the subject is not of
interest to everybody, but the order allows us to highlight those three
areas of concern, which are probably shared across the Committee.
Ex-offenders need a little more assistance; the CRB needs a lot more
assistance; and the Government need all the help they can get in trying
to persuade me that home inspectors are going to do a useful task in
introducing the home information pack.
That having been said, I shall
sit down. I shall not be urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to
divide the Committee, although I am open to persuasion should others
think it appropriate.
2.37
pm Lynne
Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): May I say how
pleased I am, Mr. Olner, to serve under your
chairmanship? There is
a delicate balance to be drawn between the need to employ ex-offenders
and the need to protect the public. Much of what I would have said
today was recently raised in another place. However, it is important to
be assured that those working in sensitive positions have a record that
is appropriate to the job for which they are applying.
I do not object to the order,
but I would welcome clarification on a couple of issues. Although the
issue of contractors and subcontractors was debated in the other place,
I would like further clarification on whether the public can be assured
that the new powers and duties will be undertaken in an adequate
manner, and on whether training will be provided.
The amendment of schedule 3
refers to section 142 of the Education Act 2002. In any job to do with
schooling or education, sensitivities are even more heightened. I do
not understand why it has taken so long to make such an amendment. Does
one always have to wait three years before overall amendments can be
made to Acts, or could it have been done sooner? In media terms,
anything related to schools or children is
of the utmost importance. I would welcome the Minister’s comments
on that. Otherwise, I see no problems in supporting the
order. 2.40
pm Mr.
Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman and the
hon. Lady for their contributions. I also congratulate my predecessor,
my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, on the work that she did in
laying the foundations of many measures that are great for getting
offenders back into employment and society. I am picking up on those
things now. My hon. Friend worked hard with my good friend Baroness
Scotland to create alliances, particularly commercial ones, to get
people back into work and get employers to recognise the worth of
offenders, who can benefit our
society. The hon. and
learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) welcomed the
exemptions, although he chided the Government on a number of issues. I
cannot let him get away with that, so I shall respond briefly. The
exemptions will not have a tremendous impact on the CRB; we reckon
between five and seven weeks for new applicants over three years.
However, he made a point about the CRB, and we all want to see it
operate effectively.
I completely disagree with the
hon. and learned Gentleman about home improvement packs. As the former
Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs, I think that the
packs are an ideal way to protect the consumer. We will have to agree
to disagree on that
issue. The hon. Member
for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) raised the issue of
education and 2002 Act. Clearly, public protection is key to what the
Government do. The
hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the review of the Rehabilitation
of Offenders Act 1974. Hon. Members will be aware that a review was
taking place and that the Bichard recommendations added to it. We are
seeking to establish what needs to be done and what legislation needs
to come forward. The
hon. Lady asked also about contractors and subcontractors; checks will
be carried out by the Department for Constitutional Affairs to put on a
proper footing the background checking of those who have access to
Government buildings and so
on. The exemption
order is simple and straightforward. I am pleased that the Committee
has welcomed it and hope that it will support
it. Question put
and agreed
to. Committee
rose at eighteen minutes to Three
o’clock.
| 
