The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Afriyie,
Adam
(Windsor)
(Con)
Bellingham,
Mr. Henry
(North-West Norfolk)
(Con)
Blunt,
Mr. Crispin
(Reigate)
(Con)
Borrow,
Mr. David S.
(South Ribble)
(Lab)
Curry,
Mr. David
(Skipton and Ripon)
(Con)
Drew,
Mr. David
(Stroud)
(Lab/Co-op)
Greening,
Justine
(Putney)
(Con)
Hanson,
Mr. David
(Minister of State, Ministry of
Justice)
Heath,
Mr. David
(Somerton and Frome)
(LD)
Howarth,
David
(Cambridge)
(LD)
Iddon,
Dr. Brian
(Bolton, South-East)
(Lab)
Khan,
Mr. Sadiq
(Tooting)
(Lab)
Lazarowicz,
Mark
(Edinburgh, North and Leith)
(Lab/Co-op)
Smith,
Geraldine
(Morecambe and Lunesdale)
(Lab)
Thornberry,
Emily
(Islington, South and Finsbury)
(Lab)
Vaz,
Keith
(Leicester, East)
(Lab)
Waltho,
Lynda
(Stourbridge)
(Lab)
Glenn
McKee, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 10
July
2007
[Mr.
Roger Gale
in the
Chair]
Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2007
10.30
am
The
Chairman:
Before I call the Minister, for the convenience
and comfort of hon. and right hon. Members, I should indicate that they
may remove their jackets if they wish to do so. I have also taken a
fairly close look at the order, and it seems to me to be pretty clearly
defined. I am happy to have a full debate on it, but I would not be so
happy to entertain a full debate on the entire remit of criminal
justice and the rehabilitation of
offenders.
The
Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. David
Hanson):
I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
(Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2007.
I welcome you to the Chair,
Mr. Gale, and I praise the optimism with which you suggested
that we may remove our jackets if we wishit is not the warmest
of summer days. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble has shown
commendable expertise by taking his jacket off at an early
stage. May I welcome the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk to
his new responsibilities on the Conservative Front Bench, and my hon.
Friend the Member for Tooting to the Whips
Office?
The
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 allows ex-offenders not to
disclose all spent convictions in order to improve their employment
opportunitiesan approach that the whole Committee will welcome.
The order sets out the categories of work to which, for reasons of
public safety, the Act does not apply. Prospective workers in certain
categories of work are not entitled to conceal convictions,
irrespective of whether they are spent, and the Criminal Records Bureau
is permitted to release information on convictions, also regardless of
whether they are spent. Inclusion in the order does not mean that it is
mandatory for employing organisations to carry out checks, but simply
that they are able to do
so.
The amendments to
the exceptions have been brought forward to keep the provisions current
and to ensure that the needs of ex-offenders, employers and the general
public remain appropriately balanced. As right hon. and hon. Members
will be aware, the provisions were amended twice in 2006, and twice in
the preceding five years. Again, I have introduced the order
today to allow for pressing, high-risk employment categories relating
to children to be taken into account, and to cover other categories
that have been proposed for inclusion.
I intend to introduce a further
order in the near future to reflect the original recommendation of the
Bichard inquiry, which covered the Soham case a couple of years ago, so
that all posts involving work with children and vulnerable adults are
subject to the disclosure regime. That order will coincide with the
implementation of the provisions contained in the Safeguarding
Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which we will introduce and implement in
2008.
In the meantime,
I did not wish to delay several vital changes to the provisions, which
I shall outline. Simply put, I wish to ensure that we give protection
as quickly as possible to children and vulnerable adults in respect of
the employment categories set out in the order. Some amendments to the
provisions relate to the Bichard reforms; others include allowing
checks for employees of the Gambling Commission, which has law
enforcement responsibilities in respect of the gambling industry; and
the strengthening of the position of the Financial Services Authority
so that it may consider any criminal
offences.
For the
convenience of the Committee, I shall go through some of the amendments
that the order will make. We are updating the provisions to enable the
finance industry and the FSA to consider all spent offences committed
by individuals who fall within the provisions by deleting reference to
relevant offences. That will bring the provisions for
the industry into line with other provisions by allowing the FSA to
take all convictions into
account.
As I
mentioned, following recommendations by the Bichard inquiry into the
Soham case, I have included a number of measures in the order. Article
7 makes a number of additions to the list,
including:
People
working in the Department for Education and Skills, the Office for
Standards in Education, Childrens Services and Skills
or...in the Government Offices for the English
Regions.
This will of course apply to the new Government Departments that have been announced recently.
Operators and users of
ContactPoint, a database containing basic information
about children in England aged up to 18 such as their name, date of
birth, address and contact details of parent or carer, GP practice,
health visitor and so on will also be included, as will persons giving
advice to children over the telephone or other forms of electronic
communication, such as the internet and mobile telephone text
messages.
I also
include the chairman, members and staff of the independent barring
board, which will come into effect soon. It has not yet been
established, but the exception will apply to prospective appointments
to the board. The first provision relating to staff at the Department
for Education and Skills was drafted before the recent changes in
Whitehall, but we shall ensure that it is relevant to the new
Departments that were put in place several weeks ago by my right hon.
Friend the Prime
Minister.
Several
other changes in the order relate to staff working in the Public
Guardianship Office who have access to data relating to children; the
Commissioner for Older People in Wales and his deputy; and any person
appointed by the commissioner to assist them in the discharge
of their functions following the creation of the position under the
Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Act 2006. I have also included
commissioners for the Gambling Commission and any
office or employment in their service in accordance with powers under
the Gambling Act 2005, as well as individuals seeking
authorisation from the Home Secretary to become authorised search
officers. That ministerial commitment was given during the passage of
the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and it is one that I
am pleased to put into force today if the Committee approves the
order.
Anyone in
employment whose usual duties involve caring for, training, supervising
or being solely in charge of persons aged under 18 serving in the armed
forces will come under the duress of the order. That follows the
recommendation made by the Deepcut review in March 2006. I am very
pleased to meet the commitments given at that time by Ministers
to ensure that the recommendations in the review are
implemented.
The
amendments are necessary. They provide a proper balance between the
needs of vulnerable groups for protection and the necessity of
maintaining the integrity of our regulatory and public bodies. They are
also in line with the broad principle that we should help ex-offenders
to be rehabilitated through employment. As the Committee will be
awareand I hope that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk
will share my viewit is important that we look not only at how
ex-offenders can be reintegrated into society through employment, but
put down minimum standards to ensure that the public are protected
during that consideration. Todays order will amend the 1974
Act, and I commend it to the
Committee.
10.38
am
Mr.
Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I thank
the Minister for his kind remarks. I wish him and the new team at the
Ministry of Justice well and I look forward to encounters with him in
the future. I appreciate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman
explained the workings of the order. As he rightly pointed out, it is
an important priority for society to strike a balance between the
rehabilitation of offenders and doing all that we can to make sure that
people do not reoffend. One of the best ways of doing so is to ensure
that they are properly motivated and have self-esteem, and that is far
more likely to happen if they have a good
job.
At the same time,
I accept entirely that the public must be protected and what the
Minister said certainly has resonance in East Anglia, a part of the
country that I represent. The Soham murders were unbelievably brutal
and appalling. The Bichard report made various recommendations and I am
pleased that some of them will be implemented under the order. No one
could have been anything other than horrified about what happened at
Deepcut barracks. Extra protection for youngsters who are training for
a career in the armed forces from people who might abuse them is to be
welcomed.
The Minister
mentioned consultation with different organisations. In fact the
explanatory memorandum
states:
Public
interest in this amendment is expected to be
minimal.
Presumably
there was some consultation, but that statement seems to imply that
consultation has not really taken place. How did the Howard League for
Penal Reform and other organisations that work with prisoners and
ex-offenders respond? What was their view of extending the
exemptions?
The
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England
and Wales) Order 2006 added to the list of exemptions Her
Majestys Revenue and Customs, traffic officers, court auxiliary
staff and so on. The Government have now come back with a new order,
which is driven partly by the Bichard report and the report on the
Deepcut tragedy, but other organisations have requested exemptions.
They are listed in annexe A of the explanatory memorandum and include
the Financial Services Authority, the Gambling
Commission and the Border and Immigration
Agency.
As far as the
Border and Immigration Agency is concerned, there was a specific
commitment in the 2006 legislation, but surely the Financial Services
Authority and the Gambling Commission could have been added earlier.
Would it not make sense to ensure that such orders are as wide ranging
as the Government see fit when they are introduced, so that we do not
need to return to them in a piecemeal fashion? I know that the latter
approach might give us more time for discussion, but is it a good use
of the Houses and Departments time to come back to
matters that could be wrapped up in a bigger order? Will the Minister
comment on that?
The
Ministry of Justice has apparently requested that staff working in
posts that involve specific operational security risks in the Public
Guardianship Office be added to the exemptions. Will the Minister
elaborate on that, because it is unclear exactly what it means; it
could mean a number of different things. On the FSAs request
for the provisions to be updated, the explanatory memorandum says that
that would
enable the
finance industry and
themselves
the
FSA
to consider
all spent offences committed by individuals falling within the
Order.
That is very wide
ranging. Does it include every single financial services company or
business regulated by the FSA? In other words, could all spent
offences be considered for anyone applying to work in the FSA and
FSA-regulated
businesses?
Financial
services are the one part of our economy that is doing well and some of
the back-office operations in financial services employ people in many
parts of London and other great cities outside the main financial
centres. Some of those people might not have particularly good
qualifications and do not necessarily have degrees and so on. On the
other hand, such people contribute to back-office operations, and there
are jobs for which many people who have been offenders in the past want
to apply. Will the Minister look at whether the measure will completely
rule them out of such
jobs?
We will listen
to what the Minister has to say. We realise that a balance has to be
struck between the rights of the offender and the need to rehabilitate
them, and protecting the public and children in particular. That is why
we support the Government this morning.
10.44
am
David
Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): As the hon. Member for
North-West Norfolk has just said, the issue before the House is the
balance between the interests of society in reintegrating offenders to
work
and society in general and, on the other hand, the protection of the
public. In so far as the order relates to the protection of children
and vulnerable adults, I do not think that there will be any dissent in
Committee. The recommendations arise from the Bichard and Deepcut
reports. As another Member of Parliament from East Anglia, I am
particularly conscious of the importance of the Bichard report, but the
Deepcut report exercises all Members of Parliament whose constituents
include parents and
servicemen.
I wish to
ask a couple of questions about the applications of the exemption.
First, on the Criminal Records Bureau, the explanatory memorandum
states:
The
Criminal Records Bureau has requested that signatories be included in
the Exceptions Order in order to bring the legislation into line with
operational
policy.
Normally, it is
thought to be a good idea to bring operational policy in line with the
law. It seems rather odd to imply that what has been going on may not
have been in accordance with the law and that what has been happening
so far has been illegal. If that is the case, will the Minister comment
on the consequences of the bureaus failure to act in line with
existing legislation and what the Government propose to do about that
state of affairs?
Secondly, the hon. Member for
North-West Norfolk mentioned the Financial Services Authority. The
effect of the order is to allow the Financial Services Authority to
take into account spent convictionsnot only relevant
convictions but irrelevant ones as well. The definition of a relevant
offence under the existing legislation applies to
an offence involving fraud or
other dishonesty;...an offence under the legislation (whether or
not of the United Kingdom) relating to building societies, companies
(including insider dealing), industrial and provident societies, credit
unions, friendly societies, insurance, banking or other financial
services, [money laundering,] insolvency, consumer credit or consumer
protection.
Those are
the first two definitions. There are two more definitions, including
one covering any offence to do with
tax.
That definition I
quoted is quite a good definition of a relevant offence with regard to
financial services jobs. The explanation that the Minister gave, which
also appears in the explanatory memorandum, is that the order brings
this area of the law into line with other areas, but is that
necessarily the right thing to do? The law should never be too broad.
It should be relevant to the particular problem at hand and should not
allow investigations of offences that are not relevant to the job. It
could be that in another part of the law, it is very difficult to
define relevant offences. Here, it has always been the case that
relevant offences have been defined in quite a sensible way. In this
particular case, I wonder whether the interests of society in
reintegrating ex-offenders into jobs which, as the hon.
Member for North-West Norfolk said, are an increasingly
important part of the economy, outweigh the interests of the Financial
Services Authority or others in protecting the public from people who
are applying for a job that is not relevant to their previous
offence.
That is a
point that the Minister should respond to. He should not just say that
the order will bring this
area of the law into line with other legislation, but he should say
substantively what the public interest is in allowing the Financial
Services Authority to take into account spent convictions which so far
have not been considered relevant to the job. With those two provisos,
I, too, support the
order.
10.49
am
Mr.
Hanson:
I shall try to answer the points that hon.
Members have raised. First, on the question of consultation, we trawled
for views on the issues, and we received a very positive response from
the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders.
NACRO wanted a balance between looking at spent convictions and
protecting the interests of the public. I believe that our discussions
today have struck that balance. There was widespread consultation on
the implementation of the new vetting and barring scheme, which will
come into effect next year and received overwhelming support during our
consultations about extending the eligibility for disclosures. I
believe that we have struck a balance, but obviously as hon. Members
have mentioned, it is a matter that is under constant review.
The hon. Member for North-West
Norfolk asked why we had not consolidated these matters previously and
why we have waited until now to deal with them. We have introduced the
proposals now and in this form because there have been changes as a
result of the Bichard inquiry. Some aspects of the order deal with
legislation that has been introduced during the past 12 months,
or that will come into effect shortly. One example is the
National Assembly for Wales Government amendment on the Commissioner
for Older People (Wales) Act 2006 (Commencement) Order 2006. The post
is currently being considered for appointment in October 2007, and this
is the first opportunity to make changes accordingly.
Similarly, the Gambling
Commission came into effect in 2005, and this is the first opportunity
to bring legislation up to speed with what has happened in other
Committees. I want to ensure that in future a bigger order can
consolidate all the information. I will be looking at
that in relation to the further recommendations made in the Bichard
report, and I hope that we can consolidate that work in 2008 to bring
it into line with the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act
2006.
A number of
points have been made by members of the Committee about specific bodies
and I will try to answer them. The hon. Members for North-West Norfolk
and for Cambridge mentioned the FSA. I accept that we have extended its
potential to gain greater knowledge of people with spent convictions as
part of its considerations on employment matters. I believe that the
FSA, its employers and relevant organisations need to consider all
spent offences committed by individuals falling within the
order.
From my
perspectiveand I am sure that hon. Members will endorse
thisthe FSA is responsible for monitoring and assessing the
fitness and propriety of individual candidates to perform particular
functions. Most of those functions require the individual to have
honesty, integrity and reputation. To help the FSA assess that, it
needs to look at all criminal convictions. It does not mean that
individuals with criminal
convictions cannot be employed in the FSA, or within
any organisations regulated by it, but it does mean that it needs to
know exact details of individuals criminal convictions. The
whole purpose of the FSA is to monitor financial integrity in business,
and it is important that that is the case.
Mr.
Bellingham:
That applies to people who deal directly with
the public, such as those who sell financial service products or are
involved in a trading operation in the City. However, I was referring
to the very large number of jobs in back-office operations, which are
often far away from the City in various suburbs and other parts of the
country. In those operations, there are plenty of jobs available that
are not particularly skilled, but are reasonably well paid, and which
give people a chance to get back on to the employment ladder. Should
the same strict procedure be applied to those jobs as is applied to
those people who deal directly with the
public?
Mr.
Hanson:
The exception order applies to specific posts
which are set out in detail in article 3 of the Rehabilitation of
Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. However, the basic
principle I am proposing is that the FSA needs to look at all
convictions within the scope of the measure to make an assessment. It
does not mean that individuals cannot be employed, but when an
organisation employs them, all convictions need to be disclosed to the
FSA.
David
Howarth:
I am having difficulty understanding why those
provisions apply specifically to the FSA and to almost no other
employer. If we say that any employer needs to know about an
individuals entire character and therefore needs to know about
spent convictions, that would undermine the whole purpose of the 1975
legislation. Why are those employersthe
regulatorsspecified with regard to the jobs that they are
regulating, because that appears to be taken into account already by
the way in which the law
works?
Mr.
Hanson:
I am in danger of repeating myself, but I hope
that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. The FSA and other relevant
financial organisations need to have access to information that they
require to fulfil their statutory and employment objectives, because
their purpose in life is to organise and regulate financial services.
Those organisations need access to information relating to spent
convictions. We could debate that issue, but the purpose of the measure
is to ensure propriety in financial services. The financial services
industry is important in the UK. We need to examine the points in
context, and I think that the case is
made.
David
Howarth:
I shall make one final attempt. Can the Minister
give an example of an offence that is not currently covered by
the definition of relevant offence that he thinks the
FSA should take into account in carrying out its
functions?
Mr.
Hanson:
That is a positive question on which I should like
to reflect. I want to help the Committee and should not like to mislead
it by drawing attention to a particular offence. However, I will
certainly reflect on that during the course of our debate and come back
to the hon. Gentleman in due course.
The hon. Member for North-West
Norfolk said that the order was being extended to cover the Ministry of
Justice in particular and the Public Guardianship Office. He will know
that the Public Guardianship Office is an administrative arm of the
Court of Protection and provides financial protection services for
clients who have difficulties managing their financial affairs due to a
range of issues, not least mental incapacity. One reason why we
introduced the order in this form is that such incapacity may be
related to an illness such as dementia or may be the result of an
accident or negligence, or it may involve mental illness such as
schizophrenia.
We are
trying to ensure in the order that the Public Guardianship Office staff
are given access to criminal record checks to enhance the disclosure
level. Pursuant to the Bichard inquiry recommendations and the vetting
and barring scheme that comes into effect shortly, staff and
contractors that have such a level of access must ensure that
they are provided with sensitive data with regard to children. We need
to ensure that there is proper vetting of individuals with convictions.
None of that precludes an individual being employed in this field; it
is simply that, under the 1974 Act, such individuals need to provide
the relevant information at the time of consideration of their
employment.
The hon.
Member for Cambridge said that it is difficult to define a
relevant offence. The definition, in the order, is
shown to be increasingly outmoded. Our experience is that crime is
outstripping the speed of legislation and we need to take into account
new crimes and new changes as we proceed. To clarify an earlier point,
relevant offence is defined in the order. Specifically,
financial fraud or dishonesty offences regarding taxation or the
administration of justice are included. The definition of a relevant
offence is clearly wider than that, but it includes crimes of violence.
There is a range of issues to consider. In the final analysis, those
who are regulating financial services need to be aware, for the
propriety of various schemes, exactly what spent convictions
individuals
have.
David
Howarth:
One must remember that a conviction that has
given rise to a sentence of more than two and a half years can never be
spent, but we are talking about a conviction for a violent offence that
has not led to a long prison sentence. If a conviction is relevant
enough for financial services bodies to know about it when it is spent,
why is it not relevant to all other
jobs?
Mr.
Hanson:
I am trying to make the distinction that, in my
view, the FSA and the organisations that it regulates are dealing with
matters that need to be covered by the order. I am trying to determine
from which angle the hon. Gentleman is coming from, and whether he
means that we should extend the order to cover all organisations or
delete the FSA. We have taken the view that, because of its regulatory
nature, the FSA needs to have that information to hand in exercising
its duties.
The
Government have made a judgment that I hope that the Committee will
support. I am happy to reflect on the matter and discuss issues
relating to the orders
operation with the hon. Gentleman later. However, we have made that
judgment and I commend the order to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act
1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order
2007.[
Mr.
Hanson.
]
Committee
rose at Eleven
oclock.