Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders
Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2011
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Blunt, Mr Crispin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)
† Brake, Tom (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
† Crockart, Mike (Edinburgh West) (LD)
† Gardiner, Barry (Brent North) (Lab)
† Goodman, Helen (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
† Harris, Rebecca (Castle Point) (Con)
† Henderson, Gordon (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Hepburn, Mr Stephen (Jarrow) (Lab)
† Hopkins, Kris (Keighley) (Con)
† Kirby, Simon (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)
† McVey, Esther (Wirral West) (Con)
Meacher, Mr Michael (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
† Michael, Alun (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
† Reynolds, Jonathan (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
† Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP)
† Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
† Vickers, Martin (Cleethorpes) (Con)
† Wright, Jeremy (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
James Rhys, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended (Standing Order No. 118(2)):
Cunningham, Alex (Stockton North) (Lab)
Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee
Monday 4 July 2011
[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair]
Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2011
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Crispin Blunt): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2011.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main—I think for the first time. The order is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to keep safeguarding measures in step with developments elsewhere. The largely technical amendments in it maintain the balance between the rehabilitation of offenders and the need to protect the public.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 aids the reintegration into society of offenders who have put their criminal past behind them, with certain convictions declared “spent” after a specified period. Once a conviction has become spent, an ex-offender is not required to declare it when, for example, entering employment, seeking licences or applying for insurance. Research has consistently shown that employment reduces the risk of offending and, by removing unnecessary barriers to employment, the Government are demonstrating their commitment to clearing the way for ex-offenders to lead law-abiding lives.
There must be balance to ensure that the public are adequately protected, so exceptions orders under the Act allow certain employers, bodies and proceedings to be excluded from the Act’s application. When, for example, a person applies for a job listed as excepted, the employer will be entitled to see details of all information about convictions, both spent and unspent. The exceptions listed relate to activities when the individual is presented with an opportunity to cause harm to the public or has regular contact with particularly vulnerable groups, such as children. In such circumstances, the need to protect the public outweighs the need to smooth the path of the ex-offender into employment.
In this exceptions order, we introduce three amendments aimed at maintaining the balance between the resettlement of offenders and public protection. At present, the Financial Services Authority is able to consider spent convictions when authorising a person to carry out regulated activities under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The order will enable the FSA to take spent convictions into account when authorising a new category of business: payments institutions, which were brought within the scope of regulation by the FSA in 2009.
Payments institutions provide payment services, such as enabling cash to be placed in or withdrawn from a payment account, and they range from large credit card companies to sole traders offering to send money abroad
for a small fee. Money remitters transfer large amounts to and from overseas, and many specialise in remitting funds to specific countries, such as India, Pakistan or Poland, on behalf of immigrant communities. In many cases, the customers are financially disadvantaged and have limited access to the banking system.The failures of a number of businesses in the money remittance industry have uncovered mismanagement, financial impropriety and fraud, so it is important that the FSA is able to assess those responsible for the management of such bodies before authorising them to do business. This first amendment brings payments institutions within the exceptions regime so that the FSA can take into account the full background of those responsible for their management.
The second amendment under the order relates to the introduction of alternative business structures, which will allow lawyers and non-lawyers to work together to provide legal and non-legal services. The bodies will be licensed and regulated by licensing authorities. Two new roles—head of legal practice and head of finance and administration—are being introduced, and those people will be responsible for an alternative business structure’s compliance with its licence.
Licensing authorities must be satisfied that individuals applying to be heads of legal practice and heads of finance and administration are “fit and proper persons” for appointment. In particular, persons in those roles not only will be responsible for compliance with the body’s licence, but could have access to vulnerable clients, client money and personal or sensitive client information.
The amendment means that licensing authorities will be able to seek information on previous convictions and cautions from applicants seeking to take up the roles of head of legal practice and head of finance and administration. This will ensure that they are fit and proper for appointment.
The Legal Services Board recently made a further request for non-lawyer owners and managers of alternative business structures to be added to the exceptions regime. At this stage, no decision has been made. Careful consideration needs to be given to the request, and that is under way.
The final amendment will update the definition of “actuary” in exceptions legislation. Whereas it was previously defined as a member of
“the Institute of Actuaries or a member or student of the Faculty of Actuaries”,
those two bodies merged on 1 August 2010 to become the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, and, in order to continue to give effect to the applicable exception, the entry will be updated to reflect that change.
I hope that all Committee members will agree that the order is a valuable tool in ensuring public safety. It illustrates our commitment to update legislation regularly to protect the public in line with the latest analysis of risks. The instrument is focused on maintaining the correct approach towards public protection while ensuring that, by reflecting developments in the legal and financial sectors, exceptions legislation is fit for purpose. The order therefore reacts to the new requirements for public protection while maintaining the balance on the resettlement of offenders that the 1974 Act tries to strike.
4.36 pm
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Main. This uncontroversial statutory instrument will strengthen the protection of the public, and the Opposition have no objection to it.
4.37 pm
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I rise not only to support the order, but to underline my view that the Government need proactively to consider reform of the 1974 Act. That is clearly not a matter for this debate, but reform is central to the rehabilitation of offenders, and enabling them to secure employment is the most effective way to tackle reoffending.
4.38 pm
Mr Blunt: I am grateful to the Opposition for their support, and I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington that the Government remain committed to reform of the 1974 Act. We are still considering the precise context of that important reform and the most appropriate legislative vehicle through which to achieve it, but I completely agree about the importance of delivering it and getting it right, and that is what we are in the process of doing.