---

Division No. 1

CONTENTS
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Avebury, L.
Barnett, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Blackstone, B.
Bledisloe, V.
Borrie, L.
Broadbridge, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Browne-Wilkinson, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.
Carew, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Carter, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Coventry, Bp.
Craig of Radley, L.
Dahrendorf, L.
David, B.
Dean of Beswick, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Donoughue, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Ewing of Kirkford, L.
Exmouth, V.
Ezra, L.
Falkender, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Gallacher, L.
Geraint, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Gregson, L.
Grey, E.
Halsbury, E.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Haskel, L.
Hayman, B.
Hayter, L.
Hertford, M.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollick, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Hooson, L.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hunt of Tanworth, L.
Hylton, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jeger, B.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Judd, L.
Kinloss, Ly.
Kintore, E.
Kirkhill, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Lincoln, Bp.
Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.
Longford, E.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McNair, L.
McNally, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Meston, L.
Methuen, L.
Molloy, L.
Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Monkswell, L.
Monson, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Moyne, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Northbourne, L.
Northfield, L.
Ogmore, L.
Orr-Ewing, L.
Peston, L.
Porter of Luddenham, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Richard, L.
Rix, L.
Robson of Kiddington, B.
Rochester, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Russell, E.
Sainsbury, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Scanlon, L.
Serota, B.
Sewel, L.
Shannon, E.
Shepherd, L.
Simon, V.
Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Stallard, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Strafford, E.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Swinfen, L. [Teller.]
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Tenby, V.
Terrington, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Thurlow, L.
Tordoff, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Varley, L.
Waverley, V.
Weatherill, L. [Teller.]
Wharton, B.
White, B.
Whitty, L.
Wigoder, L.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williams of Mostyn, L.
Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.
Addison, V.
Ailsa, M.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.
Annan, L.
Ashbourne, L.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Balfour, E.
Barber, L.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Beloff, L.
Berners, B.
Blaker, L.
Blatch, B.
Bowness, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Bruntisfield, L.
Burnham, L.
Butterworth, L.
Byford, B.
Cadman, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.
Chelmsford, V.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Clanwilliam, E.
Clark of Kempston, L.
Cockfield, L.
Coleraine, L.
Courtown, E.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] Cuckney, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Freyne, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denbigh, E.
Denton of Wakefield, B.
Derwent, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dudley, E.
Eden of Winton, L.
Ellenborough, L.
Elles, B.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Erne, E.
Feldman, L.
Ferrers, E.
Flather, B.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Freyberg, L.
Gainford, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Gibson-Watt, L.
Goschen, V.
Greenhill of Harrow, L.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Harding of Petherton, L.
Harmsworth, L.
Harris of Peckham, L.
Hayhoe, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Inchcape, E.
Inglewood, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Kenilworth, L.
Laing of Dunphail, L.
Lauderdale, E.
Liverpool, E.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Luke, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.
Melville, V.
Merrivale, L.
Mersey, V.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Milverton, L.
Monk Bretton, L.
Mountevans, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Munster, E.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Nelson, E.
Norfolk, D.
Norrie, L.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Onslow, E.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Oxfuird, V.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Peel, E.
Pender, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Pym, L.
Quinton, L.
Rankeillour, L.
Rawlings, B.
Renton, L.
Renwick, L.
Rodney, L.
St. Davids, V.
Seccombe, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Stewartby, L.
Strange, B.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Sudeley, L.
Swansea, L.
Taylor of Warwick, L.
Tebbit, L.
Teynham, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Trumpington, B.
Ullswater, V.
Vivian, L.
Westbury, L.
Wolfson, L.
Wynford, L.
Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

2 Dec 1996 : Column 492

4.40 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 104:

Page 40, line 10, after ("records") insert ("and which might be relevant to consideration of the applicant's suitability for a specified paid position").

The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 104, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 105, 112, 113, 114, 115 and 116. The purpose of all these amendments is to ensure that only information which might be relevant to the consideration of the applicant's suitability for a specified paid position is included in the certificate under Clause 100.

The significance of "specified paid position" comes to the fore only as a result of the decision which the Committee has just taken, as the Minister might well have been briefed to say that the use of the word "paid" would have been inappropriate if the Government had carried the day on the previous amendment. What we are trying to do is to make sure that we have a system which records only relevant information rather than all kinds of information which might be found on a criminal conviction certificate.

There is nothing new or extraordinary about this. The Netherlands and Greece both have a comparable provision for what is contained in a certificate. We quite understand that in Clauses 101 and 102, where the

2 Dec 1996 : Column 493

sensitivity of the job is already predicated by the provisions of the clauses, there may have to be different provision. However, in Clause 100, with which Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 are concerned, it is clear to me that to have indiscriminate information on unspent convictions would be unnecessarily restrictive and would damage the operation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

It is not as if we have a particularly strong Rehabilitation of Offenders Act compared with other jurisdictions. Under our 1974 Act, for a prison sentence of more than six months and up to 30 months a conviction is unspent for up to 10 years and for a prison sentence of more than 30 months a conviction is never spent. The law is tougher here than in any other country in the European Union except Ireland. A number of jurisdictions, notably the Netherlands and Greece, successfully restrict information on these certificates to those matters which are clearly relevant to the job in hand and are not simply a deterrent to an employer who employs someone who has had a conviction.

There is a genuine conflict of public interest here. There is no point in pretending that there is not always going to be a conflict of interest and that there is no one place in which that conflict of interest can be resolved. On the one hand, it is clearly desirable for offenders who have served their sentences and have taken their punishment to be readmitted on fair terms back into society. That is not just a moral consideration. Clearly, rehabilitation of offenders is desirable in itself. But it is also a practical consideration in the sense that former prisoners whose convictions are spent are much less likely to offend again. Therefore, in terms of prevention of crime, it is better if these people have jobs, provided--this is the other side of the equation--they are not doing any damage in doing so.

Throughout the consideration of the Bill we have supported the provisions for the protection of young people and the protection of the gaming business as proposed. In a few minutes we shall be supporting the extension of protection to vulnerable adults, as proposed in the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. So there can be no question that we want this provision to work. But it will work properly only if it is restricted to those areas which are relevant and recognises the need of society to have offenders whose offences are irrelevant to a particular job get that job and make a proper life for themselves in society again.

In addition to Amendments Nos. 104 and 105, which refer to the criminal conviction certificates in Clause 100, the remaining amendments in the group relate to Clause 102 and tighten up the definition of relevance. The Bill refers to information,

"which ... might be relevant".

We think it is better to say "is relevant". The Bill says "ought to be included". Instead of that we suggest it should say that the Secretary of State may, if in his opinion it is relevant, include this information on the certificate. Clause 102(5) refers to,

"information which, in the chief officer's opinion ... might be relevant".

2 Dec 1996 : Column 494

Amendment No. 115 removes the words "might be" and inserts the word "is".

These are not fundamental changes to the Bill but they would shift the balance between the need for the rehabilitation of offenders and the need for the protection of the public and the protection of children slightly towards the scope for rehabilitation of offenders. We think this is a proper, although perhaps not a major, move. I beg to move.

---