| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that information. On 25th April 2001 the Government announced that they were establishing a full review of the Act. They said that the review will follow the recommendation from the Better Regulation Task Force in its Review of Fit Person Criteria in 1999. I shall not spell out the terms of reference, as the Minister will be aware of them.
However, it is not clear whether this statutory instrument and last year's statutory instrument have anything to do with the work of this review. I have one or two questions and I hope not to stretch the patience of the Minister. I shall be happy for him to write to me with the answers. However, it would be helpful to know on what research the statutory instrument is based and what consultation there has been. What input has there been from the two groups—the core group and the advisory group—that are reviewing the Act? I am grateful to the Minister for having specified the exceptions. This area is crying out for reform. It is a step through which offenders will ultimately be able to get to the rehabilitation process which will help in their development.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order, which we on these Benches support. In particular, I welcome his reinforcement of the point that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which is over 25 years old, is being reviewed and that the Government have it in mind to introduce legislation in due course to bring it up to date. It would be somewhat invidious to try to pin down the noble Lord as to the timescale so I shall not do so. None the less, that appears to be a more coherent way forward than the somewhat piecemeal way in which such exceptions have been added to by secondary legislation.
At the risk of trying the patience of the Minister, I am tempted to repeat my query about the Data Protection Act, although I am sure that his answer to me in the previous debate will carry over to this order. So I shall content myself with that. We support the order and are content to give it a fair wind.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of both noble Lords. I do not have a date by which the review will be concluded, but the expectation is that it will report later this year. It is being conducted in an open and inclusive way and the review team has been keen to listen to what people have to say.
Off the cuff, this order is not a consequence of the review. This is a review of the fundamental rationale behind the Act. Over the years several orders have been added. As can be seen from some of the points that I have made, some of these exceptions are wholly new and some are modifications as a result of legislation. The wholly new ones are chartered psychologists, Court of Protection receivers, registered foreign lawyers, legal executives, actuaries and Internet chat room monitors. I suspect that some of those, by definition, have come about because of changes in technology since the original legislation was passed, particularly the last one. Some of the others that I have mentioned, like air traffic control personnel, are purely a consequence of privatisation and moving people from one area to another.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, my answer on data protection is the same as I gave in the previous debate. There is no fundamental change. This is a modification to some of the areas concerned. I understand that the existing legislation conforms to the data protection legislation. No one has queried that. I have certainly not seen a note to that effect. If the noble Lord has any particular problems I shall be happy to look into them. If I have not responded to any points I shall do so in writing.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at thirteen minutes past eight o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |