§ Mr. NeubertI beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 6, leave out lines 29 to 38.
There might appear to be an inconsistency between this attempt to remove the exemption of estate agents from the protected provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and my earlier amendment in relation to sexual and racial discrimination. If that impression exists, perhaps I might be allowed to dismiss it at the outset.
The argument on the earlier amendment was that estate agents should not be subject to the extra penalty for offences of discrimination. If in the debates on the original Bills it had been argued that estate agents would face the extra penalty of losing their livelihood, the House might have held that to be unreasonable.
However, this amendment seeks to discriminate against the estate agent. The earlier amendment was in itself discriminatory. If I am as successful as the sponsor of this Bill in the Ballot next Session, I may have to introduce the Estate Agents Discrimination Bill to correct the discrimination in this Bill. But this apparent inconsistency arises because, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, some offences might be directly relevant, as sexual or racial discrimination is not, to the work of an estate agent.
The principle of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, I think, was wrong. It struck at the principle of the truth. The truth is no longer a defence. If a man is guilty of an offence, that fact may not be stated against him in any circumstances when that offence is spent. I cannot agree with wiping the slate clean in that way. A man could continue in a career without inhibition or obstacle, but the past should be known and it should not be an offence to state the truth.
I would therefore urge reconsideration of this provision in the Bill on the ground that, particularly in relation to the offence of fraud, it should not be a matter for concealment that a practising estate agent open. Fraud is a definite business offence That is surely germane to the business. It is not something to which we are all 726 open. Fraud is a definite business offence which could easily arise in the course of an estate agency.
The clause should be withdrawn and reconsidered to ascertain whether such offences, which are very likely and directly relevant, should be covered by it.
§ Mr. FairbairnCan my hon. Friend tell me of any other profession, trade, employment or qualification in respect of which it is provided that a conviction for fraud, dishonesty or violence outside one's employment, and for racial or sexual discrimination within it, is a bar to one's continuing to be employed in that profession or work?
§ Mr. NeubertMy hon. and learned Friend reminds me of the point that arose earlier. It is perhaps a precedent that a profession should be subjected to this provision. I said earlier that the original statute is as recent as 1974. Here in 1978 we are asked to provide for exceptions to it. That is unreasonable as well, because Parliament is asked to consider the original legislation in the terms as defined in the draft Bill. If we are to have these further exceptions or exemptions or, as in the previous case, extra penalties, it means that Parliament is being asked, after the event, to add to the provisions of the Bill about which it was, perhaps, not happy originally.
§ Mr. Bryan DaviesThe hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) presented an interesting case. He will recognise that the number of exemptions from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is small. We should be very careful about suggesting that, because estate agents hold public money, they should be made an exempt category from the Act in the same way as are members of the legal profession. It is a question of judgment as to which categories are included. I do not have strong views. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the estate agents associations would regard this as detrimental to their interests.
§ Amendment negatived.