HL Deb 02 November 1989 vol 512 cc402-3

29 Clause 7, page 7, line 20, at end insert — '( ) Where, on an appeal against a persons's conviction of the relevant offence or against a sentence of imprisonment imposed on him in dealing with him for the offence, his conviction is quashed or the sentence is reduced to one which is not a sentence of imprisonment taking immediate effect, the court which determines the appeal or, as the case may be, the court I o which the case is remitted, shall cause notice of the quashing of the conviction or of the sentence imposed to be sent to the persons specified in subsection (7)(b)(i) and (ii) above and, where his conviction is quashed, the Authority shall re-admit him to membership of the scheme, but without prejudice to any proceedings under the scheme to exclude him from membership'.

Lord Hesketh

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 29. In speaking to this amendment, I shall also comment on the amendment to it tabled by noble Lords opposite.

The purpose of the amendment which the Government moved in another place was to ensure that, if someone was convicted of a relevant offence and appealed successfully either against his conviction or against the sentence imposed on him, the FMA would be made aware of his success. The amendment therefore requires the court to notify the FMA and the police of a successful appeal either against a conviction for a relevant offence or against the imposition of a prison sentence for such an offence. The FMA will then arrange for the appellant's membership of the scheme to be reinstated or take note that the mandatory ban has been reduced from five years to two years, as the case may be.

In the terms that the Bill was amended in another place, that would be without prejudice to the FMA's discretionary powers under the scheme to disqualify people from membership. The Opposition have tabled a further amendment here to delete the words "without prejudice" and so forth; but I think that it is important for the FMA to retain the power to ban people according to its own rules. If an appeal succeeds on the grounds of mistaken identity, for example, there would be no reason why the FMA should not wish the person to be reinstated without further ado. There could be other circumstances; for example, where a conviction were set aside on a technicality or a court found that someone's behaviour was not such as to warrant a criminal conviction, but where that behaviour did meet the criteria for disqualification under the national membership scheme. After all, one of the main points of giving the FMA discretionary powers to ban people is to enable it to deal with misbehaviour that does not constitute a criminal offence.

I should also make the point that, if the FMA were to decide against re-instating the membership of someone who had appealed successfully against a conviction of a sentence, it would have to do so according to the procedures required by the scheme. In other words, the authority would have to notify the person concerned in writing of the reasons for its decision and he or she would have the right to challenge it —as anyone affected by the FMA's discretionary powers can.

The government amendment makes sure that someone whose appeal against a conviction is successful can be re-instated into membership. At the same time it safeguards the ability of the FMA to deal consistently with the possibility of discretionary disqualification. I commend it to your Lordships and I invite noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said amendment. —(Lord Hesketh.)