HL Deb 27 February 2002 vol 631 cc1523-6

8.2 p.m.

Lord Rooker rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th February be approved [18th Report front the Joint Committed].

The noble. Lord said: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this order. As I recall, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was the first piece of legislation to become an Act before the second election of that year. It was passed within weeks of the general election at which I was first elected to the other place in February 1974. Over the years the Act has performed a valuable function in getting people back into society following difficulties that they have encountered.

I should place on record—I believe that it is important to do so—that we are satisfied that the measures contained in this statutory instrument are compatible with the rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

I do not know how much detail noble Lords want, and I should like to be brief. But I believe that it is important to put on record that the 1974 Act had an underlying philosophy. It concerned the importance of reforming those who commit offences, helping them to pick up their lives and make a fresh start in the hope that they would not return to crime. It accepted that, by definition. they would have paid their penalty and would be able to make a more valuable contribution to society.

That is not to undermine the principle of punishment—far from it. But we must have in place a means for rehabilitation if we are not to have an underclass of people who can never work again. That makes no sense whatever. On the other hand, we must balance that against the risk to society from exoffenders—in particular, the risk to the most vulnerable members of society.

Ever since the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has been in place, there has been a list of positions in relation to which an offender cannot escape his past, even if his conviction under the Act is spent. In certain circumstances, he is still required to make a disclosure about his previous criminal activities and convictions. He cannot use the excuse that, because those convictions are spent, he does not need to answer certain questions. Of course, the legislation is 25 years old, and the Home Secretary announced last year that there is to be a fundamental review of the Act. That review will be reported later this year.

Perhaps I may run briefly through the changes in the order. There are some important exceptions: some are wholly new; others amend and update existing exceptions. I believe that I should place those on the record for those who follow our affairs. With regard to applicants for taxi and private hire vehicles drivers' licences, the order will put criminal records checks on a statutory footing and allow the Criminal Records Bureau to provide the information. Another exception concerns RSPCA inspectors and other staff who are authorised as part of their duties to carry out the killing of animals with firearms or lethal drugs. The intention is to ensure that such staff are eligible for a firearms licence on completion of training and that those with access to lethal drugs and other humanitarian killing devices are fit and proper persons.

There is a new exception for air traffic control personnel because of the privatisation of the service. This point was previously covered by the Civil Aviation Authority exception. The public also have the right to assume that a registered chartered psychologist is a fit and proper person to practise. The exception will allow the British Psychological Society better to ensure that that is the case.

The Court of Protection appoints receivers. I declare a previous interest, having been a receiver for a late friend. When I was a Member in another place I found it illuminating to see what checks were in place for receivers. Nevertheless, we are now taking the view that it is important to do whatever is possible to guard against unsuitable individuals being appointed as receivers and to have them added to the list.

The inclusion of registered foreign lawyers and Fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives brings them into line with others in the legal professions. Normally I refer to the "legal industry", but in this respect I shall settle for the "legal professions". There is a new exception to bring actuaries into line with colleagues in the legal and accountancy professions. The Crown Prosecution Service is included purely as a technical tidying-up of the exception for the Director of Public Prosecutions and any employment in his office.

The inclusion of the Serious Fraud Office and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will bring them both into line with the Crown Prosecution Service. The inclusion of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad is necessary to ensure that all employees—not only police officers—are subject to full criminal record checks.

There is a new exception to cover people employed by Internet service providers and others who monitor conversations in electronic chat rooms better to ensure the protection of children. The order updates the existing social services exception to allow full criminal record checks on those who provide social and care services to vulnerable adults. There is movement of the exception covering National Lottery licensing from the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to its rightful place in the exceptions order.

The policy objective is to ensure that the right balance is struck between the beneficial effects of rehabilitation with its neutralising effect on employers' potential prejudices on the one hand, and, on the other, the genuine need for access to information on the grounds of public protection. Of course. focus has been sharpened by the Human Rights Act. The disclosure of an individual's spent convictions potentially could infringe Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We are satisfied that the exceptions as drafted achieve the right balance and are therefore compatible with the legislation. Therefore, I hope that the order will receive the approval of the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th February be approved [18th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Rooker.)

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 he 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.