Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Before I set out the effect of the statutory instrument, it may be helpful if I first explain the legislation that underpins the change that I am today proposing. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 governs the disclosure of cautions and convictions for most employment purposes. The ROA protects those with convictions from having to disclose those convictions and cautions once they become spent. Although more serious convictions remain disclosable for life, under the ROA, most become spent following a specified period. When a conviction or caution becomes spent, the individual is considered to have been rehabilitated for those purposes. Once a conviction is spent, it does not need to be disclosed when applying for most jobs. That supports the rehabilitation of the offender, helping them to put their past behind them and move on from their offending.
Although it is generally desirable to facilitate ex-offenders into employment, the public must remain adequately protected. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 lists activities or categories of jobs where those protections are disapplied so that individuals, if asked, are required to disclose spent convictions. That enables greater disclosure of criminal record information for people in specified roles and activities.
The primary rationale behind the exceptions order is that there are certain jobs where a more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may be appropriate—for instance, roles working with the most vulnerable and/or involving a high degree of public trust, such as those with children. The exceptions order is therefore a counterbalance to the ROA in favour of the protection of the public, providing a greater level of disclosure for individuals performing roles or activities that require additional safeguards.
This statutory instrument amends that exceptions order. The Government are proposing to make four amendments to the exceptions order. First, we are adding self-employed individuals or people acting in a personal employee capacity—meaning someone who works at the employer’s home to provide domestic or personal services—engaging in regulated work with children and vulnerable adults. Secondly, we are adding employment concerned with the delivery of electronic monitoring and field services, such as monitoring offenders by a contractor in accordance with arrangements made by the Secretary of State. Thirdly, we are adding registered healthcare professionals employed or engaged by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or by contractors or subcontractors working for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Fourthly, we are adding pedicab driver licences in London. These amendments mean that a person’s spent convictions may be taken into account when assessing their suitability to engage in this work or hold such a licence.
There is a compelling case, I submit, to justify requiring individuals to disclose all spent and unspent convictions in these circumstances. First, I will outline the reason for adding self-employed individuals or personal employees working closely with children and vulnerable adults. This amendment is about strengthening safeguarding and closing a clear gap in the current system. At present, only those working for organisations such as schools or hospitals, or those working for an agency, can get the highest level of Disclosure and Barring Service checks, yet families increasingly hire professionals directly as private tutors, carers and therapists, who often work in unsupervised settings.
Without this change, those individuals could undergo only basic checks, which reveal only unspent convictions. That is not sufficient when the safety of children and vulnerable adults is at stake. By extending eligibility for enhanced DBS checks, including access to the barred list, we give parents and carers the same level of assurance they would have if hiring through an organisation. This amendment also delivers on a key recommendation from Professor Alexis Jay’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse to make greater use of the DBS service to protect the vulnerable. In short, the amendment ensures parity, strengthens safeguarding and puts power in the hands of families to make informed decisions about who they allow into their home.
The second change relates to the staff employed by the Ministry of Justice’s contracted provider of electronic monitoring and field services. Those roles are critical to monitoring compliance with court orders and conditions of release from prison custody. Among other duties, the relevant contractor staff install and configure monitoring equipment, monitor compliance with conditions such as curfews or exclusion zones, and report violations to the responsible agencies. At present, those positions can access only basic criminal record checks, unless the specific duties of the individual qualify for counter-terrorism clearance.
That is not sufficient, given the level of trust and responsibility involved. The risk of corruption is real, as staff may be offered incentives to make monitoring less onerous, which could allow individuals to breach conditions, commit further offences or evade detection altogether. Such failures undermine public confidence in the justice system and compromise public safety. Enabling standard disclosures would help providers to identify candidates who may be vulnerable to corruption and ensure that those entrusted with monitoring compliance meet the highest standards.
The third group—registered healthcare professionals employed or engaged by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, or by contractors and subcontractors working for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions— supports the public through the benefits system and assessment process. That includes psychologists, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, paramedics and pharmacists. Approximately 2 million health assessments are undertaken each year for people with long-term conditions or disabilities, many of whom are among the most vulnerable in society.
At present, the ROA prevents the Department for Work and Pensions and its delivery partners from requiring the disclosure of spent convictions for those roles. Without the ability to check spent convictions, the DWP cannot fully assess a candidate’s suitability, creating a potential risk to the public. This change removes that risk by bringing those roles within the scope of the exceptions order. It ensures that the DWP and its contractors can require the disclosure of spent convictions and cautions, ensuring essential safeguards for those who depend on these services.
Finally, I turn to pedicab drivers in London. Until recently, London pedicabs operated in a legal grey area, unregulated and outside the licensing framework that applies to other forms of public transport. The Pedicabs (London) Act 2024 removed that anomaly by giving Transport for London powers to introduce a licensing regime. For that regime to be effective, TfL must be able to require enhanced with barred list DBS checks, including spent convictions and cautions, just as it does for taxi and private hire drivers.
Without this change, TfL would be limited to basic checks, which do not provide the assurance that passenger safety requires. This change enables pedicab licences to be brought into line with existing standards for taxis and private hire vehicles, both in London and nationally. It strengthens confidence and ensures that those responsible for carrying passengers on London’s roads are subject to the same safeguarding requirements as other transport operators.
In conclusion, adding self-employed individuals or personal employees working closely with children in vulnerable states, people working for the relevant electronic monitoring contractors, registered healthcare professionals employed or engaged by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or DWP contractors, and pedicab licence holders in London to the exceptions order is a necessary safeguarding measure. The criminal records disclosure regime is designed to protect the public, particularly children and vulnerable adults, while enabling those who have offended in the past to move on with their lives. We believe that the proposed measure strikes that balance.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the purpose of this statutory instrument. Having reviewed it, the Opposition will not be opposing the instrument this evening.
Each amendment is limited in scope and responds to specific gaps that have been clearly identified. One of the clearest areas where that is the case is the provision for self-employed individuals and those employed directly by private individuals. As the explanatory memorandum explains, the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended enabling self-employed people working in sensitive roles with children to obtain checks against the DBS children’s barred list.
I understand that the Government’s subsequent progress update confirmed that, by the end of 2025, self-employed people and those employed by private individuals will be able to access high-level DBS checks. We fully recognise the importance of those recommendations, and I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether they are still on track for that. Forgive me if those checks have already been made available, but if they have not, are we on track for the end of the year? At present, an individual carrying out a role within an organisation can be subject to the appropriate enhanced or barred list check, while a self-employed person doing identical work cannot.
That inconsistency is neither sensible nor safe. It is also worth recognising that this direction of travel is not new; the previous Conservative Government accepted the principle of the IICSA recommendations and began the process of reviewing the supervision exemption and considering widening access to barred list checks.
The changes relating to electronic monitoring contractors are justified and a proportionate response to risk. Staff working with monitoring technology occupy positions of trust, and allowing fuller disclosure checks will help to reassure the public that the system is robust and that those carrying out that important work meet the necessary standards of integrity.
Likewise, enabling the Department for Work and Pensions and its contractors to require disclosure of spent convictions for registered healthcare professionals reflects the sensitive nature of the work that those professionals undertake. They are individuals who assess vulnerable claimants, often with access to personal and medical information; it is appropriate that they are subject to the same safeguarding standards expected in the NHS and other comparable roles.
Taken together, these changes strike the right balance between supporting rehabilitation and ensuring public protection. They are targeted, proportionate and consistent with public expectations and existing safeguarding frameworks. My questions for the Minister are about the implications for the volume of checks that we might expect as a result of more people being suitable for them, and whether he can update us with important contextual information. In my local area, for example, some people experience significant delays and sometimes wait so long for checks to be completed that job offers fall through.
We support these changes, but while they might be well intended and sensible, the Minister is introducing yet more checks into the system, so it is important that he outlines whether there are any issues in the current system—which I think there are—with people getting checks. If he is introducing more, he needs to keep them on a tighter rein. I know that the process is devolved to each local police force, but it would be good if the Minister gave an overview of how well he thinks it is currently performing.
Jake Richards
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s support for these provisions. I will write to him with an update on the specific measure that he mentioned and whether that work will be completed by the end of the year—I do not have that information today, but I will make sure that I formally respond. I also thank him for his comments on the specifics.
In answer to the hon. Member’s last question, he is absolutely right that there is no point having more adequate protections in place if the system is clogged up. We speak regularly with Home Office colleagues and the police about the management of the DBS and other relevant offender management programmes. We need to ensure that this is working. I am confident that the changes will not greatly add to the burden on the police, but we will continue to work with them to ensure that that is the case.
Jake Richards
That might be a question for Home Office colleagues to respond to, but I will look into it, and if I can respond, I certainly will.
Question put and agreed to.