Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2022

Rachel Maclean Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2022.

This instrument amends the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 to enable any current or potential sponsor on the Homes for Ukraine scheme in England and Wales to be eligible for the highest level of criminal record check undertaken by the Disclosure and Barring Service. This is an enhanced criminal record certificate with barred list checks. Homes for Ukraine is a sponsorship scheme in which individuals in the UK offer up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing the war. I think we would all agree it has been a monumental achievement of the Government, providing sanctuary to our friends from Ukraine.

Since its launch in March this year, more than 98,000 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK as part of the scheme. I pay tribute to those who have offered up their homes, but it is right to ensure that when Ukrainian refugees arrive in the UK adequate safeguards are in place. Currently, local authorities can only obtain the highest level DBS check when a Homes for Ukraine sponsor’s guests include a child under 18 who is not related to the sponsor, or when a sponsor is providing services to an unrelated guest adult with additional needs. Otherwise, sponsors are only eligible for a basic DBS check. The Government have identified further scenarios where we consider that higher level DBS checks on sponsors might be necessary.

The first is a process called domestic rematching. That occurs when the original match breaks down or is deemed unsuitable. In this circumstance, a local authority may rematch the beneficiary with a new sponsor. That is a significantly increased role for the local authority, compared to the original matching process. The new sponsor may not have been through the initial safeguarding and security checks that are only consistently applied at the visa stage.

The other situation the Government have identified where higher level DBS checks may be necessary is for children who are not travelling with or going to join a parent or legal guardian in the UK. In July, the Government expanded the Homes for Ukraine scheme to enable children to come to the UK without a parent or legal guardian and stay with a sponsor, who, except in exceptional circumstances, should be personally known to the parent or legal guardian. While under current regulations the higher level DBS checks can be carried out on most Homes for Ukraine sponsors for those children, only the basic DBS check can be carried out on the sponsor or members of the sponsor’s household if they have a family relationship with the child.

However, some of those family ties might be quite loose. For example, a parent in Ukraine may entrust a child to an extended family member with whom they do not have a close or recent relationship. As a result of those emerging risks, the Government seek to amend the 1975 order to enable local authorities to carry out enhanced with barred list checks on all Homes for Ukraine sponsors. To be eligible for this highest level DBS check, a positional role must be included in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002, and the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (No. 2) Regulations 2009.

The Home Office laid a statutory instrument on 22 September to amend the Police Act 1997, and that came into effect on 13 October. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 protects those with convictions from having to disclose their convictions and cautions once they become spent. When a conviction or caution is spent, the individual is considered to have become rehabilitated. The exceptions order lists activities or categories of jobs where those protections are lifted, so that individuals, if asked, are required to disclose spent convictions.

I would like to take the chance to thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for reviewing this instrument. The latter raised a concern about the length of time it has taken for this extension of the safeguards to be implemented. We recognise the importance of ensuring that safeguarding measures are as effective as possible to protect those fleeing the ongoing war in Ukraine. As the Homes for Ukraine scheme evolved, further scenarios emerged in which the highest level check was not currently possible but where the risks were such that a basic DBS check may not have provided adequate assurance. Once that need was identified, we moved to amend the relevant legislation as quickly as the parliamentary calendar has allowed.

In conclusion, not proceeding with the draft order increases the chances of a beneficiary of the Homes for Ukraine scheme coming to harm where information that would have been on an enhanced DBS check could have prevented that from happening. Delay to proceeding with the legislation prevents the mitigation of that risk, and I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank all colleagues for their contributions to this debate. I will take the issues that were raised in turn before I come to the shadow Minister. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead raised very good points about the importance of using SIs for a specific purpose, which is exactly what we have done. There is a role both for the Ministry of Justice and for the Home Office. We have had to amend the Police Act 1997, as I set out in my initial remarks, and we are also having to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. As other Members have suggested, the scheme has been incredibly important. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch and pay tribute to all Members of this House and elsewhere who are hosting our Ukrainian guests. It is an incredibly compassionate act and demonstrates the true British spirit.

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch asked when we became aware of the issues. It is fair to say I was part of the initial set-up of the scheme in my previous role in the Home Office under the previous Home Secretary, and we worked at pace, along with Lord Harrington, to set up the scheme, which was a true cross-Government effort. It was a completely new, bespoke scheme, so we worked through the night on many occasions to try to address the myriad issues that sat with our Department, with other Departments, with DLUHC, and, in some cases, with the devolved Administrations.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

On that point, the Minister says that it was a bespoke scheme. The Public Accounts Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, looked at the Syrian resettlement scheme, which we gave quite a big tick. There are always issues with big projects, but it worked very well, so there was an example of a scheme that went before. It was not domestic hosting, so the safeguarding was slightly different, but there were still issues there. Did she look back to that scheme? I am still puzzled why the Government drew up a whole new scheme when there was a fairly good model on the stocks.

[Rachel Maclean]

That is a perfectly valid question, but I fear that the scope of this debate is very narrow and is about the exceptions in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I was not the Minister responsible for the policy decisions. The right answer for colleagues who have raised valid points about the future of the scheme is probably to seek a Backbench Business debate—perhaps a Westminster Hall debate—so that the relevant Minister can come along and answer all those questions. It is not possible for me to answer them now, but I am happy to feed them back to my colleagues or to answer any correspondence on them.

The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge mentioned the fact that the scheme was initially going to run for a shorter period and that people are now coming to the end of that period, and asked what plans we have made for that. Again, it would be wrong for me to try to answer those questions as I am not the Minister with responsibility for those issues.

I very much hope that colleagues are reassured that the draft SI is an important part of the Government’s safeguarding responsibility, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Craig Mackinlay]

Could the Minister address some of the points that I raised?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am very happy to do so in writing, unless my hon. Friend would like to reiterate those points to the Committee.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I would be delighted to. Local authorities are in the driving seat when it comes to asking for the tests, but will any guidance come from the centre—be it from DLUHC, the Ministry of Justice or the Home Office—about what kind of former offence would be acceptable and pass muster, as it were, or is it up to the local authorities to make those decisions for themselves? I gave the example of a drink-driving offence from 20 years ago.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my hon. Friend for that aide-mémoire—it is very kind of him. We can certainly write with further detail, but I can assure him that we are talking here about a specific feature of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which allows for exceptions to be made, and that decisions would be not be made case by case by local authorities—there is wider guidance on the whole scheme, the safeguarding measures and the suitability of families to be hosts.

We are talking here about making a change to the Act to provide that where a more sensitive role or activity is listed in the order—such as being a host for a vulnerable person fleeing war—greater disclosure of information that would otherwise be considered as spent is required. The rules that apply to determine what information is included—known as filtering—are quite detailed, and they include serious offences, such as serious sexual offences and others of that nature. I assure my hon. Friend that the regime is detailed, well established and in the interest of public protection. I hope that that answers his question, but he can feel free to probe further if not.

Question put and agreed to.