UK Parliament / Open data

Police and Justice Bill

Proceeding contribution from Joan Walley (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
In welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new post, I should like to draw his attention to a loophole in the existing legislation. Individuals on the sex offenders register can be elected as local councillors. They are not covered by guidance from the standards commission, as they were included on the sex offenders register before it was introduced. If we expect local councillors to have close links with local schools and vulnerable people there ought to be a means whereby their inclusion on the register is considered in risk assessment by local authorities and the police. In the past 12 months and over a longer period, I have gone round the houses raising the issue with the Standards Board for England, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office. I raised it with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly), who was then Secretary of State for Education and Skills, during the passage of earlier legislation in the House, and I tabled a parliamentary question on the matter in January. I asked the Home Office"““whether the proposals to develop a new vetting and barring scheme will include provisions to bar those on the sex offenders register from holding office…as a local councillor and…on a police authority””.—[Official Report, 3 May 2006; Vol. 445, c. 1630W.]" I was told that that was a matter for the Education Secretary and that responsibilities for vetting procedures for the police lie with the Home Office and those for local councillors with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Having gone round the houses, there is still a flaw or loophole in the legislation. My constituents are very concerned indeed that a local councillor in a position of authority may have to deal with residents’ worries about people on the sex offenders register, so I urge the Minister to consider whether that loophole should be allowed to exist.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

446 c385-6 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top