Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2009

I thank the Minister for that extensive explanation of this order. We obviously welcome the principle behind the rehabilitation of offenders and it is right that offenders should have a chance to wipe the slate clean, as it were, and make it easier for them to seek employment thereafter. However, there have to be exceptions to that which need regular updating, as the Minister said, to make sure that the appropriate ones are put in. I was amused by his explanation as to why those seeking membership of the Master Locksmiths Association should be included. It occurred to me that a successful burglar probably would not need to be a member of the Master Locksmiths Association, but a successful burglar is probably much less likely to be caught anyway and, therefore, to have convictions; but the unsuccessful burglar might in later years want to seek membership of the association to improve his further career chances in that profession. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation as regards all five classes. I have only one question on which I hope he can help me. It relates to paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum on, ""Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments"." As I understood it, the Joint Committee referred to some problems which were explained in terms of a drafting error in the primary legislation when the original Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 was amended. There is an explanation of this in paragraph 3.2 which seems to relate only to what the department now, ""construe the delegated power as intended to refer to paragraph 3(3) of the Schedule"." That is merely a statement by the department of its view. Can the noble Lord tell me if that is correct and, if so, when will the department find an opportunity to seek a proper amendment? Will that require primary or secondary legislation? In the mean time, does the department think that it will be safe to rely on the assertion it seems to make in paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Notes?