I knew I was right when I said that the enemies are behind me, but very constructive enemies they have been. One of the benefits of this procedure is that we can examine orders such as this in a non-partisan but expert way. As much as it is within my power to give the assurances that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has asked for, I give those assurances. The points that have been made by my noble friends during this debate should be treated with proper urgency. I am not in a position to withdraw the order, which covers matters that it is important to take forward. However, the noble Baroness is quite right: in opposition both Jonathan Djanogly in the other place and my noble friend Lord Hunt made it very clear that the effectiveness of fitness-to-own provisions was a crucial element of the consumer protection measures that needed to be in place for all ABSs. That position has not changed.
I can assure the Committee that the gist of this debate—or at least Hansard—will be made known to my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, along with the strong message that a sense of urgency is needed in taking this matter forward. The argument that a compelling case and a clear understanding of the potential risks are needed to justify inclusion in exception orders is valid. Licensing authorities have a range of regulatory powers and will be required to put in place strict licensing rules to ensure that licensing bodies are properly regulated and consumers adequately protected.
Nevertheless, I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I hope we can carry forward his initiative in producing a new Private Member’s Bill that updates the Act. If we are to get general public support for a rehabilitation of offenders Act, and carry public confidence in it, we must have exception orders to give the protections that the public require. Certainly, the case made today for owners being part of the Act is, to my mind as a lay man, almost unanswerable. I hear what has been said. It would seem only natural to a simple lay man that owners and managers of ABSs should be included in the order. I will take the very strong recommendations of this Committee back to colleagues. In the mean time, I ask the Committee to accept this order.
Motion agreed.
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2011
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 July 2011.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2011.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c78-9GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 20:55:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756751
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756751
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_756751