Proceeding contribution from Robert Neill (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 5 June 2019. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Rehabilitation of Offenders.
Rehabilitation of Offenders
That is precisely right. Someone summoned to give evidence to a statutory inquiry would be obliged to come forward. With all due respect, it seems to me that it is a false point that should not weigh on us.
The second point is that even when people are summoned there is still a safeguard. It seems to me that the safeguard of the application of the test of relevance, in what is after all an inquisitorial process, as opposed to the criminal, adversarial one, is proper and appropriate. I am concerned about the potential cost of somebody having to seek a judicial review, because that process is lengthy and difficult.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 661 c182
- Session
- 2017-19
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Data protection Criminal records Inquiries Human rights Exemptions Offenders Protection Rehabilitation Vetting
- Legislation
- Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2019
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2021-07-30 15:24:04 +0100
- URI
- http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-06-05/190605100000084
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-06-05/190605100000084
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-06-05/190605100000084