Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government how long, on average, it takes for security vetting to be completed in (1) security and policing jobs, and (2) other public service jobs which require security clearance.

Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)

As Minister for State at the Cabinet Office responsible for United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV) I am able to provide a response in relation to National Security Vetting (NSV). Police Vetting and NSV remain two separate and distinct processes. Whilst all police personnel are required to undertake a level of police vetting, only police personnel within certain specific roles are required to undertake NSV. Whilst UKSV acts as service providers for NSV, they have no involvement in processing police vetting. This remains the responsibility of police authorities.

Following a stabilisation programme initiated in 2023, there have been sustained and stable improvements in performance against Key Performance Indicators (KPI) across all service levels of National Security Vetting clearances which includes Counter Terrorist Check (CTC), Security Check (SC) and Developed Vetting (DV). Across core services:

• The KPIs for both CTC and SC are 25 days, on 29th February 2024 96% of cases were being processed within that time frame.

• The KPI for DV is 95 days; on 29th February 2024 93.48% of initial DV cases were being processed within that time frame.The Performance Indicator for DV Renewals is also 95 days; on 29th February 2024 13.78% of these cases were being processed within that time frame. However we expect that DV renewals submitted from 1st April 2024 will be delivered within the KPI of 95 days.

Security roles are based across many departments and partner agencies and therefore it is not possible to provide confirmation of the performance of NSV in relation to these specific roles. In relation to the police requirement for NSV specifically, I can confirm that UKSV are meeting the KPIs across the SC and initial DV products.

In line with the practice followed by successive administrations, the Government does not otherwise comment on security matters, including average actual processing times.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what was the reason for the decision to increase the length of the COP3 assessment of capacity form from 12 to 21 pages.

Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Court of Protection forms are a matter for the judiciary. The Court of Protection Rules Committee in 2022 convened an expert Working Group to review the COP3 assessment of capacity form, supported by my officials. That group recommended substantial revisions to both the format and content.

Revisions were made to reflect the outcome of a Supreme Court case (Local Authority v JB), and more broadly to improve the form’s evidential value. While longer than its predecessor, the revised form aims to provide for a more rigorous assessment of a person’s capacity and greater scrutiny of each specific decision to be made on their behalf. The Rules Committee approved those revisions, and the revised form was published in July 2023.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to update the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

This government has recently reviewed and made significant changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA) 1974. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 amended the ROA to significantly reduce the length of time that someone needs to disclose most criminal records. These reforms will improve access to employment, which we know is a key factor in supporting rehabilitation and enabling former offenders to reintegrate into the community. Serious violent, sexual, or terrorist offences are excluded from these changes and continue to never be spent.

Where a person has a conviction disclosed, we are clear that this should not be an automatic bar to employment. Our guidance for employers states that they should make a balanced judgment on whether someone’s convictions make them unsuitable for a particular job. This should take into account the person’s age at the time of the offence, how long ago it took place, the nature of the offence and its relevance to the position in question, among other factors.

The ROA is kept under review. There are no current plans to make further changes, but please see further the answer I gave on 4 April to Question HL3362.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, excluding sexual or violent offences, under what circumstances can someone subject to an Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence who has completed their license period have earlier, minor offences dropped from their record.

Answered by Lord Bellamy - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (the ROA) sets out when an offender is considered to be ‘rehabilitated’ for the purposes of the Act and the relevant rehabilitation periods for cautions and convictions (also referred to as when a caution or a conviction become ‘spent’). This does not mean that an offence is dropped from their record, rather that the offender only needs to disclose the spent caution or conviction in some circumstances.

The ROA also provides that where a person commits another offence before the first has become spent, then the rehabilitation periods are extended to the longest period. The ROA sets out that, as with other indeterminate sentences, IPP sentences can never become spent, regardless of whether the licence is terminated or not. The same, therefore, applies to any unspent caution or conviction imposed on the offender prior to the IPP sentence.

We have taken action through the Victims and Prisoners Bill to curtail IPP licence periods to give offenders the opportunity to move on with their lives. Whether the ROA should be reviewed in the light of these changes would require further consideration in the context of indeterminate sentences generally.

Found: Victims and Prisoners Bill 72 Clause 48 LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD GARNIER LORD BLUNKETT

Found: After Clause 48 LORD BLUNKETT _ After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause— “Review:

Found: Clause 46 LORD BLUNKETT BARONESS CHAKRABARTI THE LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER LORD HODGSON OF

Found: Clause 46 LORD BLUNKETT BARONESS CHAKRABARTI THE LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER _ Clause 46, page

Found: LORD THOMAS OF CWMGIEDD LORD MOYLAN LORD BLUNKETT BARONESS BURT OF SOLIHULL 149_ Clause 48

Found: Thor oton, Baroness B ennett of Manor Castle, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Baroness Butler -Sloss, Lord

Found: Lord Dodds , The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord German, Lord

Found: Lord Dodds , The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord German, Lord

Found: Thor oton, Baroness B ennett of Manor Castle, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Baroness Butler -Sloss, Lord