Well, the issue of non-conviction data obviously doesn't just apply to this Bill we're bringing in; it applies to everything. So, it's something that you can look at in a general sense—that the police can visit and there's no further action, but that could be for anything—
But this is very sensitive, this area.
—and it's still logged. But, obviously, this does have an issue in terms of, particularly, the DBS checks and if you needed an enhanced certificate, if you wanted to be a teacher, a childcare worker, or those sorts of occupations. But, when disclosing information held locally, the police follow the quality assurance framework, and information must pass certain tests, which are related to considerations of relevance, substantiality and proportionality, and considerations of the safety aspects as well of disclosing information. And the police must record their thought process, their rationale, explaining how and why they reached all of their conclusions and their decisions. And this information is then assessed by the chief officer to determine whether it's reasonable to believe that it's relevant, and whether, in their opinion, it ought to be disclosed. Information should only be disclosed if it meets both of those requirements. So—
Is that in all jobs, though, because my understanding is that there are certain professions where that exemption doesn’t apply, and they’re likely to be the ones that are really relevant to the removal of the defence? So, I’m not talking about, I don't know, people who might work as volunteers; I’m literally talking about teachers and doctors, maybe dentists.