Rehabilitation of Offenders (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Dholakia Excerpts

Friday 21st January 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Dholakia]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, this Private Member’s Bill is designed to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The Act provides that, after a specified rehabilitation period, ex-offenders do not have to declare spent convictions when they are applying for jobs, except in sensitive areas of work, such as criminal justice agencies, financial institutions and work with young people or vulnerable adults. Since it was enacted in 1974, the Act has helped many ex-offenders to leave the past behind. However, there is now growing acceptance that the Act is in need of reform. The Government’s stance on reform is very much appreciated. The Green Paper Breaking the Cycle, which was published in December, says in paragraph 114:

“The Act is often criticised as being inconsistent with contemporary sentencing practice, with the result that it can fail in its aim to help reformed offenders resettle into society. The reasons cited are that the rehabilitation periods are too long and do not reflect the point at which reoffending tails off following a conviction; the threshold at which a sentence never becomes spent (30 months) is too low given that sentencing lengths are much longer today; and the Exceptions Order exempts an ever growing number of occupations from the Act”.

The rehabilitation periods laid down in the Act are lengthy and many genuinely reformed ex-offenders can never benefit from it. For example, if an offender is fined, the offence becomes spent five years after the date of sentencing. If an offender is given a three-month prison sentence, the offence takes seven years to become spent. If he or she gets a nine-month sentence, the offence does not become spent until 10 years later. Sentences of more than two and a half years never become spent.

These provisions are notably less generous than the rules that apply in other European countries, which typically apply rehabilitation periods to sentences that are longer than two and a half years. Those rehabilitation periods are much shorter—often half the length of ours or, in some cases, even less. Since the Act was implemented, sentence lengths have significantly increased. What is the reality today? Many offenders who would have received sentences of two and a half years or less back in 1974 today receive sentences of between three and four years. This means that many offenders who would previously have been helped by the Act now find that their offences will never become spent in their lifetime.

In 2001 the then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, set up a review group to examine whether, three decades after the Act’s implementation, there was a case for reform. The review group was chaired by a senior Home Office official and included representatives of the police, the probation service, the legal profession, the judiciary, employers, voluntary agencies, victim representative organisations and ex-offenders. In 2002, the review group published its conclusions in the report Breaking the Circle.

Following a consultation period, the then Government published their own conclusions in April 2003. The Government accepted a modified version of the review group’s proposals, under which the current rehabilitation periods would be replaced by new buffer periods, which would begin after the sentence, including any post-release supervision, was completed. The buffer periods would be four years for custodial sentences of four years or more; two years for custodial sentences of less than four years; and one year for non-custodial sentences. These periods would apply to all offenders, except those serving life sentences. To allay fears, the new provisions would not apply to jobs in sensitive occupations, for which applicants would still have to declare their full criminal record. I have incorporated this proposal for reform into my Bill.

A reformed system along these lines would greatly reduce the scope of unfair discrimination against ex-offenders in the job market. Regrettably, such discrimination is still widespread. I declare my interest as the president of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, a charity working in the area of crime reduction. Surveys of ex-offenders that we have undertaken in projects have shown that 60 per cent have been explicitly refused jobs because of their criminal records. Nacro’s report Change the Record, published in 2010, stated that,

“employers are increasingly demanding ‘clear disclosure’ from applicants. This means that employment is conditional on having no record whatsoever”.

A study in 2006 by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development also found that 36 per cent of employers would refuse jobs to all ex-offenders, whatever the nature their record.

It is sometimes reasonable to refuse an ex-offender a job because of his record. For example, we must obviously bar offenders with a history of offences against children from working with children and we should bar offenders with a history of defrauding elderly people from work caring for elderly people. However, in many cases employers are turning down applicants because of offences that have no relevance whatever to the jobs for which they are applying. The scope of discrimination is wide, because decisions to employ or to refuse people jobs are not made at the top of companies; they are made by large numbers of individuals, managers and personnel staff, who have usually had no specific training in how to deal with applications from people with criminal records. A large-scale study by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust found that no private sector employers and only one in seven public sector employers in the sample had provided specific training on this point to staff making recruitment decisions.

The risk of discrimination against ex-offenders in the job market is even greater at a time of economic difficulty, when the country has not long emerged from the recession and employers have a wider choice of job applicants. The Home Office review group’s report, Breaking the Circle, estimated that reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act would save the country £125 million, something that I am sure would appeal to my noble friend Lord McNally. This was based on the estimate that it would result in 12,500 additional people finding work each year, saving £50 million in welfare costs together with savings to the criminal justice system of £75 million. This estimate was a very conservative one as it did not take into account the extensive social cost of continued unemployment, such as physical and mental health problems or a return to drug use.

I pay tribute to the organisations that have been very helpful over many years in campaigning for reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I pay particular tribute to Nacro, UNLOCK and the Prison Reform Trust. Nacro’s report, Change the Record, points out:

“The current Act is at odds with the Government’s rehabilitation revolution, its initiatives to get people off benefits and back to work and its big society plans to create a more equal society in which everyone has the chance to contribute to the prosperity of their communities”.

Unfair discrimination against ex-offenders is wrong in principle, as it imposes an additional illegitimate penalty of refusal of employment on people who have already served the judicially ordered punishment for their crime. It also reduces public safety, as an ex-offender’s risk of reoffending reduces by between a third and a half if he or she gets, and keeps, a job. The whole community benefits when offending is reduced, but employers benefit in particular because crime such as cheque and credit card fraud, shoplifting and burglary of commercial premises have a particularly damaging impact on their businesses.

I was therefore delighted to read in the Green Paper Breaking the Cycle that the coalition Government are taking a fundamental look at the objectives of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act with a view to reform. I am particularly pleased that the Green Paper says at paragraph 115 that the Government are considering,

“broadening the scope of the Act so that it covers all offenders who receive a determinate sentence”,

and,

“reducing the length of rehabilitation periods”.

Those are two key aims of my Bill and I welcome the Government’s support for them. The reform contained in my Bill would allow many more people with criminal records to start again with a clean slate. They would thereby reduce the risk of further offending by former offenders excluded from the job market. I look forward to the Minister’s reply with confidence that the long-awaited and long-overdue reform of the Act is now at last in sight. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very positive statement, and of course I am delighted to be able to co-operate fully, as he has proposed, in the forthcoming legislation. In his actions he has also established a deep bond between the leader and the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, and long may it continue.

I cannot miss this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who participated. We have had a very hectic week and I do not wish to inflict further pain but I cannot fail to point out that we have heard some remarkable maiden speeches from my noble friends who participated in this debate. As my noble friend Lord McNally said, the House is at its best when, despite some serious disagreements on occasion, it deals with social issues. This debate is an example of the unanimity that we can achieve in a cause for which we are all fighting.

I intend at some stage to have discussions with the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, about his concerns and to see how those matters can be taken up in discussions with the Minister. I would also be failing in my duty if I did not thank my own—completely voluntary—Bill team: Paul Cavadino from Nacro and Julie Wright of UNLOCK. They helped me to shape the Bill. I must also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his compliments. He also mentioned Scotland. We deleted part of those provisions for the very reason he suggested—that it is a devolved matter. We have had discussions with them, and I am glad that my noble friend Lord McNally will be visiting Scotland. I hope he will be able to take the matter up with them. I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.