Disclosure of Youth Criminal Records

Robert Neill Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the First Report of the Justice Committee, Disclosure of youth criminal records, HC 416, and the Government response, Cm 9559.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank the House for giving us the opportunity to debate the report, and my friends and colleagues on the Select Committee on Justice who contributed to it. I am glad to see such a good turnout when other things are happening today as well.

This is an important issue, and not merely a technical one. Although some of the law and regulations around it are complex, we have concluded that it directly affects people’s lives and that the current state of our arrangements is frankly unsatisfactory and unfit for purpose. The gist of what we say is that change is needed, and so far we detect a lack of urgency in addressing that. As a consequence, injustice and, frankly, social harm are being done by the failure to modernise a system that has not kept pace with developments in a number of areas.

I will first address the background to our report. In October 2016, the Justice Committee in the previous Parliament decided to launch an inquiry into disclosure of youth criminal records, partly as a follow-up to the inquiry that we had conducted on the treatment of young adults in the criminal justice system, a substantial report in itself, and partly because of a number of representations that we had received from the non-governmental organisation sector. I refer particularly to the evidence that has been given to us by Unlock and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, and pay tribute to the work that those organisations do in this field.

In consequence, we had an inquiry in which we took oral and written evidence, but we also held a private seminar with individuals who had been personally affected by this problem. I think many policy makers would benefit from seeing and hearing from those people face to face about the real effects of the system upon them. They were able to talk about the effect on them of their childhood offences—that is the point, as we are often not talking about recent offences, but offences committed when people were children—being disclosed when they were adults, often some time down the track.

One of the many unforeseen consequences of the dissolution of Parliament in May 2017 was that the Committee was unable to produce its report, so one of our first decisions in this Parliament was to revisit it and produce an updated report on what we regard as an important issue, basing it on the evidence that our predecessor Committee had already heard. We published a report on 27 October 2017.

Having set out the chronology, let me give an overview of the background to the system. The criminal records disclosure regime, as I am sure many hon. Members know, is operated by the Disclosure and Barring Service, or DBS. For certain professional jobs, and certainly for work involving contact with children or vulnerable adults, the DBS has, for perfectly good reasons, to provide a standard or enhanced disclosure certificate, which can disclose all criminal records. That includes criminal records that otherwise would be regarded as spent.

There is a so-called filtering system, which allows some spent criminal records to be filtered out of disclosure so that they will not be revealed on the standard or enhanced DBS certificates. The idea behind the filtering system was that it was supposed to allow the disclosure regime to operate in a more proportionate manner, but the evidence that we have heard drives us to the conclusion that, in practice, the filtering system incorporates some significant exceptions, meaning that many offences are not filterable throughout the lifetime of an offender.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the UK system for disclosure of childhood criminal records is among the harshest in the world when compared with equivalent developed countries? Although I am a believer in a firm justice system that punishes crimes appropriately, I do not think it is fair for people to have to live for the rest of their lives with the consequences of terrible mistakes they may have made in childhood.

[Robert Neill]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend; that is precisely the problem. The disclosure system is an immensely blunt instrument and forgets that, as well as being a punishment, any sensible criminal justice system must encourage reform and rehabilitation. Whatever the no doubt good intentions behind it, the way the system operates is counterproductive in that regard.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

For people who perhaps did not have the most advantaged background, let us suppose there is a fight in a school playground that leads to the police being called. That might lead to a conviction for actual bodily harm that is non-filterable. Yet, if they had been born in more affluent circumstances, I am quite sure the police would never have been called and that person would never have gone on to have their life blighted in the same way. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that this fact is not an impediment to social mobility?

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically significant and thoughtful point. I can think of instances both from my constituency casebook and from childhood friends of mine who got into exactly that situation. That is not what the system was intended for. He is right that it is without doubt discriminatory in a number of regards.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is recalling childhood friends of his own, but will he also reflect on childhood today? There is a whole suite of crimes and temptations resulting from social media—let us think of sexting, where someone might get a criminal offence aged 15 or 16 for inappropriate behaviour with a girlfriend or whoever. Can it really be right that an employer, years later when the person is into their early 30s, should need or want that information? If the employer gets that information, what exactly are they expected to do about it? I am thinking of us, employing young people; do we really want to know that that happened 10 years ago?

[Robert Neill]

That is, again, an entirely fair and perceptive point, and it is quite true. One of the other issues that we have not yet touched on, but that I hope we will in the course of the debate, is the way that the system no longer reflects modern technology and the ability to Google to find out other things about people. None of that was there when this scheme was set in place. Surely the objective is to be proportionate and to be relevant, but that is not the case at the moment.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this impactful debate. He has mentioned the impact of new technology, particularly Google, and it is a matter for great concern that everything that has happened in an individual’s past is stored in perpetuity on the internet. Does he agree that the fact that information is easily available for so long can render the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 essentially toothless, and that that is something we ought to look further at in this place?

[Robert Neill]

Again, my hon. Friend raises a fair point—it is not the immediate subject of our inquiry, but it is a good point. Perhaps, in our joint work on the Select Committee, that is something we could look at taking forward, because there is no doubt that that legislation has also failed to keep in touch with changes in science and technology.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Further to exactly that point, although it is not directly relevant to the discussion here, we must all accept the fact that that information is held independently and above that which we can legislate for in this place. I am aware that work is coming forward from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to address that, but, in all honesty, although we can tamper at the edges and change things in ways that make us feel better and directly make the lives of young offenders better, unless we can control how information about private individuals is used, we can have very little effect on the future.

[Robert Neill]

That is certainly true, and it indicates the need for a much more joined-up and holistic approach to dealing with this matter. I am sure it is something we need to return to and address. Although it can only deal with a part of that problem, disclosure and barring needs to be resolved itself. The updating of the whole approach to dealing with criminal records, disclosure of information and the regulation of social media is important, because all of them can get in the way of helping people to turn their lives around.

The point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) about examples from other countries is significant. Our criminal justice system has some of the worst reoffending results among our comparators, and one reason for that is the difficulty of getting people back into employment, education, homes, work and relationships. To a greater or lesser degree, the mechanistic operation of the current disclosure and barring system can be a bar to people moving on in those directions, all of which, the evidence overwhelmingly shows, make people less likely to reoffend. We are getting in the way of that.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cumulative impact of disclosing youth criminal records is an avoidable barrier to employment, education and housing, which can be devastating for a young person and can lead to long-term adverse effects way into adulthood?

[Robert Neill]

Yes it is, and the evidence, as I will perhaps demonstrate if I make a bit more progress, shows exactly that. That is entirely the problem that we find. The particular difficulty is that the system is not only mechanistic but is in practice arbitrary—there is no real discretion—and has no right of appeal to speak of. None of those can be just.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and others pointed out, certain things can be filtered out, but that is arbitrary. A single conviction can be filtered out, provided it did not result in a custodial sentence, was not for a listed offence—broadly, a serious offence, although that is probably not the issue most of us would take, as other bits come into it later—and that more than 11 years have elapsed since the date of the convictions. All the evidence suggests that, nowadays, for young men in particular, maturity and desisting from criminal behaviour kick in around the age of 25. Eleven years back from that, they could have been convicted as a teenager for exactly the sort of stupid incident that my hon. Friend referred to, which would then not be filterable at a time when they sought to move into education and work. That is an obstacle, as the evidence clearly shows, and it is no longer realistic, in our submission.

Single offences can be filtered provided that the sentence was non-custodial and was not a listed offence, as well as that more than 11 years have elapsed since the date of the conviction, or more than five and a half years if the person was under 18. That could still be within a key time when they were moving into their mid-20s and getting jobs.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Are there not two further problems? First, the Government’s response seems to be that employers should exercise discretion, but many small employers play safety first, do not exercise discretion and just treat any disclosure as a bar to employment. A second area that causes considerable problems for many people is that if they move between police areas, that can cause considerable delays as their case moves between those areas, and again they lose out on those opportunities. That is economically inefficient, and it is also devastating on their lives in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes.

[Robert Neill]

That is absolutely right, and it tallies with some of the examples given to us directly by people who have been through the system. I agree entirely that it does not make sense.

Let us look at the remaining bits of the system. We have filtering for single convictions. Single or multiple cautions for lesser offences can be filtered out once six years have elapsed, or two years if the person was under 18 at the time. That structure is complicated enough, frankly, but we then get to what we cannot filter, including convictions and cautions for listed offences and multiple convictions for lesser offences, no matter how long ago they happened and regardless of the circumstances.

Those of us who have practised criminal law can think of many instances in which it is perfectly possible to charge more than one offence arising out of the same set of facts. For example, actual bodily harm and a theft, both of which ended up in a conditional discharge or a fine; two offences of theft; or two assaults, because more than one person was involved in a stupid fight. Those are multiple and cannot be filtered, however much time has gone by. That, to us, seems to be nonsense. The view of many witnesses to our inquiry is that the system is complex and arbitrary. It is a blunt instrument, it is restrictive and it is disproportionate. It has exactly the problems that the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I completely agree on the need for flexibility in the system. If we are interested in rehabilitation and support for offenders, there is an argument that, for example, schools should be told something of the past activity of an individual, particularly if mental health issues were involved, so that they could provide the necessary support to make sure that the individual was looked after.

[Robert Neill]

It is ironic. At the moment we have a box-ticking exercise in which a conviction can be disclosed. As the right hon. Member for Warley rightly said, an employer may well have 200 applicants for a post so will simply play safe and delete anybody who has ticked the conviction box, regardless of how relevant that is for the job that they seek to employ a person to do. That is a burden for a small employer.

However, frequently when people apply for jobs through large employment agencies, it is almost as if an algorithm exists and that anyone who ticks the box is automatically filtered out by the computer system before their application gets any farther. None of those show the level of discretion that was perhaps anticipated when the scheme was drawn up. But it is not fair to push the burden on to employers. There is an obligation on the state and Government to set up a fair and appropriate regime that gives them comfort that they can make appropriate checks and that equally helps people to rehabilitate themselves.

The other point is the disproportionate impact on young people. That may seem obvious, but I do not think it is really recognised by those who run the system. The qualifying period of five and a half years is a great proportion of a child’s life, and is perhaps one of the most critical portions of a young person’s life as they grow up, mature and move into the employment, work and qualification phase. To have this hanging over them then, rather than further down the track, could not come at a worse time. There is not enough recognition of that.

The Law Commission gave compelling evidence to us, observing that the filtering regime might be well regarded as disproportionately harsh on young offenders. Our report concluded that too many childhood offences are unfiltered, undermining rehabilitation and denying children—which is what they were at the time they committed the offences—a second chance. We urge the Government to revise that as a matter of urgency. We also heard powerful evidence on the adverse effect that childhood criminal records have on employment, education and housing, as well as on insurance and visas for travel—everyday things, not the obvious things that we think about. We heard clear evidence of the discriminatory and adverse impact of that.

[John Howell]

My hon. Friend mentioned insurance, which includes car insurance. We rely on cars for our jobs, for pleasure and for all sorts of things. The way that insurance companies look out for these people is not very helpful at all and can leave people in difficult situations.

[Robert Neill]

Absolutely. Because it is blunt, employers and insurers will inevitably take the risk-averse approach. I do not entirely blame them for doing that; the system does not help them to be proportionate and more careful in their judgment than would otherwise have been the case. We also concluded that there is clear evidence of particular impacts on black and minority ethnic children and those who came through the care system, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham hinted.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making extremely good points. This is a thorough and excellent report on changing things for young people in the justice system. He mentioned young people in the justice and care systems. Does he agree that many issues arising at that time in a young person’s life are almost a cry for help because of adverse childhood experiences, particularly trauma? We need to do more within the system on help and remediation rather than directly on punishment.

[Robert Neill]

That, too, is a fair point. Certainly my experience as a lawyer representing people coming through the system was that there were instances of serious behaviour that had to be punished, but very often—this was particularly the case with younger offenders—offenders are also victims of other offending and there are underlying causes that too blunt an approach, such as that which we have, does not help.

We made a number of recommendations. Rehabilitation periods under the 1974 Act should be reduced. There should be an urgent review of the filtering regime, for the reasons we have set out. There should be a presumption against disclosure of so-called non-conviction intelligence, which is held on the police national database. That is legitimate for intelligence purposes, but there should not be arbitrary disclosure of it in the way that happens at the moment, particularly where the allegations on the database were made during someone’s childhood. Individuals should have a right to apply for a review prior to disclosure of their criminal record. That exists in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not in England and Wales, and we see no reason for that distinction.

The Ban the Box approach, which has been pioneered under recent Governments and is used by some employers, delays the point at which a job applicant discloses criminal records to a prospective employer. That is sensible because it allows the employer, first, to look at the application on its merits and then, if disclosure is appropriate, to see whether the conviction makes any difference to the person’s employability.

[John Spellar]

The hon. Gentleman is rightly and very ably identifying all the issues that the current system causes for individuals and their families and therefore the impact on society if they fail to be rehabilitated. Is not there also an overall, macroeconomic issue, particularly as a number of employers are expressing concerns about shortfalls in labour either leading up to or following Brexit? Artificially restricting people from working and, indeed, from advancing is not just bad for those individuals, shocking though that is, but very bad for society and the economy.

[Robert Neill]

That is an unanswerable point, because we can see that people who are kept unwillingly in economic inactivity—

[John Spellar]

Or low-paid jobs.

[Robert Neill]

Low-paid and unsatisfactory jobs create burdens at every level, so the point is entirely true.

[Mr Lammy]

rose—

[Liz Saville Roberts]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

Let me just make one more point and then I will give way. I want to deal with the Government response to our report and then I will happily give way again.

Those were the guts, to put it inelegantly, of our recommendations. The Ban the Box approach should be extended to all public sector vacancies, with a view to that becoming in due course mandatory for all employers. That would be the right response. We pointed out also that the disclosure regime may well fall short of the UK’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child, which prioritises the best interests of the child and requires states parties to promote the establishment of penal laws and procedures “specifically applicable to children”. The broad-brush approach here does not seem to us to meet that test.

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned Ban the Box in a positive light, and I am sure everyone in the Chamber would welcome it, but does he acknowledge that the problem with that initiative is, first, that it is voluntary and, secondly, that it is about the recruitment stage? The fundamental point about the work by the Select Committee and others who have raised this issue is that, beyond recruitment, there are questions about whether things should be disclosed to employers in the first place. It would be important for the Government not to lose that principle, which is rightly being raised by the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee.

[Robert Neill]

That is true. We do not see Ban the Box as a silver bullet; there is no single silver bullet. It is a sensible initiative and one that has been started, but we see it as a base on which to build rather than a solution itself. However, it would not be too difficult for the Government to extend it eventually along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. It is of course to be welcomed that Ban the Box has, as I understand it, been adopted in principle for civil servant recruitment, but I wonder how many people who are former offenders the Ministry of Justice would be able to employ in its own Department. This is just a proposition: to what degree within procurement could there be concomitant employment of ex-offenders in, say, maintenance contracts and other contracts that the Department releases?

[Robert Neill]

We talked about extending the initiative to all public sector vacancies, and I can see the logic of making this a condition of public procurement more generally. It is an interesting point that the right hon. Lady fairly raises. Like her, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. These levers are within the Government’s gift and there would be no requirement for primary legislation or anything of that kind.

Against that background, we were disappointed in the Government’s response. It was not entirely negative, but it did seem to us to lack a degree of urgency. It cited the litigation on criminal records that was ongoing at that time in the Supreme Court as a reason not to go into too much detail on most of our important recommendations. There was almost a predictive text response of, “It would not be appropriate to consider these matters until there has been an authoritative judgment from the Supreme Court.” That has now changed, as I will come to.

I recognise and welcome the positives in the Government response. The Government accepted parts of the report, in particular the commitment to improving information and guidance and exploring options for promoting Ban the Box—one of those has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—and there is willingness to work with the insurance industry to ensure that it operates more fairly in relation to spent convictions. I say to the Minister that that is all good, but we need more.

A concern for us was how policy is difficult to drive forward because it sits uneasily between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. That is a classic case of a desirable change falling through the gap between two Departments. If we are committed to more cross-governmental working, more could and should be done.

[Alex Chalk]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I pay tribute to his leadership of the Select Committee. He has not touched so much on the conclusions in the report about people aged between 18 and 25. The report said that consideration should be given to extending the filtering to young people. My view is that that is a bridge too far and we should focus purely on under-18s, but does he want to say anything about whether he thinks we should look at a filtering system for young people in that category?

[Robert Neill]

As my hon. Friend will remember from his time on the Committee, that is linked to earlier work in relation to young adults in the criminal justice system. I made the point earlier that we now know from overwhelming evidence that maturity and desistance from crime tend to kick in, particularly among young males, at age 25 or so. That is where that suggestion comes from. I agree. Rome was not built in a day, and we have to operate the system in a way that maintains public confidence and the confidence of employers where there are legitimate grounds for caution. Let us be honest: sometimes there are, and there always will be. We put the point in the report as part of the broader context. I hope that when, in due course, we get time to debate important issues of domestic legislation, rather than having the groundhog approach that we seem to have on other matters at the moment, perhaps that more holistic approach to young offenders will be appropriate, but it is not a reason to hold back the specific recommendations that we make about younger people, which we suggest should be moved urgently.

The Supreme Court judgment was cited as a reason for the Government not wishing to commit themselves. I understand that, but the Supreme Court has given its judgment, so the Government can move forward with a clear conscience. That judgment was of course in the joined cases of P, G and W and Lorraine Gallagher, who, being overage, could be named in that context. All the cases challenged various aspects of the filtering regime and dealt with a number of the issues to which we have referred. They all involved people who had been convicted of or reprimanded for relatively minor offending, and the disclosure of their criminal records had created barriers to employment, or there was a reasonable expectation that they would do so in the future.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the multiple conviction rule and the serious offence rule, without a mechanism for refinement, were not

“in accordance with the law”

as required by paragraph 2 of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which protects the right to respect for private life, as they did not allow proportionality to be considered in any particular case. It is that bluntness and lack of proportionality that we think now need to be addressed urgently.

The Government, to our regret, appealed against that decision rather than acting on the Court of Appeal suggestions. They lost in the Supreme Court on the principal matters. The legal approach was somewhat different. They succeeded in one appeal but, broadly, the Supreme Court agreed that there should be a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 against the multiple convictions rule. We call upon the Government to deal with that declaration of incompatibility and reform the law accordingly to bring it into accordance with our convention obligations and, frankly, the requirements of the 1998 Act.

Similarly, the mandatory disclosure of childhood reprimands was upheld in the Supreme Court, but on different grounds. Lord Sumption, who gave the Supreme Court’s lead judgment, looked at the second part of the test for lawfulness under article 8(2) of the convention, on whether the measure is

“necessary in a democratic society”.

In other words, he looked at whether the measure is proportionate. It failed that test.

Lord Sumption found that the legislation involving strict, predefined categories could in principle be proportionate, and that most of these could pass the test. However, he went on to decide that two features of the regime were disproportionate: the blunt instrument effect of the multiple conviction rule, and allowing the disclosure of reprimands for serious offences when they were given to children. Those are two specific areas where it seems to us that there is no excuse at all for the Government not acting to fall into line with the judgment of the Court. We believe there is good reason for them going beyond that, too.

Since then, we have been in correspondence with the Government, drawing attention to these facts and the incompatibility, as we see it, of the Government’s current stance with the Supreme Court judgment. We urge the Government to deal with our outstanding recommendations and, in particular, to set out what steps are being taken to ensure that the DBS suspends the unlawful elements of the current regime without delay. We seek from the Government—perhaps the Minister can help us today—an update on how they now intend to address those elements of the regime to ensure that it fits the legal proportionality test in a meaningful and workable way.

The debate comes against that background. The Secretary of State replied, as always, in courteous terms, but mentioning the need to balance giving employers necessary information, which I concede, with respect to the individual’s right to private life. The Government said they will consider the Committee’s recommendations, but need to fully consider the implications of any change. They said that they are not able to respond formally at this time. When will they be able to respond formally? Lives are being damaged at the present time by this needless failure to comply.

That is why we are pressing for urgent action. The Government can deal with this very easily, it seems to us. They can use section 10 of the Human Rights Act to present to Parliament a remedial order to amend those parts of the disclosure regime that are incompatible with article 8 according to the Court’s judgments. Remedial orders to amend legislation and remove any incompatibilities can be statutory instruments. That does not, therefore, involve primary legislation and the time that that would involve. There is precedent for statutory instruments having been used on a number of occasions.

If the Government do not take that step, they cannot really expect anything other than further legal challenge, and I do not want to see the Government putting themselves in that position. I hope they will take those remedial orders to bring our law into compliance, and that they use the opportunity to make an urgent and comprehensive review of the whole regime, particularly the impacts on those who offend as young children or young adults. That is long-overdue for all the reasons that a number of right hon. and hon. Members gave in interventions. I hope that sets the scene and enables colleagues to participate and raise their points, which may even shorten things as the debate goes along.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the Justice Committee, its Chair and the hon. and right hon. Members who serve on it for the excellent report they have published. I also thank the Committee and House staff who do the painstaking work of writing the report and the recommendations. I was a member of the Committee from 2010 to 2015. I can honestly and sincerely say that today’s debate has been one of the best I have attended in the nine years that I have been in Parliament. Every Member of Parliament who has spoken today has spoken with real passion, conviction and sincerity and with a real desire to change a very important aspect of people’s lives. It will be a pleasure to be able to say that we were in the debate today.

Before I go into the details of my speech, I want to acknowledge all the Members who have contributed. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) eloquently went through the whole report and explained in detail for us, and those watching, what the report said. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his review, which I will refer to later in my speech, and for the work that he has done. The report emphasises the high proportion of BAME children in the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the impact of housing. Let’s face it: to have a decent life you need a decent home to live in. That is such an important factor.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) talked about the importance of employment and jobs, without which it is difficult to survive in life. I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) was able to hotfoot it from the Chamber. Clearly, with the work that she does, she is in the thick of it, as they say. Her contribution was absolutely brilliant. She went through the whole system and what needs to change. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, she eloquently put the case for race and class and the effect that it has on whether people end up in the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) alluded to the issue of class and he also made a succinct point. I understand that everybody has commitments and I want to acknowledge their contributions.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson), a former Justice Minister, talked about education and employment, which are crucial. He touched on whether a conviction should be disclosed when someone applies for a job or whether it should be left to the end of the process, after someone has been considered on merit. That is an important point. Last but not least, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) rightly talked about children in care. A lot of the children also have mental health issues and autism. We know that the child and adolescent mental health services in our local authorities have long waiting lists for children to be assessed. As she was speaking, I was reminded of a case that I had when I was a prosecutor many moons ago.

A young man of 14 or 15 was in a care home. He attended court to give evidence against his mother’s ex-boyfriend, who had been charged with indecent assault on his younger sister. He turned up at the court and, on seeing him, his mother went over to him and punched him in the stomach twice, and he burst into tears. He went back to the care home and set light to a curtain. He quickly realised what he had done and tried to put it out, but the fire brigade was called. That goes to exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston talked about. Because the young man was in a care home, the police and prosecuting authorities got involved. I wanted to recommend no further action on the grounds of public interest. Sadly, my boss overruled me and said that we must proceed, so we came to a compromise and she at least agreed to a caution. That illustrates the point that if that incident had happened at home, the outcome would have been different; sometimes when children do things in anger at home, nothing happens.

For me, listening to all the speeches today has been important, and I hope the Minister and the civil servants are paying attention. I will now return to my scripted speech.

At the heart of any proper youth justice system is an attempt to rehabilitate an offending young person while protecting their fellow members of society. Although those two aims do not need to be opposed to each other, a knotty issue they throw up is deciding what information those with convictions and cautions must disclose later in life. In many cases some disclosure is essential to ensure that offenders are not exposed to vulnerable people in dangerous circumstances. Unfortunately, it is increasingly clear that our balancing act between personal rehabilitation and societal protection is worryingly skewed in favour of the latter. In fact, our wrong-headed, punitive approach means that we might be shooting ourselves in the foot, as forcing people to disclose largely irrelevant information years after a crime often deepens pre-existing social divides, as we have heard.

As was noted in both the 2017 Justice Committee report and the Government’s response last year, forcing people to disclose their criminal record is a power that needs to be carefully applied. Past convictions can have an impact on a person’s capacity to find housing or to take up a place at an educational institution, and can have an impact on finding work. Sadly, by forcing people to reveal past convictions years after they have served their time, we throw up barriers and prevent them from becoming fully integrated members of society. For some, it leads to long periods on benefits, at significant cost to the state. Even worse, many return to the kinds of criminal activity that we should have provided every opportunity for them to escape, and end up in prison, at even greater cost to the national purse. Locking individuals into negative patterns is particularly foolish and cruel when they committed crimes as young people.

We are well out of line with other countries internationally. A 2016 report by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice compared the treatment of childhood criminal records across Europe and America and found that the system in England and Wales was distinctly more punitive. A criminal record acquired by a child in England affects them longer and in more restrictive ways than in any of the other jurisdictions studied. Not only do we criminalise an unusually high proportion of children, but the processes by which those criminal records can be hidden from employers are arcane and inflexible.

The 2017 Justice Committee review provided persuasive justification for wide-scale reform, listing 21 conclusions and recommendations. Although the Government’s response addressed each of the recommendations, I am afraid that in too many areas they chose to kick the can down the road. One justification for that was that they chose to take their case to the Supreme Court to defend our system of disclosures, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham said, the Government or the MOJ should have followed the Court of Appeal and dealt with the issue and not pursued it to the highest courts. It comes as no surprise to those of us who agreed with the findings of the original Select Committee report that a Supreme Court judgment this year found that our disclosure scheme is contrary to article 8 of the European convention on human rights on two key fronts: the rule that requires the automatic disclosure of all convictions where a person has more than one conviction, and the requirement that some childhood cautions be disclosed indefinitely. Importantly, we have a mechanism by which previous offences can be taken off DBS checks—a process termed “filtering”. However, that process also has major flaws. The current filtering will remove a spent childhood conviction from a DBS standard or enhanced certificate only when five and a half years has elapsed since the date of the conviction. It must also be the individual’s only offence and it must not appear on the list of exempt offences that will never be removed from a certificate.

I—and clearly, going by what they have said today, other right hon. and hon. Members—urge reform on all three counts. Although five and a half years is significantly less than would be required for an adult—there is an 11-year wait before filtering can take place—that is still an incredibly long and pretty much arbitrary period. It means that it is difficult for 19-year-olds to get jobs because of offences—often minor—committed at the age of 14. That makes no sense, especially when they have not committed other offences. During those years, most of us are growing, changing and maturing, and the law should be flexible and forgiving enough to recognise that.

The fact that convictions remain unfiltered if there has been more than one conviction or when the conviction is on the exempt offences list also holds back young people at a crucial time in their lives. The offences include those involving a degree of violence, drugs, and some sexual offences. That is a broad range of offence categories, and putting them on an unfilterable list prevents individual discretion and creates a single rule totally at odds with the need to achieve personalised restorative justice for young people. We need a child-specific system that recognises that the offences in the list are diverse and complex.

[Robert Neill]

I very much agree with the hon. Lady. Does she agree that her point about the need for a different approach for younger people is strongly reinforced by the conclusions in the February 2017 Law Commission report, which states precisely that the system bears disproportionately harshly on young offenders, and argues that some offences that might justifiably be non-filterable for adult offenders should be filterable for young offenders? She says that a different approach is needed, and the commission also said so.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the Law Commission’s recommendation. I hope that the Minister and Ministry of Justice civil servants will also be listening, and will be reminded of what the Law Commission said. I hope they will take those things on board and that we will not find that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said happened when he was a Minister, civil service-speak means we do not quite know what will happen.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has spoken about the Lammy review, which he carried out. I will touch on it, because it is important. I am worried that its findings, which are relevant to the issue that we are discussing, are being ignored, as many other recommendations have been ignored. When we look at how unequal outcomes are for BAME children and for those in care when they pass through the criminal justice system at a young age, it is clear that there is something particularly wrong about tying them for the rest of their lives to crimes that they committed as children—worsening pre-existing inequalities. I hope that the Minister will be able to throw some light on that, and suggest what actions the Department is taking on issues set out in the Lammy review.

Another issue emphasised by the Select Committee was the need to recognise that young people mature at different rates up to their mid-20s—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who is not in her place at the moment, concurred and reinforced the point. While I welcome the Government’s acceptance of that basic fact, will the Minister clarify what concrete steps are being taken to enshrine that recognition in law? Further, now that we have received confirmation that the Government’s disclosure rules are in breach of international law, can we have some clarity on the timescales on which the Government hope to bring their regulations up to date? Scrapping the current exempt list and the two-offence rule would be great first steps and I should like to know whether the Minister recognises that the Government need to make up their mind, make up for their inaction and move quickly. Finally, do the Government plan to take steps to introduce a review mechanism by which individuals can apply to have their convictions filtered? That would allow for a genuinely case-by-case approach to justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not aware of any Department not doing it. There may be some roles, perhaps in the policing or security aspects of Government, where there might be more complex considerations. I undertake to write to him with a clarification on that in due course, when I will answer a number of his other questions.

[Robert Neill]

Further to that point, will the Minister also commit to letting us know whether any of the Ministry of Justice’s contractors are not operating Ban the Box? The Ministry has considerable procurement leverage in these matters. Subject to the caveats about security, we would like to know that, too.

[Edward Argar]

I am happy to include that, if it is appropriate, when I write to the right hon. Member for Delyn—I will copy it to the Chairman of the Justice Committee, who makes a good point. I do not know whether that data exists, but I will endeavour to get it. The right hon. Member for Delyn also asked, I think, about the direct impact on the Ministry of Justice. My understanding is that of those people with a previous conviction who applied through the approach that has been taken in the civil service since 2016, 92% subsequently secured employment, which is a positive outcome.

Beyond the guidance for employers, I am proud of the rehabilitative support we have offered in the past. As I say, I will write to the right hon. Member for Delyn with some detailed answers to his questions about the specific list of activities undertaken to ensure that responses and commitments went beyond responses and commitments and followed through into actions. One thing that he mentioned, to which I can respond directly now, is about the education and employment strategy, which was published in 2018 and was explicit, as I understand it, in referring to this. I will give him the detailed action plan that sits beneath the strategy.

I am proud of the rehabilitative support we offer to people who have offended in the past. Our education and employment strategy, published in 2018, sets out how we will transform our approach to ensure that those in the adult custodial estate develop the skills they need to secure employment on release. We are giving governors the power to commission education provision and engage with employers to take on ex-prisoners—for example, via the New Futures Network.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned the debate about the age of maturity and its impact on criminal justice. There is a live debate on whether it should be 18, 25 or somewhere in the middle, reflecting different scientific papers that have been put forward. I think that even the Lord Chief Justice has commented on this ongoing debate. It is something of which I am very much aware. A degree of caution needs to be exercised, if only because the age of 18 is when we deem people mature enough to enjoy certain rights and benefits. If we were to look at whether it should be 18 or 25, would that lead to a wider debate? If we are saying that someone is not criminally mature, what other rights and benefits come with a particular age? I am not setting out a particular view on that, but it does lead to a wider debate. We should not be afraid to engage in that, but we should be conscious of the wider implications.

As hon. Members have mentioned, the Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in the case of P and others, which considered the disclosure regime. On the most fundamental point, the Court found—for the Government—that it was proportionate and practicable to make disclosure decisions in accordance with a clearly defined and unambiguous system, through the operation of legislative rules agreed by Parliament. However, as has been set out, the Court went on to find that two key features of the filtering regime are disproportionate as framed: the multiple conviction rule and the disclosure of youth reprimands and warnings. I will not recount the detail of how they operate, because hon. Members have already done so.

My Department is working closely with the Home Office to give proper consideration to the judgment. The Justice Committee’s report touched on something that is relevant. It highlighted the fact that responsibility in this area is split between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. Indeed, in some of the issues we have touched on, which I will turn to later, other parts of Government also have a relevant interest, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government being an obvious example.

I saw the Committee’s suggestion that placing responsibility on a single Department could enhance coherence. We did not accept that recommendation for a simple reason: we come back to the balance at the heart of the system, that balance between a focus on rehabilitation—giving people a second chance—and an element of public protection. Part of that sits with the Home Office and part sits with the Ministry of Justice, which can lead to a creative and hopefully positive tension and balance. Where we must strive to avoid problems is when that balance and those counter-positions or counter-interests can lead to things taking a lot longer than they might do otherwise. In a few moments I will turn to the matter of timing, because the Chairman of the Justice Committee is a deeply patient man but does not have infinite patience.

We work closely with the Home Office to give these things proper consideration. Although that judgment has been handed down, the order behind it has not yet been sent over to us. We await that order. When it is received, it is important that we are speedy and timely in addressing it.

[Robert Neill]

One thing that might be able to speed these matters along is for the issue to be discussed by the Criminal Justice Board, a mechanism that is there precisely to give an overview across the whole criminal justice system, and which involves the two principally concerned Departments and others. Will the Minister undertake to have it raised on the board’s agenda?

[Edward Argar]

I will raise that very good point with the Secretary of State, who sits on that board. Although I cannot go into the details in advance of that order, I can say, and Members can read into this what they will, that I generally find justices to be wise and sensible in their opinions. They consider what they say extremely carefully and open-mindedly. I believe, from my experience in this role so far, that when one receives a judgment from the Supreme Court, there are often opportunities to look at it in broad, rather than narrow, terms. I will endeavour to reflect on that when the order comes through.

We previously committed to considering the Committee’s recommendations for reform of the criminal records system on receipt of that judgment, and we remain committed to that, because it is appropriate for us to consider any recommendations about the disclosure regime in the light of that authoritative ruling. The Committee’s recommendations sit neatly alongside it, so it makes sense to consider them in the round.

I now turn to a number of issues that came up in the debate. I am grateful to the Committee for highlighting such a wide range of issues in its report, particularly on access to housing, travel and insurance. I recognise the acute impact that lack of access to those things can have, as well as the cumulative impact on children who have offended. I will take each of the points in turn, but before I do so, I pay tribute to the speech made by the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), who rightly highlighted the need for us to understand not just the requirements of a regime but the context for each individual. She highlighted the impact on the behaviour of young people who have been looked-after children, who have had adverse childhood experiences and who may even have been victims of child sexual abuse or other forms of abuse. That should be a consideration, and she was absolutely right to raise the issue. Those individuals have a passionate advocate in her. She made her point forcefully and well, and I will certainly reflect carefully on what she said.

The Committee’s report concluded that the criminal record system undermines the principles of the youth justice system. Although we do not share that view, the Committee’s work highlights further opportunities not yet taken that can enhance the principles and the work of the criminal justice system if we reflect on how the disclosure regime operates more broadly. Children who come into contact with the police and youth offending teams are some of the most vulnerable children in our societies, as the hon. Lady highlighted. We all agree that rehabilitation is important in improving their life chances. Society has a right to expect that we will do everything possible to ensure that all people with convictions desist from crime. Those who offended as children are no different. We have a particular responsibility to children who fall into the categories that the hon. Lady highlighted.

We know how important employment, education and other factors raised by the Committee are in enabling rehabilitation. The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) highlighted that issue and touched on some powerful examples. We are committed to supporting children to turn their lives around. In 2013, the coalition Government changed the law so minor offences no longer needed to be disclosed. It takes significantly less time now for offences committed by children, as opposed to those committed by adults, to become spent, after which they no longer need to be disclosed for most purposes. Those features of the disclosure regime all relate to the fact that children who offend are often highly vulnerable and might not be as mature as adults who do so. There has been progress, and the hon. Lady would expect me to say that, but given her comments about pre-emptive action, I will not say, “That’s progress. That’s job done. We are in the right place,” because I believe that there is clearly more to do.

The Committee raised concerns about equality and disproportionality. I am committed to reducing disproportionate outcomes for BAME children in the youth justice system, and I share the concerns voiced by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) in his 2017 report. I reassure the shadow Minister that we take that report incredibly seriously. Since I was appointed to this role last summer, I have met the right hon. Gentleman a number of times. We announced last November via the Cabinet Office the cross-Government “one year on” update on the progress that has been made in that area. I have regular roundtables with those with an interest in this issue to chase up progress. We have a director general in the Department who is directly responsible for bringing officials from a range of parts of the Department together to drive forward progress on reducing disproportionality and implementing the recommendations in the right hon. Gentleman’s report. That reflects the fact that I recognise the need for systemic change. A key focus is on explaining or changing disproportionate outcomes for BAME children in the justice system.

I am also aware of the over-representation of vulnerable groups with multiple and complex needs—particularly looked-after children, excluded children and those with mental health issues. Again, it is a fundamental priority for the youth justice system to ensure that those children receive the support and intervention they need to fulfil their potential.

A number of Members touched on the disclosure of police evidence. In our response to the Committee’s report, we noted that disclosure of police intelligence can be an important aspect of the regime. That was a key finding of the Bichard report after the Soham murders. It plays a vital part in ensuring that children and vulnerable adults are protected. The police cannot automatically disclose all intelligence. Disclosure of non-conviction information is subject to a statutory relevance test, so the chief officer has to consider whether the information is relevant and ought to be disclosed. That includes consideration of the individual’s age at the time of the offence, its seriousness and how long ago it occurred, but once again, as hon. Members have emphasised, the key is proportionality and relevance.

My Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) touched on housing. Social housing is a precious resource, so ensuring that it is allocated fairly, as he set out, is crucial. We recognise the need to understand better how the allocation system is playing out in local areas, so we know whether it is striking the right balance between fairness, support and aspiration. In the social housing Green Paper, the Government propose an evidence collection exercise to help us to understand how the allocations framework is working across the country in different areas. Following that exercise, we will consider whether changes to legislation, regulations or statutory or best practice guidance are necessary, but we believe that making changes prior to having a clear evidence base would be premature. My Department continues to work closely with MHCLG colleagues to ensure that the points that my hon. Friend and others made, which are directly relevant in this space, are considered in that broader piece of work.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to the Minister for the constructive dialogue that we can have. In carrying out that evidence exercise, will he particularly bear in mind the evidence that we received from the Standing Committee for Youth Justice? Like me, the Minister comes from a background in London local government, and that organisation’s findings were that some 13 of the 30 London local authorities it looked at had housing policies that tended to have an unreasonable impact on the allocation of housing to former offenders. If, as he said, a pay cheque is one way of stopping offending, secure accommodation is another.

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend alludes to our shared past in London local government, where I first met him many years ago, when I had a little more hair and it was not quite so grey. He is absolutely right: I meet with the Standing Committee on Youth Justice and consider its reports and input with great care. It is for local authorities to ensure that their allocation schemes are lawful, taking account of any relevant decisions made by the courts. No authority may breach section 4 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which requires that a person who has a spent conviction be treated as if the offence was not committed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley also touched on education. As we set out in our response to the report, most higher education institutions are autonomous, independent organisations, and as such admissions are a matter for each individual institution. They are best placed to decide which applicants are the most suited for their organisations and the courses that they offer. Similarly, further education providers, including colleges, are independent organisations that can set their own entry criteria for qualifications, in line with those published by the qualification owner.

That said, we expect providers to take account of the Committee’s recommendation as part of a transparent admissions process. On universities, I am happy to say that for the 2018-19 cycle, UCAS has dropped the automatic requirement for all applicants to declare unspent convictions, regardless of whether they are relevant to the course for which the applicant is applying. The eligibility for Disclosure and Barring Service standard or enhanced certificates applies to work placements in the same way as other paid or voluntary employment. If a course does not involve a work placement that is eligible for a check, the university can only ask about unspent convictions.

Hon. Members raised the matter of insurance, the Association of British Insurers and other matters. The ABI published a good practice guide in 2011—it was updated in 2014—that sets out high-level standards of how insurers should treat people with convictions or related offences. The guide makes it clear that insurers should not ask for spent convictions. When an insurer is unable to provide full or any cover because of a consumer’s unspent conviction history, the insurer should provide information about alternative sources of help.

The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston touched on the UN convention on the rights of the child and similar. As stated in our response, the Government consider that the disclosure regime is compatible with the convention. It treats convictions and cautions received by those under the age of 18 differently from those incurred by an adult and, although I hear that hon. Members feel that those people should be treated more differently, we believe that we are compliant with the convention. In the light of the Supreme Court judgment, any future changes to the regime will take the convention into account.

I want to touch on the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and her passionate campaigning work. I am very pleased that she was able to dash from the main Chamber to deliver her speech. I know that she is a passionate advocate for the Ban the Box campaign. She speaks with eloquence and with great knowledge and experience, having worked on this issue for some time. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss that campaign more broadly if she feels that that would be helpful. If the right hon. Member for Delyn and others wished to join us, I would be very happy for them to do so.

There is always a balance to be struck between giving the employers the information that they need to make informed recruitment decisions and having a criminal records system that enables rehabilitation. I look forward to our bringing forward proposals both in response to the Supreme Court judgment and to formally address the issues set out in the Committee’s report. As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is a patient man, but not infinitely patient—nor is his Committee. Hon. Members quite rightly highlighted that although words are important, and this place uses an awful lot of them, they must lead to action.

I am clear that we must, and will, act to address the issues raised and the Supreme Court judgment when the order comes forward. I hope that we can all believe and support a system that believes in redemption, rehabilitation and a second chance. More than ever, that should apply to children who, at a young age, make a simple mistake that should not blight the rest of their lives. I commit to working closely with the Committee in the coming months to respond to and address its points as well as those raised by the Supreme Court judgment. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to speak on this subject.

[Robert Neill]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David.

This has been an extremely well-informed and constructive debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members, Committee members and others, who have spoken. I am particularly grateful for, and warmly welcome the contribution of, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), whose work in this field we all pay tribute to and who recently engaged with us as a Select Committee. My colleagues from the Committee spoke powerfully and persuasively in this debate.

This is an area on which there was a good deal of agreement between the two Front Benchers, and so it should be. In such important matters of not only criminal justice policy but social justice policy, we ought to seek and are well able to achieve a broad cross-party consensus in this place.

This welcome the tone of the Minister’s response, because I know that he is genuine, and also welcome his constructive engagement with the debate and the Committee. I look forward to that continuing. There is compliance not just with the letter of the convention but with its spirit and the ability to take that further, and I know that he and the Secretary of State—both genuine reformers—will seek to do that.

I thank all our Committee staff who worked on the report—some of them are in the Public Gallery today. They did an excellent piece of work. I also thank all those witnesses who gave evidence to us, including those who brought their own experience of the system—it is not always easy to talk about—to assist us directly.

There is an opportunity to consider some of these matters in the other place as well. As the Minister knows, the noble Lord Ramsbotham has a private Member’s Bill—the Criminal Records Bill—which awaits Committee in the other place. If the Bill progresses further, the Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord Keen, will probably deal with it. I hope he will look as favourably as he can at the changes. It is a broader Bill, but includes specific provisions on rehabilitation periods for childhood and young person offences, which I hope that the Ministry will look at constructively. I am sure we would all want to recognise Lord Ramsbotham’s work in this field over very many years.

The Minister has been constructive, and I look forward to engaging further with him, as do all the Committee. He is right that I have a measure of patience—you, Sir David, will know more than anyone that a lifelong West Ham supporter has learnt to be patient over many years, although even our patience in that respect is not inexhaustible. However, I take the Minister’s comments in the generous and constructive spirit in which they were made. I again thank all Members who have participated in an important and constructive debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the First Report of the Justice Committee, Disclosure of youth criminal records, HC 416, and the Government response, Cm 9559.