---

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2007

Because this came within the purview of the Ministry of Justice only in May this year it is necessary to make some points of principle on the order. In relation to offenders the basic policy must be to ensure, and as much as possible to encourage, their rehabilitation and resettlement. The whole purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 was to make it clear that after a certain period a person could have closure to offences that had been committed so that he did not have to reveal a previous conviction, or admit its existence, once the conviction was spent. During my time as a criminal lawyer I have seen the benefits of that provision, but as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said a moment ago, we seem to be getting more exceptions to protection than those who are protected by the Act. I remind the Committee of statistics that were produced by the Office for National Statistics in connection with the report, Breaking the Circle, which pointed out at appendix E that these statistics were available. At the NACRO conference on key issues in prisoners’ resettlement in March 2002, Paul Cavadino, who is well known to Members of the Committee in this field, said that there were, "““disproportionately high rates of unemployment amongst those sent to prison””—" and that— "““more than two thirds of the prison population””," were unemployed when they committed their offence. Sixty per cent of ex-offenders are refused jobs because of their criminal record, although ex-prisoners with jobs are one-third to one-half less likely to reoffend. There are statistics from the National Institute for Economic and Social Research concerning the barriers to employment for offenders and ex-offenders. It found that many people with a criminal record expect employers to react negatively when they learn of their previous convictions and are therefore deterred from even applying for a job. Its conclusion was that any kind of criminal record results in a likely rejection of an application for about one in six vacancies, but with most types of offences, there is a rejection rate of about one-half of vacancies. I cite those statistics to remind the Committee that disclosure of a criminal record that would otherwise be spent is a very serious inhibitor to an employer to employ anyone. The cycle is maintained: the person without a job goes out to commit more offences and goes back to prison. The purpose of the original Act was to try to break that circle. The Rowntree Foundation report was also cited in the appendix to which I referred. It is very important not to take lightly the addition of exceptions. For example, one wonders why it is necessary to have a particular requirement for the new Commissioner for Older People in Wales as a single, very important job, to disclose previous convictions. It is highly unlikely that a person who had been to prison would apply for a job of that nature. The temptation to add to the list of exceptions goes on and on. Of course, we on these Benches support the essential necessity of protecting children and vulnerable people, but I want to draw to the Committee's attention how making too many exceptions can lead to a continuation of the problems from which people suffer and can result in further imprisonment. A previous regime, which has fortunately now departed from the Home Office, was anxious always to lock more people up, to the point where the jails are bursting and to do that even when the rate of offending was significantly reducing. That regime has gone and I hope that under the new Ministry of Justice we will see a broader approach to those problems and that the exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 will be much fewer and far between.