| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Several other changes are also being made in the order. They will affect: staff working within the Public Guardianship Office with access to data relating to children and vulnerable adults; the Commissioner for Older People in Wales, his deputy, and any person appointed by the commissioner to assist him or authorised to discharge his functions on his behalf. This is a new position which has been created under the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Act 2006; the commissioners for the Gambling Commission and any office or employment in their service. This is in accordance with the power granted to them under the Gambling Act 2005; individuals seeking authorisation from the Secretary of State at the Home Department to become authorised search officers. This was a ministerial commitment given during the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act 2006; and anyone in employment where normal duties involve caring for, training, supervising, or being solely in charge of, persons aged under 18 serving in the Armed Forces and anyone in employment where normal duties include supervising personnel aged under 18. This provision follows the recommendation made by the Deepcut review in March 2006.
We believe that these amendments are necessary in order to maintain a proper balance between the needs of vulnerable groups for protection, the necessity of maintaining the integrity of our regulatory and public bodies and the benefit to society of rehabilitating ex-offenders through employment. I commend the order to the Committee.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2007. 20th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
4.30 pm
Lord Henley: We do not want in any way to oppose this order but I wish to put a number of questions to the noble Lord. I thank him for his explanation of what the order sets out to do. As he made clear, we have already had two amending orders in 2006. I think that he mentioned two more in the five years before that, and no doubt a number of orders were made between 1974 and 2001. In an era when the Prime Minister is talking about change, change and change again, it strikes me that an awful lot of changes are happening. It might be useful for the Government to introduce some consolidation of all this so that we know exactly where we are in terms of all the exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. It is a very worthy Act in itself but it is beginning to look as though there might be more exceptions than in the original Act, particularly, as the noble Lord made clear, further amendments will have to be introduced pretty soon. Although the Government tried to make sure that they did not have to amend parts of it too often by including boards that did not yet exist, in the form of the Independent Barring Board, they also
10 July 2007 : Column GC199
He mentioned that there would be further changes following the Bichard report, but I should be grateful if he would consider introducing consolidation to clarify the situation for practitioners and to enable people to know exactly what is and is not excluded.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: 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,
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
10 July 2007 : Column GC200
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.
Lord Hylton: I apologise for arriving late for the start of consideration of the order. I had thought that discussion of the gambling order would go on rather longer than it did.
Have organisations working for the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders been consulted about the terms of the order? It is important that they should have been, but I am not certain that they were, whereas the Explanatory Memorandum states that employers’ organisations or groups have been consulted. There seems to be a slight disparity there.
Secondly, I understand that there should be concern about employment categories for people dealing with children and young people. One might expect that previous convictions for offences against children, specifically, would tend to disqualify from employment. But why should all convictions have that effect? In that context, do convictions for violent crime against persons carry special weight?
Finally, does disclosure of previous convictions, particularly if they occurred some years ago and therefore are remote from the present time, still allow the job application to be considered?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this order. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked: why not simply overhaul and consolidate the exceptions order? We intend to take that step to coincide with the launch of the new vetting and barring scheme in the autumn of 2008. The exception order will be aligned with the provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made a fascinating contribution to the debate. It is very difficult to disagree with anything he said. He said that we should encourage rehabilitation and resettlement in relation to Breaking the Circle. There is a temptation, he argued, with these orders simply to keep adding. The important point about the order is that it is aimed at protecting children and vulnerable adults. Although we take on board his legitimate concerns, we are very mindful, as I am sure he is, to protect the principle of
10 July 2007 : Column GC201
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, also asked why it was necessary to put in the order about the Commissioner for Older People in Wales. The role of the commissioner is likely to involve significant unsupervised contact with and indirect access to potentially a large number of older people in the normal course of his or her duties. This is an innovative post which will be the focus of attention and scrutiny at the highest level. It is therefore imperative that risks are not taken, no matter how small.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked what Nacro’s response was to the proposed amendments. We engaged in a very useful dialogue with Nacro. For example, it expressed concerns that the exception order needed to draw a balance between the rights of ex-offenders and the need to protect vulnerable groups; we have already discussed that matter. We feel that this order strikes that balance very well.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked whether disclosure of previous convictions still allows job applications to be considered. It is a matter for the employer as to what they do, if any weight is to be given to such disclosures. Employers are encouraged to have a policy for the employment of ex-offenders. Amendments were made to the exception order as a result of these discussions. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Community Order (Review by Specified Courts) Order 2007
4.45 pm
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Community Order (Review by Specified Courts) Order 2007.
The noble Lord said: The order applies to judges and magistrates sitting at the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre and the Community Justice Courts in the courts named in the order and is subject to affirmative resolution, by virtue of Section 330(5) of the Criminal Justice Act.
Section 178 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides an order-making power for a court to review periodically offenders’ progress on community orders. This power was enacted for the first community justice courts in Liverpool and Salford on a pilot basis and has been in operation in those courts since
10 July 2007 : Column GC202
A community order providing for review may provide for the community order to be reviewed periodically at specified intervals; require the offender to attend each review hearing; and provide for a report on the offender’s progress in complying with the order to be made available to the court before each review. The community justice initiative involves the courts engaging with the local community and working in partnership with criminal justice agencies, local authorities, support services, community groups and the wider voluntary sector to solve the problems caused by offending in the local area.
The review of community orders supports the delivery of key principles of community justice. Reviewing offenders’ progress enables the court to maintain oversight of an offender and increases the offender’s accountability to the court. It also offers the court and support agencies involved further opportunities to support the offender in complying with their order by addressing problems, such as housing or financial difficulties. The review process does not involve significant resource, particularly given the potential savings associated with decreased breach and reoffending.
As the power has only been in force in Liverpool and Salford since April 2006, and given that reoffending data need to be measured over at least two years, we do not yet have quantitative data available. Our next step will therefore be to carry out a full evaluation with more offenders using a comparison sample of offenders with similar characteristics. Furthermore, this extension of the power to review community orders to the new pilot community justice schemes will provide further data on which to base this.
There is, however, already strong evidence from his honour Judge Fletcher, the magistrates in Salford and from offenders themselves that the review process is a powerful mechanism for increasing compliance and enforcement of community sentences. Some examples of the impact that review has had on offenders include a young offender with a history of anti-social behaviour, unemployment, depression and drug abuse who received a suspended sentence with onerous conditions in March 2006. His progress was reviewed regularly by the judge and he successfully completed all unpaid community hours and probation accredited programmes. Another example is a long-term drug addict who—again after regular review—has not only succeeded in beating his addiction but has been promoted to a position of responsibility in the hostel he is living in and has begun to have contact with his family again.
An offender interviewed about the review process said, “I would have gone off the rails and that was what I needed, that short leash. That is why I got my life back in order”.
In Liverpool, review sessions have been used to engage offenders in discussions about their plans for the future and to refer them to Jobcentre Plus. For many offenders, this is the first time that such a sustained interest has been shown in their lives,
10 July 2007 : Column GC203
In November 2006, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton announced that community justice was to be expanded to 11 new areas. The order would extend the power to review community courts to those new projects, which have all enthusiastically asked to be given the opportunity to use the power as part of their projects.
The review of community orders is key to community justice. Extending the power to review community orders to the new projects will enable them to support and monitor offenders during their sentence, to reassess the effectiveness of a community order, and to vary it if required. It will enable them to refer offenders, particularly those with a wide range of needs, to appropriate support services. It also sends a message to the community and the offender that community sentences are not a soft option. It is intended that the review process will promote compliance with community orders and prevent reoffending. The extension of the power will also enable a robust evaluation of the operation of the review process, and its effect on compliance and reoffending rates tied in with an in depth review of the impact on reoffending in Liverpool. The results of this evaluation will inform future decisions about the wider roll-out of the power.
The provisions of the order have no impact on the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Community Order (Review by Specified Courts) Order 2007. 20th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)
Lord Henley: I sometimes have considerable doubt as to why certain orders are affirmative rather than negative, and this comes into that category. It strikes me as an order which would have been far better if it had been left as a negative instrument rather than an affirmative one. I do not think that I was involved during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As often as not, concessions are made by Ministers—normally allowing an order to become affirmative when previously it was negative. This is probably one of those occasions when, if that were the case, it would have been wiser for the Minister to have resisted calls from the Opposition to make it affirmative.
Having said that, I do not have any particular questions. I am very grateful for the noble Lord’s explanation. I note that he, and the Explanatory Memorandum, made clear that the quantitative data so far to support the Liverpool and Salford evaluations are somewhat limited. We look forward to more data coming through and to the data coming through from the other magistrates’ courts that have been added, and in due course we look forward to hearing from the Government about the success of this scheme.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I would have liked to hear a little bit more about the Salford and Liverpool
10 July 2007 : Column GC204
The issue is still rather tentative. The pilots have operated for a period in two courts. The whole system then comes to an end and a new pilot for 12 court centres comes forward. It smacks of a lack of any positive conclusions drawn from the original pilots in Salford and in Liverpool. I would like to hear more about the results.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I agree with him that perhaps we should debate less than we do. This being a positive order has given us the opportunity to discuss it. The general answer to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is that, as I said in my opening speech, there is a large amount of anecdotal evidence that the system is working well. There will now be a more formal review. We have every hope, as do the local people, that it will show that these are very positive and good initiatives in the local community.
The noble Lord asked specifically how often reviews take place. In Liverpool and in Salford, how regularly cases are reviewed has been at the discretion of the court. Firmer guidance is being prepared with NOMS, which will cover the regularity of reviews. That will be made available for the new courts prior to the introduction of the order. He also asked whether the impact on probation resources has been considered. The proposal to extend the power to review community orders on a pilot basis had the full agreement of NOMS. Negotiations have taken place locally within the projects to ensure that the probation services and the courts can cope with the additional burden of the review hearings in preparation for them. A small amount of funding will be provided by NOMS, by the community justice programme, to cover the additional cost.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked whether this provision has cut down on breach proceedings. Again, anecdotal evidence from staff is that there has been a reduction in breach proceedings. Only a small number of offenders have so far been subject to reviews, so we cannot at this moment draw robust conclusions. Returning to generality, there is a very strong feeling in Liverpool and Salford that this initiative is a very good thing and has had very positive results; but I absolutely take on board the point the noble Lord made that there must be a robust review that demonstrates that it is indeed working. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
10 July 2007 : Column GC205
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Amendment) Order 2007
4.59 pm
Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Amendment) Order 2007.
The noble Lord said: The order, which was laid before the House on 21 May, seeks to make some minor changes to Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 for the purpose of clarifying the “trigger offences” applicable to the testing of persons for the presence of specified class A drugs, currently heroin and cocaine. The changes arise from omissions in the consequential amendments made to Schedule 6 by the Fraud Act 2006, which came into effect on 15 January this year.
As part of its reform of the law on fraud, the Fraud Act repealed and replaced the existing array of “deception” offences, including the offence of obtaining property by deception under Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968, one of the trigger offences set out in Schedule 6. The reference to the offence of obtaining property by deception was consequently repealed and omitted from paragraph 1 in Schedule 6 as a trigger offence, and the general offence of fraud, under Section 1 of the Fraud Act, was added to the list of trigger offences in its place. Although slightly broader in scope, inclusion of the offence of fraud was necessary to capture the offending previously caught by the repealed offence.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |