For people with criminal records
If so, we want to hear from you – find out more here!
The Centre for Entrepreneurs and Unlock are working together to better understand the role of entrepreneurship in supporting people with criminal records. We know that finding employment with a criminal record can be a struggle, and we are interested in exploring whether starting a business is a viable alternative.
Back in late January, we took part in a briefing event for the insurance industry on criminal convictions and insurance.
In our day-to-day work, and especially through our helpline, we regularly come across examples of poor practice by insurers. Whether it’s a poor understanding of when convictions become spent, insurers insisting that spent convictions need to be disclosed or claims handlers telling those who make a claim that they have to provide their full police record. All of these are situations that people with convictions regularly face. We want to put a stop to this kind of practice.
That’s why we were pleased to take part in the event in January, hosted by the Association of British Insurers (ABI). We had three main aims:
It was good to see a number of big insurers represented, and it’s clear that there’s a lot more work to do.
We’ve published the briefing that we prepared for the event. We’re also reviewing the questions that insurance companies ask and are working on those examples that we come across that are misleading.
Ultimately, we want to see insurers take a fairer approach towards people with convictions.
We’ve just published our update for February 2016.
This months updates include:
The full update provides a summary of:
Read the February 2016 update in full here
Best wishes,
Unlock
Notes
Mainstream home and car insurers have a blanket ban on people with unspent convictions – these kinds of policies are unfair and sometimes illegal
To many of the 1.2 million people convicted in court each year, it comes as a surprise to find that if they try to take out home insurance, or renew their existing policy, they’ll probably struggle. Every mainstream home insurer has a blanket ban on people with unspent convictions.
They say that ex-offenders are higher risk, citing vigilantism, arson and potential reoffending as some of the justifications. Many motor insurers do the same. Put simply, insurers use unspent convictions as a proxy for risk.
But research shows that those with a stable job, home and lifestyle are much less likely to reoffend. They become contributors to the system, rather than a burden. If we want people with convictions to be integrated into society, we have deal with the obstacles that stand in their way. If we would rather exclude them and treat them differently, we should not be surprised if stubbornly high reoffending rates continue to plague our failing criminal justice system.
Dubious practices
Insurers have the right to make risk judgments – they regularly load premiums for those living in high-crime areas – but their approach to criminal records is bizarre for an industry based on assessing risk. They place significant emphasis on whether a conviction is still unspent, which is determined by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
We must learn to allow people to move on with their lives once they have paid their debt to society
This affects a lot of people. If you’re convicted of an offence and receive a fine, your conviction remains unspent for a year. And if you’re sentenced to four years or more in prison – as 7,000 people a year in the UK are – your conviction will never be spent.
Insurers are not legally allowed to consider spent convictions when they give you a quote. But it’s an arbitrary line: when it’s unspent, they refuse to quote; once it’s spent, they are not allowed to know.
Yet many insurers fail to make it clear that people don’t need to disclose spent convictions. Hidden away in Churchill’s online assumptions for home insurance, it states that you must “have never been convicted of any criminal offence (other than motoring convictions)”. This statement potentially covers the 10.5 million people in the UK that have a criminal record (excluding motoring offences). At best, this is bad practice. At worst, it’s unlawful – insurers have a legal duty to follow data protection and disclosure legislation. People with spent convictions have a legal right to access the same insurance as anybody else and insurers need to be clear with their customers about this.
Ending discrimination
This problem is not new. Nearly 12 years ago, the Guardian’s prisons correspondent Eric Allison wrote about insurance companies denying cover to ex-offenders. In research carried out by Unlock in 2010, 86% of former prisoners said it was harder to get insurance and four-fifths said that when they did get it, they were charged more. This prevents people from getting a mortgage, driving vehicles, securing employment and starting up small businesses.
Things have improved. Unlock runs an online disclosure calculator to help people work out if their convictions are still unspent. If they are unspent, it’s not impossible to get insurance – there are specialist brokers – but little competition can mean increased prices.
Critically, we have never seen any robust evidence for the claim that correlates criminal records and higher risk. Quite the opposite. The specialist brokers that work quietly behind the scenes have some of the best claims ratios of all of their customers.
Mainstream insurers must stop this discrimination. Not only would it demonstrate corporate social responsibility, but there is a strong business case for entering a market that has higher premiums and low claims ratios. They could be developing more progressive, data-driven, risk-pricing models. The Financial Conduct Authority should regard this as a market failure and raise access issues that come as a result of insurers not doing proper risk-profiling.
Ultimately, we must learn to allow people to move on with their lives once they have paid their debt to society.
On the 26th January, the Charities Bill was discussed again in Parliament. Sir Edward Garnier MP, a patron of Unlock and a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, raised a number of the concerns that we’ve been highlighting. He also discussed an amendment that he put forward.
There are some key extracts of what was said below, but in terms of progress, we’re pleased to see that:
We’re very grateful to the support of Edward Garnier for helping us in this work, and we’re now focusing our efforts on working with the Charity Commission to ensure that:
We will continue to keep the trustee section of our website up to date with news and developments as they arise.
“A number of the provisions of clause 9 represent a direct threat to charities that work to rehabilitate people with criminal records, many of which employ former offenders either as trustees or in senior management positions…”
“Unlock’s direct experience and the support it has provided to other organisations have shown the waiver process to be inadequate and not workable in a way that allows charities such as Unlock to fulfil their charitable purposes. To ensure the process is fair and transparent, much greater clarity is needed regarding the criteria adopted by the commission in assessing waiver applications and the weight given to the views of the trustees of the charity or charities concerned.” Sir Edward Garnier
“Charities and the voluntary sector play a significant role in the support and rehabilitation of ex-offenders, and we should recognise and encourage their important contribution to reducing reoffending and helping former offenders to reintegrate into society. I want to ensure that the Bill’s provisions do not have an undue impact on that very important work…
“For the record, I can confirm that we will not commence the automatic disqualification provisions in clause 9 for 12 months following enactment…
“I have asked the Charity Commission to engage closely with rehabilitation charities, such as Unlock, as it develops new guidance on the waivers ahead of the commencement of the provisions. It has agreed to do so and has started to set up a working group to consider how the changes will be implemented. For example, it has invited several rehabilitation charities to a workshop in February to discuss the Bill and the implementation of these provisions” Rob Wilson MP, Minister for Civil Society
“I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) that, in extending disqualification, we must take extra care not to undermine the vital work done by charities involved in the rehabilitation of offenders. I am confident that the waiver process will allow those who have changed their ways a route back into charity trusteeship or senior management.” Matthew Hancock, Minister for the Cabinet Office
This week David Cameron unveiled a raft of prison reform measures. One of these will be to scrap the declaration of criminal convictions in the initial application stage for civil service jobs.
Responding to this announcement, Unlock’s Christopher Stacey said:
“We welcome David Camerons’ commitment to the Ban the Box campaign and in changing the recruitment practice of the Civil Service towards people with convictions.
The Civil Service represents a significant employer and this news is a welcome boost to the employment prospects of the millions of people with a criminal record.
There’s no reason why any role should be closed off to banning the box and we look forward to ensuring that the Civil Service implement the Prime Ministers’ commitment alongside a number of other measures to make it a fairer and more inclusive employer towards people with convictions.
We work closely with employers to encourage them to recruit people with convictions and deal with criminal records fairly. We look forward to working with Government, alongside BITC and others, to encourage more employers to take this proactive approach in removing the barriers people with convictions face when looking for work.”
Our quote was featured in an article in Civil Service World.
Notes to editors
We’ve just published our update for January 2016.
This months updates include:
The full update provides a summary of:
Read the January 2016 update in full here
Best wishes,
Unlock
Notes
The High Court has today declared the Government’s criminal records disclosure scheme incompatible with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
The judgment relates to the rule that anyone who has more than one conviction on their criminal record – regardless of the minor nature of the offences, how long ago they were committed and the person’s circumstances at the time – is required to disclose them forever when applying for certain types of work that involve standard or enhanced checks.
Lord Justice McCombe and Mrs Justice Carr declared this rule unlawful under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to a private and family life.
The case was brought by Liberty and Stephensons, supported by Unlock.
Christopher Stacey, Co-Director of Unlock, a charity for people with criminal records, said:
“Unlock is delighted with the court’s decision in this important case which stands to affect many thousands of people with convictions. Since the filtering scheme was introduced in 2013, it’s helped many people with old and minor criminal records to be free of the stigma and discrimination that so many face when they have something on their criminal record.
“However, the current system doesn’t go far enough: it is blunt, restrictive and disproportionate. These shortcomings have today been recognised by the High Court and we are excited about the improvements which will follow. They will not only benefit those with convictions to move on positively with their lives but it will also contribute towards building a fairer and more inclusive society.”
The argument put forward in the case was that the current system breached rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, that the system is arbitrary and disproportionate, and requires urgent reform to allow for greater consideration of individual circumstances.
Unlock has long argued that a more flexible system, which considers individual circumstances in cases of old and minor convictions, should be introduced. The defendants in this case argued that such a review scheme would be unworkable – but Lord Justice McCombe said he was “far from convinced” by this argument.
The Court has yet to decide on remedies.
James Welch, Legal Director for Liberty, said:
“This ruling will bring reassurance for the very many people who have had their ambitions dashed because of very small mistakes they made years, or even decades, in the past.
“The Government must urgently fix this broken system, which rightly allows people with a single minor offence to move on with their lives, while those with two – no matter the nature or circumstances of their crimes – cannot.
“We are delighted the High Court has recognised the importance of the human right to privacy in allowing people to rebuild their lives.”
Mike Pemberton, head of public law and civil liberties at Stephensons, said:
“The judgment of the High Court recognises that it cannot be necessary or justifiable for an individual to have minor offences disclosed indefinitely from many years ago; merely because there is more than one minor offence.
The court heard that a more serious offence of the same type would be filtered and accepted that there could not be any rationale for the disclosure of the minor offences. I welcome the fact that the court has effectively applied what is common sense to the issue of criminal records”.
END
Notes to editors
One of the cases was referred to as P. In August 1999, P was charged with shoplifting a 99p book. She was bailed to appear before a Magistrates’ Court 18 days later, but failed to attend and was therefore convicted of a second offence under the Bail Act 1976. In November 1990, she was given a conditional discharge in respect of both offences. P’s two convictions relate to a very specific and short period of her life, and she has no subsequent criminal history of any kind. At the time, she had untreated schizophrenia – a condition which was later diagnosed and treated. P now wishes to work as a teaching assistant and has sought voluntary positions in schools. However with each application she is required to disclose her two convictions, which has the effect of leading to the disclosure of her medical history.
The other case was referred to as A. A was convicted of two minor crimes in 1981 and 1982 and was concerned that he would be forced to disclose his convictions as part of his current employment. The Police Act 1997 created the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS – formerly the Criminal Records Bureau), which provides details of a job applicant’s previous convictions to prospective employers.
For certain types of work, particularly work with children or vulnerable adults, the standard or enhanced certificates issued by the DBS used to list all the job applicant’s previous convictions. However, in 2013, the Government amended this scheme following a Court of Appeal ruling (T v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester) to introduce a “filtering” process. Single convictions for non-violent, non-sexual offences that did not lead to a custodial sentence (including a suspended one) will be “filtered” (i.e. not disclosed) after 11 years (five-and-a-half years if the person was under 18 at the time of the offence).
The new filtering process does not apply if a person has more than one conviction – regardless of the minor nature of the offences or the person’s circumstances at the time.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which governs the circumstances in which a person has to admit to a previous conviction if asked, operates in a similar way. A person applying to work with children or vulnerable adults does not have to disclose a conviction which is “filtered”.
On the 6th January, the House of Commons Public Bill Committee discussed the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill.
This was when the Committee got to look at Clause 10 of the Bill, which relates to the issues we’ve raised that will have an impact on people with convictions.
It was positive to see a number of the concerns we raised with the Committee brought up in the session. For example, Anna Turley MP said:
“Some issues remain to be ironed out, not least further understanding and mitigation of its impact on charities working in the criminal justice sector which help to support and promote the rehabilitation of offenders and which employ ex-offenders or—as with the excellent charity Unlock, for example—aim to have at least 50% of trustees with some experience of living with a criminal record. While these provisions pertain to unspent convictions, we have some questions that we hope the Minister will answer.
How many people employed in the charitable sector does the Minister expect to be affected by the extension of the disqualification framework to senior management positions? What assessment has been made of the impact of the new disqualification framework on former offenders employed in the charitable sector, including on their career prospects and long-term rehabilitation and resettlement? What assessment has been made of the impact of the legislation on charities that work with former offenders who are employed by community rehabilitation companies as part of the Government’s transforming rehabilitation reforms?”
We welcome the clear commitment from the Government to work with us. Rob Wilson, Minister of State for Civil Society, said:
“The commission has set up a working group to review its current staff guidance and the process of issuing waivers, as well as how information about waivers is communicated to those disqualified, so as to make it as clear and simple as possible. That has already involved rehabilitation charities, such as Unlock, and will continue to do so. The working group will also review the commission’s published information on this subject to ensure that it is consistent with its conclusions.”
We remain in opposition to the Bill and its proposals. However, we also recognise the need to take a pragmatic stance towards the changes on the horizon.
We have written to the Minister for Civil Society to seek further clarity about the numbers of people likely to be affected, and to seek assurances about the waiver process. We will also be working with the Charity Commission to improve this process.
Whatever happens, we plan to closely monitor the impact of the legislation.
We will continue to keep the trustee section of our website up to date with news and developments as they arise.
Looking back over the last couple of months, we’ve written up a few examples of the people we’ve helped.
We hope they give a good idea of how we help people.
However, more importantly than our role, we think that these examples show how people with convictions are able to overcome some of the barriers that have been put in their way due to their criminal record.
We’ve posted the examples below as case studies in the support section of our website:
Benny – Success with the Scouts
Lee – Negotiating disclosure with the police
Sharmini – Disclosing a conviction in a different way
Letting us know if you easily found what you were looking for or not enables us to continue to improve our service for you and others.
Was it easy to find what you were looking for?We use cookies where necessary to allow us to understand how people interact with our website and content, so that we can continue to improve our service.
We only ever receive anonymous information, and cannot track you across other websites. Find out more
