HL Deb 27 March 1963 vol 248 cc145-7

2.36 p.m.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether prisoners who are given home leave prior to release, for the purpose of obtaining employment, can be given an accommodation address for the use of prospective employers instead of the address of Her Majesty's Prison.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, I do not think this would be a desirable arrangement. The successful employment of prisoners on release depends on mutual trust and good will between prisoner and employer, and prisoners are encouraged to be frank with their prospective employers. Lack of complete frankness with employers from the outset would, in my belief, tend to make resettlement more, not less, difficult.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, while I support the noble Earl's view in this matter, may I ask, first, whether he is not aware that in many jobs the man's work is his character? Secondly, in other cases, where the employer is fully aware of the man's circumstances and has to write to him, writing to gaol informs half the staff; and that is wholly undesirable and a handicap. Will the noble Earl consider that point of view?

EARL JELLICOE

I will certainly consider the second point that the noble Lord put, but at first view I am not, I must confess, fully able to see why informing the staff should be a handicap to the prisoner in this matter.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that it is. But is he aware that a baby born in Strange-ways Gaol is not registered as being born in gaol but as at No. 11, Southwell Street, Manchester? Is that case not exactly parallel and for the same obvious reason? Will he take note of that point for consideration?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I do not think the parallel is very exact. The baby is not immediately going to seek employment.

THE EARL OF GOSFORD

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the employer-employee relationship would not surely be satisfied, provided the employer himself knew the fact that the individual in question was an ex-prisoner? Why should it be broadcast to the typists and everybody else? It seems to me that there is no necessity for that, and that it would be to the man's detriment, not his good.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend, but the important thing is that there should be complete frankness between the prospective employer and the prospective employee. Provided that frankness is safeguarded, then I should be willing to look into any other possible arrangements which can be brought about. But I think it is quite essential, whatever arrangements we make in this respect, and whether or not we change our arrangements, that we should safeguard this principle of complete frankness.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware—he should be aware—that in almost all these cases a man is released from prison precisely to go to see a prospective employer who knows he has come from prison: there is no question of lack of frankness? I am merely asking that when an employer has to write to a man about a job he should not have to write to Her Majesty's Prison but to the address of that prisoner, so as not to broadcast the fact that a chap who is going to be employed with the firm in future is an "ex-gaol-bird".