|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned, and are based on the risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under review to ensure their continuance and obligations remain necessary and
proportionate. Specifically, as Lord Carlile recommended in his February 2006 report on the operation of the control order system, the Home Office has established a review group, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular (quarterly), formal and audited review.
Breaches of control orders could arise from any obligation, and could include arriving home after commencement of a curfew period or breaking geographical boundary restrictions on movement. During this period, one individual has been charged with breach of control order obligations relating to curfew. This individual is currently on bail.
During this reporting period, three court judgments relating to control orders were handed down. Two were in the High Court. In both Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF  EWHC 651 (Admin) and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mahmoud Abu Rideh  EWHC 804 (Admin), the High Court quashed the control order in question as it found that the control order obligations cumulatively amounted to a deprivation of the individuals liberty under article 5(1) ECHR. In both cases, the court accepted that the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual was involved in terrorism-related activity. The Secretary of State is appealing these judgments.
Judgment was also handed down by the Court of Appeal in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v E and S  EWCA Civ 459. The Court of Appeal concluded that the obligations in Es control order did not cumulatively amount to a deprivation of liberty. It also judged that while there was a breach of the obligation to keep prosecution under review, the quashing of the order was not the appropriate remedy for this failure. Consequently the Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of States appeal against the High Court judgment, and upheld the control order.
The Secretary of States appeal in relation to the AF judgment has leapfrogged the Court of Appeal, and will be heard together with the JJ and others and MB cases in the House of Lords, which are now scheduled to be heard in early July. Es appeal against the Court of Appeals judgment will also be heard together with these cases. However, the Rideh case will not be heard by the Lords at that time.
The Minister for Security, Counter Terrorism and Police (Mr. Tony McNulty): I am today informing Parliament of an ongoing police operation to locate a foreign national who is believed to have absconded from his control order on the night of 18 June. This individual was placed under a control order in November 2005.
Public safety is the top priority for the Government and the police. Locating this individual is an operational matter for the police, and an active investigation is underway. An anonymity order is in place and, on the operational advice of the police, the Government is not currently seeking to overturn it. This will be kept under review.
The Government have consistently made clear its view that control orders are less than 100 per cent. effective in countering terrorism. As we have repeatedly made clear to the House, there are limitations and problems with the legal framework under which we must operate. The Government must operate under the constraints imposed by Parliament, the courts and the law. Control orders are not even our secondor thirdbest option for dealing with suspected terrorists. But under our existing laws they are as far as we can go.
In this case, the obligations included a tag, 14-hour curfew, a requirement to remain within a restricted area, reside at a specified address and restrictions on finance and communications. They are the most stringent obligations we could impose in this individual's case. He was previously subject to stricter controls but these had to be revised in light of last years Court of Appeal judgment in this and other cases.
Unfortunately, within these limits, it is very difficult to prevent determined individuals from absconding. I am already appealing to the House of Lords this and several other control order cases, concerning the interpretation of article 5 ECHR (deprivation of liberty). We will consider other optionsincluding derogationif we have exhausted ways of overturning previous judgments on this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Joan Ryan): I am today laying before Parliament, with the Comptroller and Auditor General, the annual report and accounts for 2005-06 for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. It is being laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers simultaneously. The annual report and accounts will be published by 29 June.
The accounts estimate the final settlement value of cases in progress and the predicted value of applications which have not yet been received in respect of crimes that have already occurred. As a result, the balance sheet at 31 March 2006 shows net liabilities of £1,252 million and an operating surplus of £4 million.
In 2005-06 the authority received 63,078 applications for compensation and resolved 62,073. The number of cases outstanding at 31 March 2006 was 85,689. The proportion of cases decided within 12 months was 69.1 per cent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Vera Baird): My right hon. and noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Baroness Ashton of Upholland has made the following written ministerial statement.
Today I have laid the Public Guardian Board Regulations 2007 before Parliament. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides the framework for making decisions and acting on behalf of individuals who lack capacity to make decisions for themselves.
The Act aims both to protect people who lack capacity and to maximise their autonomy and ability to participate in decision-making.
The Act establishes a new statutory office holder, the Public Guardian, with specific functions intended to ensure that attorneys and deputies appointed to make decisions on behalf of people who lack capacity do so in accordance with their powers. The Act also establishes a Public Guardian Board to oversee the functions of the Public Guardian. The boards duty is to scrutinise and review the way in which the Public Guardian discharges his functions and to make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor as it thinks appropriate. The regulations prescribe requirements for the selection of the boards chair, the term of office of members, the resignation, suspension or removal of members and other procedural matters.
I will today announce the appointment of the seven inaugural members of the Public Guardian Board. The board is operating in shadow form until October 2007 when it will take on its full statutory role.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Bridget Prentice): The recent inquest into the death in 2004 of Adam Rickwood has drawn attention to a lack of clarity as to the powers of custody officers in secure training centres to restrain trainees, where it is necessary to do so. We have been asked by the coroner to rectify the position and clarify the rules.
This clarification is not designed to promote greater use of physical restraint. The Youth Justice Boards code of practice Managing Children and Young Peoples Behaviour in the Secure Estate states that restrictive physical interventions must only be used as a last resort, when there is no alternative available or other options have been exhausted. That continues to apply. The Youth Justice Board is working closely with all under-18 custodial establishments, including secure training centres, on all matters relating to the code of practice.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides for the setting up of secure training centres and also for the powers and duties of custody officers at contracted-out centres. Section 9(3) specifies four duties, which include ensuring good order and discipline on the part of trainees. Section 9(4) provides that the powers arising by virtue of those duties shall include power to use reasonable force where necessary.
Good Order and Discipline is not defined in the legislation. It is critical for the safety and wellbeing of children, young people and staff in secure settings, and for the stability of secure establishments that appropriate powers are available to manage the behaviour of the troubled and sometimes troublesome young people in their care. The Government take very seriously the wellbeing of children held in secure settings.
We would not anticipate that a refusal to comply with an instruction alone would constitute a breach of good order and discipline. However, where the circumstances of the refusal are such that the refusal to comply with an instruction has wider implications for the safe running of the centre, undermining the general authority of the staff or putting safety or security at risk in some other way, then a genuine concern about good order and discipline may arise.
When it is necessary to resolve a refusal to comply to ensure the safe running of the centre, physical restraint
must only be used as a last resort. The YJB code of practice sets out the principles underpinning behaviour management. The strategies in place emphasise:
an expectation of positive behaviour within an environment of mutual respect.
a child-centred culture.
high quality relationships between young people and staff.
Rule 38 of the Secure Training Centre Rules 1998 specifies the purposes for which physical restraint may be used. It did not originally refer to ensuring good order and discipline: secure training centres have relied on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as giving the necessary authority for that purpose. However, following the inquest into Adams death, the coroner recommended urgent clarification of the interrelationship between the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the Secure Training Centre Rules. We have acted promptly in response to his recommendation.
The Secure Training Centre (Amendment) Rules 2007 were laid before Parliament on 13 June and come into effect on 6 July. They enable a trainee to be removed from association in the interests of good order and discipline; and permit physical restraint to be used to ensure good order and discipline.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Hilary Armstrong): I am today announcing the publication of Cutting Bureaucracy for our Public Services, a strategy for better regulation of front line public sector organisations.
The strategy acknowledges that accountability and performance management is very important and has delivered changes that benefit the public. But as we move into the next phase of public sector reform, it makes sense to look to see what unnecessary bureaucracy there might be and what more we can do to ensure our front line staff have the freedom to do their jobs.
The strategy sets out steps which the Government will be taking to cut unnecessary bureaucracy which public service workers in delivery organisations have to deal with. The strategy is part of the Governments overall better regulation agenda, and fits with similar initiatives already introduced to reduce burdens in the private and voluntary sectors.
The proposals in the strategy reflect good work already underway in Departments, but also recognise the need for a more comprehensive and coordinated approach. Departments will collectively, for the first time, identify all the data requirements they place on the front line and set targets for reduction. Front line staff will be given the opportunity to challenge bad regulation if they find it. Departmental progress will be set out in simplification plans, starting this autumn.
Copies of the strategy have been placed in the Library of the House for the reference of Members. The strategy will also be available for viewing on the Better Regulation Executive website (www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation).
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Margaret Hodge): Tomorrow we are launching a consultation on how Government can better support business in the future. We are looking not just at the support that we provide, but much more broadly across the whole of Government.
The consultation document sets out our proposals for simplifying publicly funded business support schemes in England to no more than 100 by 2010 and ensuring these are easy to access, effective and good value for money.
It outlines and seeks views on what the Government should fund in the future; the route for businesses and entrepreneurs to access support and how to avoid business support schemes proliferating in the future.
We are consulting businesses, including social enterprises, business representatives, local authorities, organisations that support business and other interested parties. The consultation will run from 22 June to 14 September. Copies of the consultation document will be available in the Libraries of both Houses and the document will be on the DTI website at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/consultations/index.html.
Monitor, evaluate and review the NMW and its impact, with particular reference to the effect on pay, employment and competitiveness in the low paying sectors and small firms; the effect on different groups of workers, including different age groups, ethnic minorities, women and people with disabilities and migrant workers; the effect on pay structures; and taking into account any forthcoming changes to the statutory annual leave entitlement; review the levels of each of the different minimum wage rates and make recommendations for October 2008.
The Government consider it inappropriate for the Low Pay Commission to review apprentice and pre-apprentice exemptions at this time, as the Government
are currently consulting on plans to raise the participation age in education, which includes plans to expand apprenticeships.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Jim Fitzpatrick): I answered a Parliamentary Question from my hon. friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on, 7 June 2007, Official Report, column 697W. I would add that Articles 22 and 27 of the Services Directive do require the United Kingdom to impose some obligations upon service providers. The definition of service providers is broad and would be likely to include Royal Mail and Post Office Limited
Article 22 obliges member states to ensure that service providers such as Royal Mail and Post Office Limited make certain information available to service recipients. The information required to be made available is set out in Article 22(1). Additional information of the type set out in Article 22(3) must be provided at the recipient's request. The information required must be made available in a clear and unambiguous manner and in good time before the conclusion of the written contract or the provision of the service. Article 27 of the Services Directive obliges the United Kingdom to take the general measures necessary to ensure that service providers, such as Royal Mail and Post Office Limited, provide contact details to which recipients can send a complaint or a request for information about the service provided. The United Kingdom is also obliged to ensure that service providers respond to complaints within the shortest possible time and make their best efforts to find a satisfactory solution. Service providers will need to demonstrate compliance with these information requirements and demonstrate that the information provided is accurate.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I have today published a consultation paper setting out the Governments draft proposals on the detail of the environmental and sustainability reporting requirements for the proposed Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO). Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The consultation closes on 13 September 2007.
the scope and format of monthly and annual reports;
the verification requirements; and
the default values to be used to calculate the carbon savings offered by different biofuels where specific data is not available.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|