 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Offender Management |
Offender Management Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:John
Benger, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 18 January 2007(Afternoon)[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]Offender Management Bill2
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe):
On a point of order,
Mr. Atkinson. It is a delight to see you in the Chair on
this stormy day. At the beginning of the Tuesday sitting, I handed back
the disc containing evidence from the informal evidence session carried
out by the Opposition, which was given to me by the hon. Member for
Hornchurch. I gave a hard copy of the transcript to the hon. Gentleman,
so that the names of witnesses could be added and the Opposition could
submit it to you, Mr. Atkinson, as evidence to the Committee
under the new rules. I find it ironic, although the hon. and learned
Member for Harborough might not, that staff from the shadow Home
Secretary’s office rang the Home Office to say that they had
lost the discs that I had given them. I am happy to supply another one,
but it may not be necessary, as I know that the hon. and learned
Gentleman has been working on the hard
copy.
Mr.
Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): Further to that point
of order, Mr. Atkinson. From time to time, we have to
indulge the Minister, because he and his fellow Ministers are in a bit
of a sticky patch. If he can make a feeble joke about what I would
describe as no more than a slipped disc, rather than a lost disc, all
power to his elbow.
I
have gone through the transcripts and have filled in some of the names
and some of the blanks where the wording was indistinct, and my
researcher now has them. Perhaps between now and Tuesday I can work out
with the Government how to present them formally, if that is what we
do, and bring them within the confines of the Committee. That is a
matter of procedural detail, however, and we do not need to trouble
this afternoon’s sitting with
it.
The
Chairman:
On that point, I understand that the document
has to go to the scrutiny unit and be approved by the Chairman before
it can be printed.
Mr.
Garnier:
Thank you. I do not think that I have ever heard
of the scrutiny unit, but I am sure that it is a valuable part of
Parliament. I hope that lots of people are usefully employed in
scrutinising whatever the scrutiny unit has to
scrutinise.
Mr.
Garnier:
I am sure that my right hon. Friend is a great
one for pushing envelopes and
scrutinising.
The
Chairman:
Order. I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman
that the scrutiny unit is part of the new modernisation process. No
doubt he will be modernised appropriately later in the
week.
Clause 8The
inspectorate
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Garnier:
I shall make one or two brief points in relation
to the clause. I see the need for an inspectorate of those who carry
out probation services, but I amnot sure of the point of
changing its name from the inspectorate of the national probation
service for England and Wales to the inspectorate of probation for
England and Wales. The word “national” will be removed,
but I think that England and Wales deserve a national
inspectorate.
In 2001,
the second reform of the probation service since the Government came
into office nationalised the service, which is now to be broken down so
that it is more a creature of the National Offender Management Service.
Is there any purpose, however, in going to the huge of expense of
changing writing paper and brass plates on office doors? What is
important is that we should have an inspectorate of the probation
service, whose functions should be informed by a clear policy. I am
concerned that the Government like changing the names of things.
Another example is the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which has
apparently been changed to the Deputy Prime Minister’s office,
no doubt at vast expense. Those may be minor matters but, on the other
hand, if the Government are going to introduce them, they might as well
explain them in a way that enables the public to understand how and why
that money has been
spent.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
Clause 8 makes consequential amendments to the
provisions relating to the inspectorate of the national probation
service to reflect the fact that the national probation service will
cease to exist when local probation boards are abolished and that the
inspectorate will in future need to inspect the services delivered by a
range of probation providers. The clause renames Her Majesty’s
inspectorate of the national probation service for England and Wales as
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation for England and Wales,
and it renames Her Majesty’s chief inspector of the national
probation service for England and Wales as Her Majesty’s chief
inspector of probation for England and Wales. It also amends section 7
of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 to include the
inspection of the provision of probation services under clause 3 of
this Bill.
Clause
8(3)(b) allows the Secretary of State to give further directions
related to the probation purposes referred to in clause 1. It confers
further functions on
the inspectorate to reflect any future changes in the clause 1 purposes.
The substance of the work of Her Majesty’s inspectorate will not
change, and it will continue to be a crucial mechanism for monitoring
and maintaining
standards.
Clause 8
merely updates the legislative provisions to reflect the other changes
in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough has referred to
the issues around the inspectorate and the variety of changes that the
Government have introduced. We want the inspectorates to work
effectively and efficiently, and we want to make sure that we set out
on the face of the Bill what the consequences will be for the
inspectorates in relation to the new
providers.
With the
explanation, I hope that the clause can stand part of the
Bill.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 8
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 9Approved
premises
Mr.
Garnier:
I beg to move amendment No. 29, in
clause 9, page 6, line 6, leave
out ‘approved premises’ and insert ‘probation and
bail
hostels.’.
Subsection
(2) states that
“The Secretary of State
may make regulations for the regulation, management and inspection of
approved premises.”
And
subsection (3) states
that
“The
Secretary of State may make payments to any person in connection
with...the operation of approved
premises”.
Although I
broadly understand the intention behind clause 9, the provision is
dangerously vague. Subsection (1)(b) states, in a rather Alice in
Wonderland fashion,
that
“‘approved
premises’ means premises which are for the time being
approved”.
Subsection (2)
states
that
“The
Secretary of State may make
regulations”.
We have not
seen those regulations and do not know what arrangements the Secretary
of State has in mind for the carrying out of probation purposes or for
the running of approved premises, which is implied by the Bill, by
operators other than the probation
service.
After having
seen the “Panorama” programme before Christmas 2006, it
strikes me that there is a degree of public concern about the way in
which probation premises and bail hostels are managed. Substituting the
words “probation and bail hostels” for “approved
premises” in subsection (3)(a) will allow us to extract from the
Government better information about what or rather who they think will
be running these
premises.
On the face
of it, the matter should not be surrounded by controversy, but we all
know that the sort of people who are housed in bail hostels and
probation hostels are often difficult to look after. They could be
people who have been released from prison after a lengthy prison
sentence, in which case they will have come out of the secure prisoner
state and gone through the category D prisoner state—in
parenthesis, the use of the expression “open prison” is
perhaps
misleading, which does not do any of us any good; as Lord Ramsbotham has
suggested, we should call them “resettlement prisons”.
When people come out of those prisons, they are sometimes housed in
what will be called “approved premises”, and probation
staff are supposed to look after them. We want to know precisely what
sort of places “approved premises” will be. Will they be
any different from the existing arrangements?
The “Panorama”
programme highlighted controversial areas of public concern about bail
hostels. Where will bail hostels be located? Can we be assured that the
people who run them, who will be paid by the Secretary of State to
carry out those functions on the Government’s behalf, will be
adequately trained, resourced and able to control and direct the people
in their care, so that those people receive the necessary treatment and
supervision, which will allow the public to feel safe in their houses,
streets and towns? It is a short point, but it is one that is worthy of
a response from the Government. I look forward to hearing what the
Minister has to
say.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am grateful for the way in which the hon. and
learned Gentleman has raised the issue. There are 104 approved premises
in England and Wales, including 14 run by voluntary management
committees and one run by a private sector organisation. They are used
primarily to supervise high risk of harm offenders on release from
custody, and they make a crucial contribution to the protection of the
public. I pay tribute to the staff who work in them, whose job is very
demanding and
difficult.
Hon.
Members have mentioned the “Panorama” programme, which
highlighted some of the issues relating to approved premises. Many
people are working very hard and very successfully in the management of
offenders, but stories that show problem areas always attract the
attention of the media, so we do not hear about the occasions when the
good work is carried out to a successful conclusion. Right at the start
of our proceedings, I said that we had to be truthful with the public
about what we can do in terms of the management of offenders. The
expectation that offenders can be watched 24 hours a day, seven days a
week is not realistic. However, they can be managed properly, and the
multi-agency public protection arrangements that we have in the UK are
unique and are working very well on the
whole.
Section 9 of
the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 introduced the term
“approved premises” as the standard term to describe
those establishments. Previously there had been no standardised names,
with establishments operating as probation hostels, bail hostels or
probation and bail hostels. The 2000 Act endorsed the concept of a
single estate with a generic purpose, and it also emphasised the fact
that these establishments are approved by the Secretary of State for a
specific purpose and are therefore distinct from the other forms of
supported accommodation available to offenders—the latter point
is important, because the matter is not only about
terminology.
The 2000
Act reflected the changes that had occurred in the use of approved
premises over a period of years. Whereas historically hostels had often
been used to provide suitable accommodation for
defendants who might otherwise have been remanded into
custody—hence the term “bail hostel”—they
are now targeted at high-risk offenders on release from custody on
licence. I accept that the term has not entered common parlance and
that the expression “bail hostel” is still more widely
used outside the probation service, but it is misleading and entirely
inappropriate for use in
legislation.
2.15
pm
On the question
of whether the public will be adequately protected in future, public
protection is at the heart of what we want to achieve. The MAPPA
arrangements are important to us. There is no way that we would want to
diminish those responsibilities to the public. I believe that the
proposal set out in the clause is an entirely appropriate way to head
forward. There are issues about accommodation in addition to approved
premises which I am sure we will come back to when we consider the
outcome of the child sex offenders review that the Government are
currently undertaking. There are a great many issues around
resettlement. I hope that with that explanation the hon. and learned
Gentleman will be relatively happy and withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Garnier:
Happiness, relative or otherwise, is not what I
feel, but I hear what the Minister says. I wish to let him know that we
shall keep a close eye on how the provision works in practice. It is
one of the sharpest interfaces between the law-abiding public and the
criminal justice system and if it goes wrong, the buck will stop at his
desk. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab): I beg to move amendment
No. 34, in clause 9, page 6, line 18, leave out subsection
(7).
This amendment
deals with the final subsectionof the clause, which removes
some people from the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act
2001. The Minister said in his response to the previous debate that, in
the main, approved premises are run by the public sector, but that a
number are run by the voluntary sector and one by a private company. I
have a feeling that that one has got into considerable difficulties in
recent weeks, although I might be wrong. I am aware that one hostel
that is not in the public sector has had
problems.
As the
clause stands, it appears to open up the possibility of considerably
more approved premises being run in the private sector. Subsection (3)
states that the Secretary of State may make payments to any person in
connection with the operation of approved premises. Will the Minister
explain the reason for including subsection (7)? It appears to exclude
those who manage private sector approved premises from the scope of the
2001 Act, which regulates the private security industry and requires
people in a range of jobs to be licensed. As part of the licensing
process there are Criminal Records Bureau and identity checks, and
training and qualifications are required. I am puzzled
why we should remove from those safeguards people working in approved
premises, who will be dealing with fairly dangerous
people.
The 2001 Act
includes among the definitions of licensable
activities
“guarding one
or more individuals against assault or against injuries that might be
suffered in consequence of the unlawful conduct of
others.”
That is clearly
a possibility in any approved premises. It seems strange that somebody
working on security at my local greyhound racing track is required to
have a Security Industry Authority certificate, but somebody managing a
bail hostel is not. I would have thought that that job would be at
least as difficult and perhaps more open to
risk.
Mr.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent, South) (Lab): Does my hon.
Friend agree that it is a matter not only of danger, but of vulnerable
adults who will be dealt with in approved
premises?
Mr.
Gerrard:
Absolutely. One of the points about requiring an
SIA licence is that there is a requirement to go through CRB checks,
which one would expect to pick up somebody who might be a
problem.
The Minister
might tell me that I am misinterpreting the subsection. I was puzzled
by the use of the word “manager”, and what it might mean.
Obviously, one would expect that in approved premises, there would be a
number of staff, not a single person. The manager might be managing
quite a small number, so perhapsI have missed something in the
drafting of this subsection. That takes us back to our discussion this
morning about training and qualifications, and ensuring that people who
are working in the probation service or with offenders have the right
training and qualifications, and that they are not people who are going
in any way to put someone at risk, such as an ex-offender or a member
of the public. It is important that we know that people who are running
approved premises are of the right quality to do so. I should like to
ask the Minister a probing question: why does there appear to be that
exclusion for the private security industry? On the face of it, it
would seem eminently suitable that it should apply to people who are
going to run a private sector hostel of that
nature.
Mr.
Garnier:
I agree with quite a lot of what the hon.
Gentleman has just said. Although he and I disagree over the
contracting out of supervisory services to the non-state sector, it is
my view that if we are going to do it, we must do it properly. If we
are going to allow non-state officers to carry out supervisory
functions, they must be properly qualified and regulated, and must
bring with them the necessary public confidence. The hon. Gentleman has
hit upon a most important aspect of the Bill.
I am concerned that the
expression “a person”—somebody who is acting as a
manager—needs to be specified as a human being. As a matter of
law, the expression “a person” can mean a non-human
being; a company is a legal personality. As the hon. Gentleman
indicated, if a manager is the manager of a numberof separate
premises, he cannot be in every one atthe same time, if he is
a human being. Equally, if
the manager is a company, which carries out its
management functions through a number of individuals, we need to be
sure that not only is the company behaving itself and has set up
protocols and systems that enable it to employ people in a particular
way, but that individual employees of the corporate manager should be
properly trained and accountable, either directly or via their company,
to the public whom they are seeking to protect. That is quite apart
from the other aspect of the matter, which as the hon. Gentleman
mentioned, is to make sure that the care of the individuals in that set
of premises is being properly looked after.
There is a need for clarity
here. It is often thought that the Private Security Industry Act 2001
just dealt with nightclub bouncers, but it covers a far wider area of
guarding activity. The Minister needs to explain to us how, by
excluding managers of approved premises from the ambit of the 2001 Act,
he is enhancing and not diminishing public protection and proper
supervision of those within the approved
premises.
Mark
Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): I shall detain the Committee only
briefly on the matter. I must admit that when I saw the amendment, I
was not entirely persuaded one way or another about it, but having
listened to the hon. Member for Walthamstow and the hon. and learned
Member for Harborough, I think that there is an important issue at
stake here, which is right to be voiced in the way that it has been so
far. The Secretary of State—I beg your pardon, I mean the
Minister—
Mark
Hunter:
The Minister says “you never know”,
from a sedentary position and I wish him well. Perhaps his performance
on this Bill may give us an indication about his future. I am sure that
the Minister recognises that this is a serious matter. I am grateful
for the way in which it has been brought up, because it highlights an
issue that is worthy of a more detailed response than it might
otherwise have had. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to
say about it.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for
Walthamstow for having raised the matter and other hon. Members for
their contributions. I understand why, at first glance, there might
seem to be a diminution in protection and supervision. I hope to
reassure the Committee that that is not the case. The term
“manager” here includes all staff working in approved
premises who are able to do the job and have had adequate training. As
the Committee has requested, I shall go into the matter in more
detail.
Clause 9 is
based closely on the current legislation on approved premises, namely
section 9 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. However
subsection (7) is new. It ensures that the requirements of the Private
Security Industry Act 2001 for the licensing of individuals supplied
under contract to provide manned guarding activities do not catch those
involved in the management of approved premises. The aim is to protect
the public by driving up standards in the private security industry and
removing the criminal element. That background might help the
Committee.
The Private Security Industry
Act 2001 sets out the licensing requirements for the private security
industry established by the Security Industry Authority, and requires
the authority to regulate the industry through the licensing process.
The Act works by defining for its purposes what is security activity
and the conditions under which such activity becomes licensable. One
condition is that the relevant activity is supplied as a service under
contract. Under the terms of the Bill, services in approved premises
will in future be delivered under contract, so we need to consider
whether any of the activities carried out in such premises meet the
Act’s definitions of security activity. If they do, the Act
could apply to those activities unless they are exempted. Security
activity is defined in Schedule 2 to the 2001 Act and covers activities
such as manned guarding and wheel clamping.
Manned guarding is defined
as
“(a) guarding
premises against unauthorised access or occupation, against outbreaks
of disorder or against damage;
(b) guarding property against destruction
or damage, against being stolen or against being otherwise dishonestly
taken or obtained;
(c) guarding
one or more individuals against assault or against injuries that might
be suffered in consequence of the unlawful conduct of
others.”
We do
not think that the work of staff in approved premises fits that
description, but we are concerned that somebody might argue that it
does and that it should, therefore, be subject to the licensing regime.
That would be inappropriate. The work of staff in approved premises
does not constitute private security work in the sense intended by the
2001 Act, nor will it in future. The fact that the services will be
delivered under contract will not change that. We think it prudent to
put the matter beyond doubt to prevent unintended consequences or
uncertainly later.
It
has been suggested that by not subjecting services in approved premises
to licensing, we put at risk standards in security and risk the
involvement of undesirable elements in sensitive and dangerous work.
Nothing can be further from the truth. Anybody bidding to run approved
premises will have to meet stringent tests and demonstrate an ability
to run premises to a high standard. Managers and staff of approved
premises will receive training appropriate to their work. That will
often replicate the relevant part of the wider training of probation
staff. The purpose of the training is not to enable them to carry out
guarding activities, as defined by the 2001 Act, but to equip them
better to carry out their duties in connection with assessing,
supervising and managing offenders and the risks that they pose in the
context of approved premises.
This is not a blanket exemption
for approved premises. If security operatives were provided on contract
to such premises, for example to guard them, they would need to hold
licenses issued by the Security Industry Authority in the normal way.
However, for normal probation work in approved premises, the
2001 Act is entirely inappropriate and would do what my hon. Friend the
Member for Walthamstow does not want us to do, namely to dumb down the
service. I hope that with that
explanation—
2.30
pm
Mr.
Garnier:
Although what the Minister says makes good sense
in theory, many of our concerns might be mitigated if the Government
were to come forward with a model contract, so that we could see what a
company bidding to manage approved premises would have to comply with,
albeit bids would differ in detail. The model contract might provide
for the way in which a company, a charity or another third sector body
carries out its functions and ensures that those who work for it
behave. Equally, the Bill provides huge opportunities for regulation to
be made. If we had even a glimpse of the ankle of the things that we
are promised, many of the fears that are justifiably held at the moment
would go away. Is there any possibility that such help is
forthcoming?
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I understand the hon. and learned
Gentleman’s concern, but in response to the amendment I have
explained adequately why we are not considering that in the context of
the manned guarding and wheel clamping provisions of the 2001
Act.
I said that, to
work on approved premises, managers and staff will have to meet
stringent tests in the qualifications that they will have to have. I am
not against considering further provisions, but I do not want to do
that at this stage. I said this morning that we will consult on how to
take things further on the make-up of trusts, and we will also consider
the types of provision that will come out of the innovations that we
seek. However, all that will occur against the existing inspectorate
provisions and measured tests, so I see no possibility of the quality
of the service diminishing to the extent that people are put at
risk.
I hope that I
have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow about the use
of the 2001 Act, and I shall go away and consider what can
bedone on the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Public confidence in approved premises is paramount, and approved
premises have to be the way that we manage serious and dangerous
offenders. Given that I want there to be the greatest possible public
confidence in what we do, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is
satisfied with my assurance that I will consider how we can tighten the
rules on the use of approved premises as much as possible.
There is no need for the
amendment, and I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw
it.
Mr.
Gerrard:
I understand the points that my hon. Friend the
Minister makes. Obviously, when the 2001 Act was debated and
enacted, it was not envisaged that it would apply to bail
hostels—to what we are now describing as approved premises. At
that point, nobody considered whether it should, because the matter was
not being debated in the context of more private sector involvement in
probation services and in dealing with offenders.
It is arguable that the part of
the definition in the 2001 Act that covers guarding more and more
individuals against assault or the injuries that might be suffered as a
consequence of the unlawful conduct of others could apply to such
hostels, although, clearly, other parts of the definition would be
highly unlikely to apply. The key is to ensure that people who work in
premises of that nature have the right qualifications
and the right background, and that such places do
not end up, for instance, with employees who have previous criminal
convictions.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I want to pursue the point. If the amendment
were accepted and the tests were not stringent, one might end up with
someone who was not properly qualified. If we suppose that what my hon.
Friend fears happens and the private sector runs all the approved
premises estate, somebody approved on the basis of the 2001 Act might
still not have the required skills to be able to deal with approved
premises. The provider could claim that that person was okay because
they had got through on the 2001 Act. I think that the amendment
devalues the role of the person who works in approved premises, because
it says that somebody with a lesser qualification could have that
role.
Mr.
Gerrard:
I understand the argument. Somehow, having the
licence under the 2001 Act might be seen as sufficient qualification
for someone employed in approved premises. I would not want to get into
such a situation. Someone with just that certification might not have
the other skills and qualifications that one would expect and want from
someone working in approved premises. The key is what the tests are
going to be. If we are not going to have someone with an SIA licence,
then the requirements for qualifications and checks ought at least to
include all similar checks, such as identity and CRB
checks.
Mr.
Garnier:
Does the hon. Gentleman have any views on the
suggestion that I made to the Minister? Seeing a draft model contract
would be helpful, so that he could be assured that, if not licensed,
private providers would have strict contractual requirements, which
might be reinforced in a disciplinary way by regulations under
secondary legislation. The Minister is trying to reassure us, but
cannot do so wholly, because he does not yet know what will be the
contractual terms, which have not been written. That is not his fault.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow might be somewhat reassured to see the
sort of thing that would bind a non-state party to the Home
Secretary.
Mr.
Gerrard:
There is some merit in that. I am not sure that
we can expect a draft contract at this stage, but perhaps the Minister
can indicate that he will look at the issue. Before we finish with the
Bill, it would be helpful to have a clearer indication of the sorts of
checks on, and the minimum required from, someone working in or running
approved premises. Judging by the Minister’s reaction, we might
be able to get to the bottom of that over the next few weeks, before
the Bill finishes its passage through the House. For now, on that
basis, I am quite happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
9 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 19 January 2007 |