![]() House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill |
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Committee Clerk
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 22 November 2007(Morning)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Criminal Justice and Immigration BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HouseCJ&I 399
Immigration Law Practitioners
Association
CJ&I 400
National Association for Healthcare
Security
9
am
The
Chairman:
On this rather damp, depressing and
unfortunately climatically unpleasant day, I welcome hon. Members to
the 11th sitting in Committee of the Criminal Justice and Immigration
Bill. Progress is indeed being made. It seems a long time since I was
in the Chair, but I know that Tuesdays proceedings were well
chaired by the third Chairman who had to be appointed, Mr.
Frank
Cook.
Clause 35Investigation
of
deaths
Mr.
Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): I beg to move amendment
No. 153, in clause 35, page 25,
line 4, at end insert
,
including an offence under the Corporate Manslaughter Act
2007,.
May I
say what a total and unalloyed pleasure it is to see you back in the
Chair, Sir Nicholas. You are quite right: we made good progress under
the chairmanship of Mr. Frank Cook and we are grateful to
him for stepping in to assist you and Mr.
OHara.
I do
not wish to add to the gloom of today, but I want to talk a bit about
corporate manslaughter and investigation into deaths. We are discussing
the remit, the powers and the role of Her Majestys commissioner
for offender management and prisons. We have debated his accountability
to the Secretary of State. We would prefer him to be accountable
directly to Parliament, but for one reason or another, even if I did
not lose the argument, I certainly did not persuade the Committee of
that.
However, I want
to tease out from the Government what the commissioner will be able to
do. In relation to the investigation of deaths, it is important that we
understand from the Government precisely what their policy is with
regard to deaths in custody. Hon. Members will remember that we had
some vigorous debates on the Floor of the House earlier this year when
we discussed the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007
about whether deaths in police custody or prisons might attract
investigations and possibly prosecutions under the Acts regime.
As I remember, the compromise that was reached eventually
was that, while accepting that corporate manslaughter should bind upon
the Prison Service and the police, the Government acknowledged that
there would be a delay of about three
years.
Mr.
Garnier:
Between three and five years, is it? Well, there
we are. Even compromises get compromised. The process would take that
time before it bit upon the Prison Service and the police. It is not a
matter of interest for a debating society, but a fundamental matter
about the powers of the state and its powers over individuals in
involuntary custody. We know from the clause that the commissioner will
carry out investigations into deaths falling within what is
delightfully called the deaths remit. The clause
states:
A
death falls within the deaths remit if it is of a description specified
in Schedule
8.
I
shall not take the Committee through every paragraph of schedule 8, but
it is interesting that paragraph 2 refers
to
A death of
a person while in the custody, or under the control or escort, of
prison officers or prisoner custody officers anywhere in the
world.
That is
a description of a set of circumstances that comes
within the commissioners deaths remit. Anywhere in the
world includes within this jurisdiction, but I submit that we
need clarification, hence my tabling the amendment, of how precisely a
death in custody or of the sort described under paragraph 2 of the
schedule fits.
We are
not complaining. Indeed, we welcome the fact that, under clause 35(3),
the commissioner must
aim
to establish the
circumstances surrounding the death; and...to identify steps that
should be taken for the purpose of eliminating or reducing the risk of
deaths occurring under the same or similar
circumstances.
It is
suggested that the commissioner
should
determine the
scope of, and the procedure to be
applied
in any
investigation. However, clause 35(6), which is where the amendment
would bite, does not specifically refer to deaths that might attract an
investigation under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide
Act. Clause 35(6)
reads:
In
subsection (5) criminal investigation means an
investigation conducted by police officers or other persons with a view
to ascertaining whether an offence has been committed or whether a
person should be charged with an
offence.
I dare say that
the Government may say that a death that might attract an investigation
under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act is implied
within clause 35(6). If that is true, I would like to hear the Minister
say so; if not, I would like the Minister to explain why it is not
implied and why corporate manslaughter is, by implication at least,
expressly not included in the Bill. That is the short point that I wish
to draw to the attention of the Committee and I invite the Minister to
respond.
Maria
Eagle:
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Sir
Nicholas. Although it seems to you like a long time since you have been
here, I hope that I speak for the entire Committee when I say that it
does not seem like that to us. [Hon. Members:
Hear, hear.] Time passes so swiftly.
I should like
to reassure the hon. and learned Member for Harborough with respect to
the point he has made and his amendment. The commissioner will defer,
where necessary, to a criminal investigation of any offence, including
any that is being investigated under the Corporate Manslaughter and
Corporate Homicide Act. Obviously, as the hon. and learned Gentleman
has already said, while that legislation comes into force generally
next April, it is not being applied immediately to custody, but will
apply in the not too distant future, within the next three to five
years.
Work is under way with the
Prison Service and other custody providers to identify what steps must
be taken to ensure that they are ready to deal with the application of
the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act to the settings
that they control. I think that everybody remembers the passage of that
legislation through Parliament, with the ping-pong at the end of the
previous Session. In fact, it was a carry-over Bill from the Session
before that, so it was ping-pong out of time or early ping-pong, if I
might call it that. As was said at that time by the Secretary of State,
we will be reporting to Parliament annually on progress made in respect
of applying that legislation to the custody setting, where it is
accepted that there are greater difficulties in applying it, although
those are not insurmountable.
I hope that
the hon. and learned Member for Harborough is reassured that there is
no attempt to exclude from the remit of the commissioner any offence
that might be investigated under that legislation when it applies to
the custody setting. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned
Gentleman is obviously getting instructions about whether to withdraw
his amendment, but I should have thought that he is perfectly capable
of making up his own mind. I shall clearly continue talking for a
while, but not for too long. I hope that with those reassurances, the
hon. and learned Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his
amendment.
The
Chairman:
I do not wish to sound in any way
schoolmasterly, but I hope that members on both sides of the Committee
will switch electronic devices on to silent or vibration, so that there
is no disturbance to upset our deliberations and calm scrutiny of the
legislation.
Mr.
Garnier:
I am between a rock and a hard place. I thought
that I had put my telephone on silent as I came into the Committee
Room, but I was faced with a dilemma when the telephone rang because,
while I was enjoying listening to the Minister and was anticipating
listening to other contributions during our debate, I noticed on my
telephone screen that the call was from my wife, so the question was
who I should obey. I obeyed you, Sir Nicholas. I do not know whether
you have met my wife. That was a difficult
decision.
Mr.
Garnier:
Of course, every morning I present her with copy
and say Watch my lips. However, I am getting diverted,
and I may be in for some other form of manslaughter unless I revert to
the issue under discussion in clause
35.
I am grateful to
the Minister for having explained the corporate manslaughter
provisions. When they are
finally implemented they will bind upon, or not hinder, the commissioner
in his investigatory work. Despite pressure from various interest
groups, the Government have at last agreed to allow the corporate
manslaughter regime to cover what the Minister delicately called
the custody setting. It is hugely important that the
commissioner is permitted to deal with matters that might lead to
investigations and prosecutions under the Corporate Manslaughter and
Corporate Homicide Act. On that basis, I am satisfied that clause 35
does not need to be amended in the way that I suggested, and I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
35 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 8The
Commissioners deaths remit
Amendment made: No. 314,
in schedule 8, page 160,
line 26, leave out from first under to
end of line 27 and insert
(a) the Immigration Act
1971 (c. 77);
(b)
section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
(c. 41); or
(c) section
36 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (c.30)..[Maria
Eagle.]
Maria
Eagle:
I beg to move amendment No. 315, in
schedule 8, page 160, line 30, after
premises insert or in
Scotland.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 316, 302, 304, 317 and 310 to
312.
Maria
Eagle:
This is a series of technical amendments to clarify
the extent of the provisions in part 4. Much of the
commissioners remit with respect to deaths will be confined to
England and Wales but, as immigration matters will remain the
responsibility of Parliament and are not devolved to Scotland and
Northern Ireland, the commissioners complaints remit in respect
of such matters will extend throughout the UK. Deaths in immigration
custody in Northern Ireland will also come within the
commissioners deaths remit. The amendments preserve the primacy
of the Lord Advocate in the investigation of deaths in Scotland. The
amendments ensure that the dividing line is drawn in the right place. I
am happy to answer any challenges that hon. Members may have, and to
explain the extent and purpose of each amendment. However, the purpose
of all of them is to clarify the extent of the commissioners
power.
9. 15
am
Ms
Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Will my hon.
Friend confirm whether the commissioner will have powers to investigate
deaths in secure training centres? It says that in the schedule, but
when I asked in the House I received a different reply. I should be
grateful if my hon. Friend would confirm the
position.
Maria
Eagle:
That is in the Bill. There has been some
discussion between the Youth Justice Board and the Department about
whether it should remain that way. At present, though, that is how the
Bill works.
Ms
Keeble:
Does that include the prison establishments for
children and young people as well as secure training centres? Will my
hon. Friend say a bit more about the debate. Obviously, I want to see
those institutions retained in the Bill, which is why I brought the
matter up. When I asked our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in
the House, he said that secure training centres would not be covered,
so I was a bit surprised to see them in the
Bill.
Maria
Eagle:
My understanding is that there has been some debate
between the Youth Justice Board, the commissioner and the Department
about whether that is the appropriate way to deal with deaths in secure
training centres. At present, it is in the Bill and no amendment has
been tabled to remove it. Clearly, there will be an opportunity to do
so later if there is some change of view on the matter. To my
knowledge, though, there is no reason to think that that will happen.
However, discussions are ongoing at a technical level between the Youth
Justice Board and the commissioner. I am not promising at this stage
that there will not be some further clarification in respect of this,
but no amendment has been tabled to change this. I realise that my
answer might not be as helpful as my hon. Friend might like, but that
is the current
position.
As I said, I
could read out the technical detail of each amendment, and I am happy
to do so if people have particular questions about them. Their general
intent is to clarify very precisely the extent of the
commissioners powers and to ensure that there are no mistakes,
which could be very sensitive when we deal with the devolved
administration. The amendments ensure that there is no error in the
precise way in which these matters are set out in the Bill. They cover
minor technical matters. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the
Committee.
Ms
Keeble:
I apologise for not being here at the start of the
meeting, but I was caught up in traffic. I strongly support the
proposals as they stand and urge that they are not amended. I had
considered tabling an amendment to this section to include secure
training centres and other youth establishments in the list of
institutions that were to be under the remit of the commissioner, which
was why I raised the matter with the Secretary of State. To my
astonishment I found that they had been listed in here, which was
contrary to what I had understood from his response to me. It is really
important that children and young people have at least the same level
of protection as other offenders. Preferably I want them to have more
protection. Having unfortunately had to deal with one of those cases,
and being aware of a number of others, I believe that it is important
to have a visible, clear and centralised mechanism for investigating
such deaths. At present, I understand that most of the protections for
children come through the local authority and the safeguarding children
board, so if something happens the case goes back out to the local
authority.
The
problem is that the local authority may be some distance from the
institution concerned. In the case of Gareth MyattI know, Sir
Nicholas, that you are familiar with that case and my concerns about
itthe local authority was a long distance from the institution
concerned. I am sure that the local authority is perfectly competent to
safeguard childrens issues, but
the fact remains that Gareths family did not have quite the
access to the local authority that they might have had because of their
personal circumstances. The level of scrutiny that should have been
applied in that case does not seem to have happened until very much
later. At the inquest, a whole pile of information came out that
strictly speaking should have been dealt with much earlier; it quite
properly had to deal not only with the circumstances of the death but
the treatment leading up to it. I imagine that the commissioner will
look at much more closely at that, as it is really important.
I also have some qualms about
references being made from secure training centres to local
authorities, because the follow-through is not always rigorous. That is
partly because of the vulnerability of the young people and their
families and partly because they are not always able to pursue their
complaints. All who support such families know perfectly well that some
of them have real difficulties in pursuing their complaints through the
local authority via existing mechanisms.
Another important factor is
that people who are used to dealing with care issues seem to have some
difficulty in dealing with what goes on inside prisons or secure
establishments and working out whether it is good or bad. I think, for
example, of the monitoring and management of restraint. At the inquest
into the death of Gareth Myatt, the Home Office monitor clearly
expressed his difficulty in challenging some of the decisions made and
some of the practices going on at Rainsbrook. That is very telling. It
is important that those looking into the deaths of children and young
people in prisons and secure training centres should have the skills
necessary to deal with custodial matters, such as the use of force and
physical restraint. They should understand the culture of what happens
in prisons. The same safeguards should be put in place for children and
young people.
I
strongly support the proposals as they stand. If my hon. Friend is
thinking of watering them down, I very much hope that such suggestions
will be resisted. I hope that the Bill goes through
unamended.
Mr.
Garnier:
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northampton,
North for returning us to this subject. It is one that she introduced
on the Floor of the House in an Adjournment debate towards the end of
the last Session. The Minister of State responded to that debate and I,
too, was present as the shadow Prisons Minister.
The hon. Lady and I have a
constituency interest in that in the case involving the death of her
constituent in a secure training centre, one of my constituents was one
of the officers who could have been prosecuted had the case been found
to have a criminal tinge to it. Fortunately, for my constituent, it did
not. Of course, that does not take away the appalling nature of the
incident that led to the hon. Ladys constituent dying and the
tragedy that it caused the family.
Before we conclude on the
deaths remit, I should like to remind the Minister of what the Prison
Reform Trust said to us in its written submissions during the evidence
sessions. It wanted to be assured that the deaths remit would extend to
people held in police and court cells under Operation Safeguard, to
children held in local authority secure childrens
homesthat
question may have been partly answered alreadyand to people who
die within 72 hours of their release from
custody.
The last
point is particularly important, because the rate of self-harm and
suicide in the first few days after release from prison is very high
and far higher than it is in the ordinary population, if I may call it
that. The period immediately after release is one of the most difficult
periods for people. Approximately three quarters of prisoners who are
released are suffering from some form of substance abuse that was not
dealt with while they were in custody. They very often have
nowhere to live and no job to go to. They have lost contact with their
families; indeed, they are utterly lost and alone. That is not
to suggest that they should not have been in prisonquite the
contrary. For a great many people who are in prison, it is
right that they went to prison. There is a proportion who
perhaps should not have gone to prison, but there we
are.
Whoever comes out
of prison needs to be looked after by someone in many cases, but in
many cases they are not and they die. They die from drug overdoses and
suicide and, in my submission, the numbers are far too high. Can the
Minister therefore confirm that the commissioners remit in
matters of death does not stop simply because the death occurs outside
the prison walls as opposed to inside the prison walls, so long as the
period within which the death occurs is sufficiently and reasonably
proximate to the date of release from
custody?
Maria
Eagle:
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton,
North, who, as other Committee members have made clear, has exercised a
vigilant and extremely proper interest in this matter, particularly as
it relates to the experience of her constituent and the family of
Gareth Myatt. I want to make it as clear as I can that the remit will
include, and is intended to continue to include, deaths, whatever the
discussions between the Youth Justice Board, ourselves and the
commissioner. The debate is about whether it should include complaints
in secure training centres. My hon. Friend made points about that,
which I will certainly pass on, so that they inform that
debate.
The only
question is whether the issue of complaints in secure training centres
should still be dealt with by the new commissioner or whether that is
better dealt with in other ways. We will come on to the issue of
complaints, but I think that it is appropriate for me to say this now,
with your indulgence, Sir Nicholas. Complaints from children detained
in young offender institutions are included in the
commissioners remit. Complaints from children held in secure
training centres are included in the Bill. However, a debate is taking
place between the commissioner, ourselves and the Youth Justice Board
about whether that is the appropriate way to deal with complaints in
secure training centres. The board is considering what changes may be
needed in its system for investigating complaints in secure training
centres and whether the commissioner should have a role. That has not
quite been sorted out yet, but there is no question of deaths being
taken out of the new commissioners remit. I hope that that
assists hon. Members.
9.30
am
The hon. and
learned Member for Harborough made points following on from the
evidence that we had from the Prison Reform Trust. He set out the
points that the trust made, so I will not go over them again. If there
is a death in circumstances in which prisoners are held in court cells
or police cells under Operation Safeguard, it will be investigated by
the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Any deaths occurring
among those recently held in court cells, who were in the custody of
the Prison Service at night and escort contractors during the day,
would fall within the commissioners remit under paragraph 2 of
schedule 8. In the event of a death occurring after release from prison
or immigration custody, the commissioner would have discretion to
investigate it if he or she believed that it was linked to events that
occurred during custody. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough
made some comments about proximity in time and circumstances, and it
would be for the commissioner to take a view on that matter, but if he
thought there was good reason to investigate he would certainly be able
to.
Ms
Keeble:
Will my hon. Friend deal with
the issue raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough about
secure local authority childrens
homes?
Maria
Eagle:
My hon. Friend has anticipated me; I was just
coming on to secure childrens homes, which are, of course,
under local authority control rather than that of the Youth Justice
Board. They are not provided primarily for criminal justice purposes;
they are provided for welfare purposes in the main. There is already
statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard
Children, and the local safeguarding children board has a
responsibility, with the local authority that places children, to make
sure that the childrens welfare is looked after. Complaint and
investigation arrangements are in place, including and up to serious
case reviews if things go very wrong.
We do not at present accept
that secure childrens homes should be included in the
provisions, because they exist for a different purpose and have a
panoply of arrangements that link the responsibility of the local
authority in placing children in the homes for welfare reasons with the
investigation of complaints on matters up to and including
death.
Amendment
agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 316,
in schedule 8, page 160,
line 38, after premises insert or
in Scotland.[Maria
Eagle.]
Schedule
8, as amended, agreed
to.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 23 November 2007 |