| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: It is not the registered body's code of practice; it is our code of practice.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I understand that. However, the amendment provides for writing on the face of the Bill a policy. I was referring to a policy and I apologise. I was saying that if the registered body is not required, as Amendment No. 125 requires, to provide the Secretary of State with a policy, whatever form it may take, how will he know that the registered body has failed to comply with the code when the code in paragraph (bb) requires a written policy?
Baroness Blatch: I referred to that. We believe that, on reflection, having put the matter out to consultation, including in the code provision for employers to have a policy on employment would be tantamount to legislating for a right--that may be what Members of the Committee opposite have in mind--for sex offenders not to be discriminated against in applying for employment, because the amendment implies that the Secretary of State might refuse to register a body if he was not satisfied with its policy. But there will be a code of practice. If it is found that a company or registered body does not comply with it, there is a mighty powerful measure in the Bill, and that is suspension from the register.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should have withdrawn his apology because I was still quoting directly from the Government's White Paper. The fact that the Minister has gone backwards from the White Paper is not an issue between myself and the noble Lord. In the hierarchy of legislation, as the noble Lord well knows, one starts with clauses on the statute, one moves to schedules and then down to regulations, followed by codes of practice. Now we have discovered a lower level of hell in that we have guidance issued supplementary
to a code of practice for material which is not considered worthy of going into the code of practice. That is what has happened to this most important protection for the implementation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.I am sorry that the Minister has not only not gone as far as the amendments propose, but not even as far as her own White Paper provided. I do not consider that a code of practice is inadequate unless the Secretary of State is required to issue it. He is required to obtain compliance with it and to have sanctions if it is not complied with. I do not believe that Clause 108(3) is adequate when it refers only to the suspension of registration, when the damage may well have been done. It could have been put right in the first place, and that is what our amendments would do. But I do not wish to press them at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 126A:
The noble Lord said: This amendment is straightforward. Indeed, it is referred to in the Government's response to the consultation paper after the White Paper. The amendment provides that instead of every local authority having to apply separately for registration--after all, there are over 500 local authorities in England alone--there should be automatic registration of every local authority on the register maintained by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this part of the Bill.
In their response the Government appeared to think that that would make it difficult to comply with administrative arrangements, such as updating nominated officers' signatures and monitoring compliance with the code of practice. The Committee should note the phrase, "monitoring compliance with the code of practice", which is what we were talking about a moment ago. Surely if it is accepted that we can cut out a whole layer of bureaucracy by having direct and automatic registration for local authorities, there should not be much difficulty in providing that, for example, the list of nominated signatories should be kept up to date.
The Deputy Prime Minister declares a bonfire of controls--as the Conservative Party does from time to time when it runs short of other arguments--yet the Home Office is creating a completely new bureaucratic process which is totally unnecessary. Local authorities are statutory bodies. Parliament has full control over them in determining changes to their statutory responsibilities. Parliament can take the responsibility for this into its own hands without any loss of any kind and thus remove much bureaucracy. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I have considerable reservations about this amendment. While its purpose is to ensure automatic registration for local authorities, its effect will be to include organisations in the register of bodies eligible to ask exempted questions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act regardless of whether they will be asking exempted questions or have paid the registration fee. Although the majority of local authorities will be eligible to ask exempted questions, a few will not and they should not therefore have access to the higher level checks.
Registration will be the principal means by which control will be exercised over the disclosure and use made of criminal record information. This amendment, in providing automatic registration for local authorities, would considerably limit the ability properly to exercise this control. For example, any organisation wishing to register will be required to deposit a document signifying acceptance of the code of practice. Registered bodies will also need to supply details of nominated signatories which will be checked against countersignatures on applications for checks received via the registered body. The registration process will be the main method of ensuring that these requirements are met at the very outset by each and every body qualifying for registration. That is absolutely crucial if we are to exercise control over the risk of the wrong people working in such vulnerable situations.
The risk attached to automatic registration is that a local authority might easily forget to, for example, supply its nominated signatures and subsequently find, when applications for checks are submitted, that they cannot be processed. Officials acting on behalf of the Secretary of State could find themselves wasting a considerable amount of time chasing up local authorities which have failed to comply with the requirements of registration--a situation which would be avoided if all eligible bodies were required to go through the registration process. The cost of registration will be kept as low as is reasonable to cover administrative costs. We expect it to be between £15 and £20. Abolishing individual registration would not result in less work for local authorities or in maintaining an up-to-date record of nominated signatures.
Finally, I can see no good reason why special provision should be made for local authorities, and not any other organisation, to be automatically registered. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With due respect to the Minister, that is bumbledom. That was the kind of answer that a Job's-worth would produce in order not to upset what appear to be convenient administrative procedures.
It is perfectly possible for a code of practice to ensure that a local authority has a duty to comply with whatever administrative arrangements the Secretary of State chooses to impose. It is perfectly possible--indeed, it is common sense--to say that each authority should have a named individual responsible for compliance and that the agency can work through that named individual.
There can be a requirement that if the named individual changes, the agency shall be updated. This is not an issue that is important enough to press. However, all the amendment seeks to do is to cut out a level of bureaucracy. I do not know why the Government find it in their heart to oppose it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 126B:
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 126B, to which I referred at Second Reading. I believe that it is of considerable importance and deserves attention. I said at Second Reading that power was required to ensure that private security firms were registered so that their customers, whether in the private or public sector, should have protection. At that time I had not worked out how to draft an amendment of that kind. I am by no means confident that the present drafting is perfect or fully inclusive. However, the local authority associations, to whom I am grateful, have tried to define private security services as those involving the manned guarding of premises, cash or other valuables in transit, the supply and installation of security equipment and of alarm and access systems, and other related activities prescribed by the Secretary of State.
The amendment provides that organisations of that kind which have obligations to their customers should become registered bodies for the purpose of this exercise and should be required to employ only individuals in respect of whom they are satisfied that the certificate is consistent with the performance of their duties in the relevant posts in a fit and proper manner. One could very well extend it. For example, outside London local authorities have an obligation to license taxis. Given the risks to passengers when taxis are driven by people with criminal records, it may be that the provision should be extended to them. However, perhaps we should start with the security industry.
This matter was recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place in May 1995. That committee said that there should be greater access to national criminal records as part of a vetting procedure and that a licensing system for individuals in the private security sector should be set up. If, as is clear from this part, it is for the benefit of employers that there should
Page 43, line 24, at end insert--
("( ) Notwithstanding subsection (2) above, every local authority shall be listed on the register maintained by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Part.").9.15 p.m.
Page 43, line 24, at end insert--
("(3A) No person may provide services on a commercial basis involving--
(a) the manned guarding of premises;
(b) the manned guarding of cash or other valuables in transit;
(c) the supply and installation of security equipment and of alarm and access systems, and the operation of such systems, or
(d) other related activities prescribed by the Secretary of State,
who is not a registered body under this section.
(3B) A person to whom subsection (3A) applies shall, before employing any individual, require, and shall consider the contents of, a criminal record certificate relating to that individual and shall not appoint that individual unless it is satisfied that the contents of the certificate are consistent with that individual performing his duties in the relevant post in a fit and proper manner.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page