| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that this amendment was pressed to a Division last night. Therefore the amendment is still on the Table.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is still on the Table. I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 [Evidence of identity]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 158:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that the amendment proves to be uncontentious. It permits regulations to be made to deal with the destruction of fingerprints which have been taken in order to provide evidence of identity, when those have served their purpose. The provisions we have in mind would be based on those in Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and would permit the individual to witness the destruction of the fingerprints. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that this is a worthwhile amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for moving it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 [Registered bodies]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 159 to 161:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 163 to 167:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were discussed with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 169:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 43, line 33, at end insert--
("( ) Regulations dealing with the taking of fingerprints may make provision requiring their destruction in specified circumstances and by specified persons.").
Page 44, line 11, leave out first ("body") and insert ("person").
Page 44, line 11, leave out ("body which") and insert ("person who").
Page 44, line 14, leave out ("body which") and insert ("person who").
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (2A) and").
Page 44, line 17, at end insert--
("(2A) A person applying for registration under this section must be--
(a) a body corporate or unincorporate, or
(b) a person appointed to an office by virtue of any enactment.").
Page 44, line 18, leave out ("body") and insert ("person").
Page 44, line 20, leave out ("it") and insert ("he").
Page 44, line 21, leave out ("it") and insert ("he").
Page 44, leave out line 24.
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause--
(". In Scotland a constable engaged on central service (within the meaning of section 38 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967) may perform functions under this Part (other than functions under section 104(2B) or (7), 110(1) or (2) or 112) on behalf of the Secretary of State; and without prejudice to the application of subsection (5) of section 108 in respect of any other person performing functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, that subsection shall apply in respect of any constable performing functions by virtue of this section as the subsection applies in respect of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at our debate on Second Reading I mentioned that in Scotland the work on access to criminal records under Part V of the Bill will be undertaken by the Scottish Criminal Record Office. This new clause allows that office to do the work on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Scottish Criminal Record Office is well established as the central database for criminal records in Scotland. It already carries out, in a centralised way, the criminal record checks under the present non-statutory arrangements in Scotland. These arrangements are very satisfactory and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wishes to build on them, rather than setting up a new body in the way which is necessary in England and Wales.
The Scottish Criminal Record Office is staffed by constables on central service under the Crown, in accordance with Section 38 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. Although they are working under the Crown, these constables are not part of my right honourable friend's department and so cannot automatically carry out functions on his behalf. The new clause gives them that power.
However, certain functions of the Secretary of State are excluded. These are the Secretary of State's power to make regulations and to specify and lay before Parliament the Code of Practice. These functions will be carried out, as regards Scotland, by the Scottish Office.
Finally, the amendment extends the Secretary of State's limited immunity from proceedings, which is conferred by Clause 108(5) of the Bill, to include constables at SCRO who are performing functions on his behalf.
The net effect of the new clause is to allow the Scottish Criminal Record Office to act in Scotland on behalf of the Secretary of State in exactly the same way as the Criminal Records Agency will in England and Wales on behalf of the Home Secretary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110 [Code of practice]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 171:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 173 to 176. Amendments Nos. 171, 173 and 176 fulfil the undertaking that I gave at the Committee stage that the Bill would be amended so as to make explicit our intention that the Secretary of State will publish a code of practice. I hope that that will be acceptable to noble Lords.
The understandable wish to ensure that ex-offenders are rehabilitated and not discriminated against is the motivation behind Amendment No. 174. This would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for monitoring compliance with the code of practice by registered bodies.
As has been said many times during our consideration of this Bill, it is our intention to put in place an effective new system of criminal record checks which takes account of the rights of the individual but which is also straightforward and cost effective. The inspection and monitoring regime which is proposed by this amendment would add significantly to the cost and complexity of this scheme. It would also, let us not forget, be a most unwelcome burden on, for example, small businesses and local authorities.
There are safeguards in the Bill to ensure that wherever possible the code of practice is adhered to. The Secretary of State will be able to suspend registered bodies which he considers have failed to abide by the code. Sanctions also exist against individuals who breach the code by disclosing conviction information to those not entitled to it. Indeed, a criminal offence will be committed which could be punished by a prison sentence.
Finally, Amendment No. 175 proposes that the code of practice should be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament. The draft code has already been the subject of a lengthy consultation process where we have sought the views of employers, regulatory bodies and civil liberties and voluntary groups. Some 250 responses were received and many of the views expressed have been taken on board. The code of practice will require further consolidation and
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the House will support the amendments in my name. I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh not to press his amendment but I understand that he was not going to in any event.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding in advance to my Amendments Nos. 174 and 175. That was entirely proper since I had agreed that they should be grouped together. I am grateful also to the Government for accepting the important point that the code of practice should be mandatory and not permissive, which is contained in Amendment No. 171. It is important that codes of practice of this kind should be subject to as much scrutiny as possible, although I do not doubt for a moment the extent of the consultation which has taken place and the care which is being taken to take account of the responses to the consultation.
The Home Office memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee said, in reference to the code of practice, that because it will deal with administrative matters it is not thought necessary for it to be subject to any further parliamentary procedure. Indeed, that is what is now proposed although the Minister has told us that the code will be laid before Parliament but the affirmative resolution will not be used. In fact, my Amendment No. 175 provides for the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure to be used.
However, I must query whether the code of practice will be purely administrative. Other codes of practice of this kind, and certainly previous codes of practice on this subject, have gone well beyond administrative matters and have dealt with organisations' policies on employing offenders. Indeed, they may well affect employment law. Those matters are not administrative. I query seriously whether it is right for the code of practice only to be laid before Parliament and not to be subject, as we propose in Amendment No. 175, to the negative resolution procedure.
I recognise that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee accepted the assurances of the Home Office. I am less willing to do so. I did not move my Amendment No. 162 which is concerned with employers' policies on recruiting offenders because I knew that the matter could be debated, as it is being debated now, with this group of amendments. But the requirement which was in my Amendment No. 162 for those responsible to be satisfied that employers have positive policies for the employment of offenders is still very much in the forefront of my mind.
I am encouraged by the words the Minister used in proposing this group of amendments when she talked about the necessity for fair and just policies to ensure that there is not unnecessary discrimination against
Secondly--and, perhaps, most importantly from the point of view of crime policy--it cannot be doubted that those previous offenders who find jobs and who are usefully employed are much less likely to offend again in the future. That is why it is necessary for there to be explicit recognition in the Bill of the need for positive policies for the employment of offenders. It is for that reason therefore that Amendment No. 174 requires the Secretary of State to,
I also believe that Amendment No. 175--which calls for the code of practice
Therefore, I hasten to add that I do not propose that the code of practice should be put on the face of the Bill. But it would be extremely helpful if the Minister gave an indication that the code--or at least the latest draft if the process is not complete--will be available to Parliament well before the Bill completes its passage. Although it would be very nice, I can hardly expect it to be available before the Third Reading in this House in a week's time. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could give some indication that it will be available for consideration by the House of Commons at least in time for its Committee stage, so that we can ascertain the full extent of the provisions of the code of practice.
Page 44, line 26, leave out ("may publish, and") and insert ("shall publish, and may").
"make arrangements for the monitoring and inspection of compliance by registered bodies with any code of practice published under this section".
Of course, it should now read "the code of practice" rather than "any code of practice". Because of the defective wording, it will not be possible for me to take the amendment to a vote.
"laid before Parliament ... [to] be subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament"--
should be agreed to because of the importance of the code of practice. The Minister has not given any undertakings as to when the code of practice will be published. From what the Minister said, I can appreciate the care which has been taken to ensure that the representations that have been made to her are fully taken into account. I also recognise the validity of the Minister's point that a code of practice of this kind can, and should, be subject to change.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page