| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
[Amendment No. 114N not moved.]
Clause 137 [Amendment of section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994]:
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 115A:
“(b) holds any post, otherwise than as a medical officer, to which he has been appointed for the purposes of section 3(1A) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989;”.”The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that Amendment No. 115 was not moved but perhaps I may say for the convenience of the House that we accept the principle of that amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and I shall be bringing forward a government amendment. As ever, we think that the noble Earl’s amendment is technically deficient, as all opposition amendments
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1627
In moving Amendment No. 115A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 118. Amendment No. 115A will extend the power to restrict industrial action to public sector prison officers in Scotland. By doing so, the amendment will ensure a consistent position across the UK, with the clauses applying to both public and private sector prisons in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. As it is employment law, it is appropriate to determine the scope of the provisions in Westminster rather than in the devolved legislatures. However, the running of Scottish prisons is the responsibility of Scottish Ministers, and the Government are tabling this amendment following consultation with, and full agreement from, Scottish Ministers.
11.45 pm
The statutory ban on industrial action in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has always remained in place in Northern Ireland and in private sector prisons. In public sector prisons in England, Wales and Scotland, the statutory restrictions were disapplied in 2005 in favour of binding voluntary agreements by the POA not to take industrial action. While the POA has chosen to withdraw from the joint industrial relations procedural agreement in England and Wales from 8 May 2008, the equivalent voluntary agreement in Scotland remains in place. The provisions are, therefore, not immediately needed in Scotland, and the Government have tabled Amendment No. 118, to ensure that in Scotland the statutory restrictions in these clauses would come into force only by order, rather than on Royal Assent. Any such order would be subject to affirmative resolution in Parliament. The Government have also given assurances to Scottish Ministers that no such order would be made without an explicit request in the event of a failure of the current voluntary agreement. It is the Government’s hope that the generally positive employee relations situation in Scotland will continue and that these circumstances will not arise. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said. I share his view and his hope that the positive atmosphere of good industrial relations in Scotland among prison officers will continue and that the voluntary agreement will continue in place. I understand why this provision is being put forward.
What jumps out from this is that any order would be made by the United Kingdom Secretary of State. I fully understand that, as employment law is reserved under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act, whereas the running of the prisons is a responsibility of Scottish Ministers—it was my personal responsibility from 1999 to 2003. I ask the Minister to confirm that this is done with the full agreement of Scottish Ministers and that there will not be a Minister from the current Administration who cries “Foul” at a future stage. Given that it is possible to transfer specific functions and albeit that the generality of functions are
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1628
Another point I raise for clarification is that the following clause, Clause 138, has a power to suspend the operation of Section 127. Is there any reason why there is not a separate Scottish provision on that, should at some future stage an order be made to activate Section 127? Is there a reason why we would not have a separate Scottish power to deactivate it or suspend it, as would appear to be the case under Clause 138 for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Onslow will be grateful for the Minister’s offer to consider the points raised in his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ general support for the amendment. On the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, the structure that is brought forward here is based on the fact, as I have already said, that the provisions arising from employment matters relate to UK law and therefore it is appropriate that it is the UK Parliament that deals with the matter. I understand that the approach we are taking has the support of Scottish Ministers, and that they have no objection to how we are taking this forward. Clearly, the general issues raised by the noble Lord will be considered in the current discussions on devolution. He will know of the commission that has been established in the light of the resolution by the pro-union parties within the Scottish Parliament. No doubt some general issues will need to be discovered, but as far as I am aware there is no concern about the approach that we are taking. It is very much a matter for Scottish Ministers to come to the Government in this Parliament if they wish to do so. I echo the noble Lord’s point that we hope that that will not need to happen. It is essentially a preventive measure.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 115AB not moved.]
Clause 139 [Disclosure of information about convictions etc of child sex offenders to members of the public]:
Baroness Falkner of Margravine moved Amendment No. 115AC:
“( ) Where the responsible authority makes a disclosure about any child or young person below the age of 18 under this section—
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1629
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, for taking the time with his extensive Bill team to see me regarding this clause, meeting my concerns and elaborating further through providing examples of why the Government feel that the clauses are extremely important.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, when a responsible authority makes a disclosure about a child or young person under the age of 18, safeguards are built into it. I shall now try to work out how disclosure will apply in these cases. I understand that the Government have met the relevant charities involved with children and have tried to reassure them, but there are one or two areas of ambiguity and I would like the Minister to clarify where we stand.
First, we understand that the Government are proposing that each local area be evaluated or assessed in relation to whether it is safe to manage the disclosure of information about children. Will the Minister accept that that must include independent scrutiny involving the respective charities that deal with the children? Secondly, when considering how to extend the scheme to those under 18, will the Government consult other stakeholders about the safeguards? Thirdly, will the regulations include a requirement for MAPPAs to consult the local safeguarding children boards before making any disclosure about someone aged under 18?
The Minister has reassured me in writing and he recognises the need to ensure that factors associated with young offenders, particularly those demonstrating sexually harmful behaviour, are taken into consideration. He said that the Government were amending statutory guidance to ensure that those issues are taken into account by the relevant local MAPPA boards.
This is an extremely important issue. We know that local safeguarding children boards are an important aspect under the new children’s service arrangements, and this is a positive move. It is important that children and young people who exhibit sexually harmful behaviour do not suffer from the consequences of adult-focused legislation and rules around disclosure which treat them as if they were adult sex offenders. They are not. The circumstances of their offending are very different. In terms of rehabilitation, there are far more positive ways that such offending can be dealt with if safeguards are met and disclosure rules are dealt with carefully, taking into account the people involved in those areas. I beg to move.
Lord West of Spithead: My Lords, Amendment No. 115AC highlights the need to take into account factors particularly associated with young offenders. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, is right that we had a very useful meeting in which we discussed this and went through some of the details because we all recognise the concerns of the noble Baroness and that this is an important area we need to resolve.
However, we do not believe that establishing a statutory role for local safeguarding children boards within the process of disclosure is necessary or appropriate. Local safeguarding children boards have primarily a co-ordinating function in relation to the
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1630
A MAPPA responsible authority—this answers some of the noble Baroness’s worries—must act in co-operation with various organisations, including social services, the local education authority and youth offending teams, under Section 325 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The chief officer of police, the local probation board and youth offending teams are also all on the local safeguarding children board and in discharging their functions they must make arrangements to ensure that they have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. All those bodies are pulled in and utilised when decisions are being made. Any young person who becomes the subject of a disclosure would have been referred to MAPPA by the youth offending team, which would be responsible for the management of the case and would be involved in the decision and the ongoing risk management plan for that youngster who, we recognise, could have particular difficulties and problems.
We acknowledge the importance of involving those bodies in any decision to disclose information about a young offender. Accordingly, we have revised the statutory guidance for MAPPA responsible authorities, which will be published in June. It has been developed in consultation with the NSPCC and Barnardo’s, among other bodies with an interest in children, and they are content with moving ahead on this basis. The guidance will state that when decisions about disclosure are being made about an offender under 18, representatives from children’s services and youth offending services must be at that MAPPA meeting. If they are not present, the disclosure decision should not be made. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.
However, we cannot accept the amendment. The decision to disclose information under this duty must be a considered decision involving all the relevant agencies. This clause will help to ensure that that is the case. By introducing into the process of disclosure another multi-agency body which meets only quarterly, Amendment No. 115ACrisks delaying and unnecessarily complicating a process that is intended to protect children from a risk of serious harm. We believe that the existing process and the revisions we will make to the new guidance are the most effective way of ensuring that the needs of young offenders are balanced against the need to protect the children who they may put at risk. I hope the noble Baroness is persuaded of that and is reassured that her concerns have been considered to the extent that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, the Minister has discussed this extensively with me and I am extremely pleased to hear him give a date—June, I think he said—by which the new guidance will be issued. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1631
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 115B:
“Automatic deportation of criminals“(6A) Exception 6 is where the Secretary of State thinks that the application of section 32(4) and (5) would contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (done at Warsaw on 16th May 2005).””
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 25 [Amendments to armed forces legislation]:
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 115BA:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 115C to 115E:
“(a) £1 million in a case to which section 276B applies, and(b) £500,000 in any other case.”(1) For the purposes of section 276A(5) this section applies to any case where the person concerned (“P”) has been in qualifying detention for a period (or total period) of at least 10 years by the time when—
(2) P was “in qualifying detention” at any time when P was detained in a prison, a hospital or at any other place, if P was so detained—
(3) In calculating the period (or total period) during which P has been in qualifying detention as mentioned in subsection (1), no account is to be taken of any period of time during which P was both—
(4) P was “in excluded concurrent detention” at any time when P was detained in a prison, a hospital or at any other place, if P was so detained—
23 Apr 2008 : Column 1632
(5) But P was not “in excluded concurrent detention” at any time by virtue of subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c) if P’s conviction of the other offence mentioned in that provision was quashed on appeal, or a pardon was given in respect of it.
“the relevant offence” means the offence in respect of which the conviction is quashed or the pardon is given (but see subsection (7));
“remanded for mental health purposes” means remanded or admitted to hospital under section 35, 36 or 38 of the Mental Health Act 1983 or under any corresponding provision of any earlier enactment;
Clause 144 [Orders, rules and regulations]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 115F to 115FA:
“( ) an order under section 48(2),”“(aa) an order under section (Power to alter penalty for unlawfully obtaining etc. personal data),”On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 26 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 115G to 115L:
Schedule 26, page 280, line 34, after “(b)(i)” insert “(as it continues to have effect in relation to prisoners sentenced for offences committed before 4th April 2005)”
“(3A) In paragraph 2 (as it applies in England and Wales in relation to offences committed before 4 April 2005)—
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |