| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
On the capital side, however, the noble Baroness is right that certain priorities are set in the allocation of capital funding. Academies have been given priority in capital funding, not in revenue funding, because overwhelmingly they have been subject to failure, often acute failure, in the most deprived communities in the country. We think that it is right as a matter of policy for those schools to be able to get access at the front of the queue. They are almost overwhelmingly community schools—they become academies to give them a governance structure that is more likely to raise standards—and get that access to capital so that they can get the buildings that we want all schools to have in due course. Even in that respect, the overwhelming bulk of our capital programme in the next 10 years will go to a programme called “Building schools for the future”. Our commitment to the renovation of the school system, particularly in deprived areas—my noble friend Lord Judd can preach this to the students at the London School of Economics—is without precedent in the history of Labour Governments. We are now spending £5 billion a year on capital renewal in our schools, compared with the £700 million we were spending as a country in 1997, and that figure will rise significantly further in the next few years.
The criteria for allocation in the “Building schools for the future” programme, which is where the overwhelming bulk of the funding is going, are focused first on areas of greatest need, such as those in my noble friend’s authority. Large numbers of very deprived areas are getting the allocation. The programme is in those areas prioritising the more deprived schools, the majority of which are community schools by legal category. I therefore completely refute the notion that there is an unlevel playing field in the allocation of public resources either in revenue funding or in capital funding. In capital funding, discretionary decisions have been taken, but all those decisions have been taken in favour of schools in the most deprived areas that face the greatest challenge so that they can become better community schools in the true meaning of community schools, which are schools that serve their community well and provide a high standard of education. I hope I have given the noble Baroness some things to reflect on and which go to the heart of this debate in its widest sense.
We do not believe that the specific elements in the amendments are necessary, because we believe that they are embedded in the duties in Clause 1 and in the legislation in any event. The key aims underpinning the Bill are to increase equality of opportunity and access to high standards of education for all. Clause 1 accordingly places explicit new duties on local authorities to ensure fair access to educational opportunity and to promote the fulfilment of every child’s potential in addition to the existing duty to promote high standards. We want to ensure that every school provides an excellent education and that every child achieves their full potential, and nothing we can do will help schools better to promote social and
5 July 2006 : Column 310
Elements of discrimination, such as disability, race relations and the treatment of different ethnic groups, which might threaten cohesion, have not come up in the debate, although I understand the argument that we need to go beyond them. Schools, like other public institutions, are covered by statutory duties in that respect. They are also covered by the new disability legislation, which includes a requirement on all schools, whatever their category, to produce disability equality plans—a new legal requirement that will bite from this December. They are of course also subject to the Race Relations Act 1976 to eliminateunlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different ethnic groups.
8 pm
On the competition requirements in respect of completely new schools, we could not be more categoric. The regulations and statutory instruments that we have laid on the operation of school competitions to replace failing schools, which have closed in the sort of circumstances referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, state that those putting forward proposals for new schools, whatever the legal category of school, must provide:
(b) the objectives which the promoters intend to set to further the aims of inclusiveness and partnership working”.
In the draft statutory guidance for decision makers on competitions for new schools—also made available to Members of the Committee—Section 7 on community cohesion, inclusiveness and partnerships, sets out factors which should be taken into account, including, first,
- “the extent to which, and how satisfactorily in the circumstances of the community, the proposals [for new schools] address the need to promote community cohesion”;
and, in particular, satisfy the need for extended services identified in the authority’s notice inviting proposals; and, thirdly,
- “the extent to which the proposals contribute to delivery of the Every Child Matters agenda, including the health, safety, enjoyment and achievement of children”.
That is in the guidance that we have put out. I do not believe that it could be more explicit in meeting the particular concerns raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
On the basis that I may have helped to dispel some misapprehensions about the Bill and made clear that the commitments to community cohesion are there, I hope that it will not be necessary to pursue the amendments.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: As it is late, I have not risen to the bait, but I would not have said what I
5 July 2006 : Column 311
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Crawley: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins not before 9 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Code of Practice C and Code of Practice H) Order 2006
8.02 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 June be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee and 39th Report from the Merits Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during debates on the Terrorism Act 2006, the Government agreed that a new code of practice should be issued to govern the detention of terrorist suspects before bringing into force the sections of the Act which will extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects from 14 to 28 days.
The order before your Lordships today therefore brings into force a new PACE code of practice on the detention, treatment and questioning of terrorist suspects arrested under Section 41 of the 2000 Act. This new PACE code is to be known as “Code H”. The order also issues a revised version of PACE Code C, which deals with the detention, treatment and questioning of both terrorist and non-terrorist suspects. This order will remove references to terrorist suspects from Code C.
Code H reflects the results of a consultation held between 2 and 23 May. We received a total of 26 responses to the consultation from a wide rangeof organisations and individuals, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, Liberty, the Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to name but a few. I hope that your Lordships will all agree that thecode we are planning to introduce represents an appropriate and effective tool for governing terrorist detention. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 June be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee and 39th Report from the Merits Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the order. As my honourable friend Nick Herbert made clear in
5 July 2006 : Column 312
In another place, my honourable friend Mr Herbert asked two questions, one of which was satisfactorily answered. He was assured by the Minister, Mr McNulty, that it was envisaged that if the police need to interview detainees after they have been transferred to prison, arrangements will be made for them to be moved back to the appropriate police station. That was a welcome assurance, since it is in keeping with the needs of an investigation.
However, my honourable friend also pointed out that the code provides that detainees may receive visits from friends, family or others at the custody officer’s discretion. He therefore asked to what extent that provision would be subject to supervision or review, whether such visits would be left to the discretion of a single custody officer and what appeal procedure would be available if the custody officer decided not to allow the visits. In glancing through the report of that debate on 28 June, I did not readily see that Mr McNulty had responded. I should be grateful if the Minister could take the opportunity to do so today.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we understand that the revised codes of practice made under Section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 are necessary because of the extension of the maximum period of detention from 14 to 28 days, to which Parliament finally agreed with some reluctance after many contentious debates.
As the Minister said, Code H deals in particular with the treatment of suspects who are detained for the longer period under the Terrorism Act 2000. I understand that after consultation it was agreed that suspects would be transferred to prison if a warrant is issued taking detention beyond 14 days. My noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew strongly endorsesthat proposal as ensuring that detainees are held in establishments which have the experience and facilities to deal with longer periods of detention.
When my honourable friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green, and for Somerton and Frome, asked whether someone held under the code would be transferred to a place where the officers had received appropriate training, the Minister who replied took the question to refer only to police stations. He said that the equivalent of Paddington Green would not be needed everywhere unless there was a large increase in suspects charged under the code. Does that mean that as long as the number of suspects is small enough to be accommodated in Paddington Green, every suspect will be held there initially, regardless of where they were detained in England and Wales? What is the situation in Scotland? If the number of suspects increased beyond the limit that Paddington Green can hold, has
5 July 2006 : Column 313
Similarly, are there designated prisons to receive the suspects who are detained for 28 days, with appropriate facilities and trained officers? If the first preference is to be Belmarsh, has another prison been designated as back-up in case the number exceeds the capacity of Belmarsh? I need hardly add that with the prison system as a whole crammed to bursting point, it would impose an intolerable strain on the service if it suddenly had to accept more than a few 28-day detainees. It would be useful to know how the Minister thinks that it would deal with such an emergency if it occurred.
Finally, I should like to ask a question, of which I am afraid I did not give the noble Baroness notice, on paragraph 5.7 of Code H. It provides that detainees will be,
- “informed that what they say in any letter, call or message ... may be read or listened to and may be given in evidence”.
There is no reference to the recording of any telephone call that is made. Particularly as reference is made elsewhere in the code to the possibility that telephone calls may be conducted in a language which the officer does not understand, does the Minister not consider that there may be a requirement to record those conversations so that they can be translated and examined later?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for giving their assent to the codes of practice, but I shall answer straightaway the questions that they have quite properly asked.
On the supervision of family visits and any appeal procedure, I can assure the noble Baroness that all visits will have to take account of the operational sensitivities of an investigation and will be arranged in liaison with the investigation team, while also taking into account the needs of the detainee. The balancing exercise will have to be gone through, and of course the noble Baroness will understand that each situation will be different. Any complaints, however, can be made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission or to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, depending on where the detainee is held.
I turn now to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. All police stations are designated for the detention of terrorist suspects, but the Terrorism Act 2000 requires that a detainee is taken as soon as is reasonably practical to the police station which the constable considers the most appropriate. In the majority of cases this will mean Paddington Green, but other police stations are used and a secure detention facility exists in Scotland at Govan. The decision about which station is the most appropriate is an operational one to be taken by the police and will depend on the needs of the investigation and the circumstances of the detainee.
The noble Lord asked whether suspects would all be sent to Belmarsh and what the position there is. The police and the National Offender Management Service will maintain an agreement as to the most
5 July 2006 : Column 314
On the question of telephone calls, I shall write to the noble Lord. However, the ordinary principleof “he who asserts must prove” will prevail. If information is to be relied on, it makes prudent good sense to try to get the best quality evidence. That is my response generally but I shall write to him in relation to that specific issue because I do not have clear instructions to hand. With that, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Amendments to Schedule 2) Order 2006
8.13 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 June be approved[30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, since 2004 we have been rolling out the licensing of the private security industry under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. Crown employees who hold office, such as police officers and prison officers, are not within the scope of the Act so are not subject to licensing. The legislation had the unforeseen effect of including in its scope several groups of people who work for the police, including certain police community support officers, those in the Prison Service, the Immigration Service, the British Transport Police and others, in certain limited circumstances such as where they are supplied by their employer under contract to undertake a specific role.
It was never the intention that any of these people should be covered by the 2001 Act and it is the result of an unforeseen legislative anomaly that we are now seeking to correct. The order also addresses a number of other issues of scope. When the order was laid, it was to impact only on England and Wales since the 2001 Act had that limited territorial extent. However, before the laying and making of this instrument the 2001 Act will be commenced in Scotland, so this order will now impact on Scotland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14 June be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, again I thank the Minister and of course I shall support the order. However, she knows that I cannot resist teasing her a little on this matter because it has a chequered history. The Minister has explained clearly that it was not intended that the Private Security Industry Act 2001 should cover Crown employees who hold office,
5 July 2006 : Column 315
I have to make the comment that this Bill has an unhappy history of unintended consequences and is dropping stitches all over the place. I noticed that when the Government introduced this matter in another place, they explained the background. The Government had first hoped to introduce an affirmative order, but they had run out of time. To try to make sure that they could stitch things together quickly they put through an order by negative resolution to ensure that everyone was covered, but to do the right thing they then decided to carry out the consultation you need for an affirmative order and go for that as well. They sought to cover all the options, and how admirable is that? The consultation required by the affirmative procedure has borne the fruit that we see today. I have to say, as members of the Opposition always do, that it is a good idea to deal with matters by the affirmative procedure, and let us see more of it.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is in his place beside the noble Baroness. I have to say to him that other stitches have been dropped in this piece of legislation. When the Violent Crime Reduction Bill was in Committee in this House recently, it was made clear to the Government that there was another anomaly in the Bill that must be resolved. One of the Government’s own colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, put it clearly: one of the unintended consequences of the Act is that it has inadvertently been applied to stewards at football grounds and sports events. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made it clear that the Government would look favourably at going out to consultation with a view to bringing forward an order to remedy that matter as well, thus stitching up another little hole in this Act.
I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could indicate whether we shall see yet another order in relation to this Act soon—I hope with regard to protecting stewards at football grounds.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, since the Private Security Industry Act came into force it has spawned 11 commencement orders, four sets of regulations, three other statutory instruments, two repeals and revocations, one exception order and one direction under Section 2(1), so it is not surprising that at that level of complexity both the Home Office and the Security Industry Authority have got themselves into a muddle—like most things that come out of the department. The Security Industry Authority is on permanent answerphone with a very irritating message that refers you to several options on its website, but does not allow you to talk to a human operator; it then cuts you off so that you have to start again from scratch.
Five years after the Bill went through Parliament, the Home Office discovered that private security guards and others working under contract for the prisons, the police, the transport police, the civil nuclear constabulary and harbour and immigration
5 July 2006 : Column 316
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |