| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Home Office officials have undertaken a review of the list of offences in Schedules 3 and 5 to ensure that the right offences are included and that they are placed in the right schedule. As part of the review, the Home Office took the opportunity to consult more than 130 organisations, including law enforcement agencies and judicial bodies. The offences to be added by the instrument are those which were specifically recommended by consultees.
During the passage of the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2006—of which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in particular, will be aware—amendments were tabled to include the offences under Sections 48 to 50 of the 2003 Act in Schedule 3. The offences related to the abuse of children through prostitution and pornography. Currently those offences are listed within Schedule 5.
The reason we resisted the amendments at the time was because the Home Office was carrying out a broader review of the schedules. Originally, the decision to place the three offences on Schedule 5 was taken because we believed that those offences, while undoubtedly unpleasant and despicable, were not strictly sexual offences—unlike, say, rape—but rather they could be motivated by a number of factors such as simple greed. However, I recognise that while it may be true that these offences need not necessarily be strictly sexual in their nature, their perpetrators demonstrate, at the very least, a callous disregard for the sexual well-being of children. They pose a threat and so will require the monitoring that being made subject to the register will bring.
I am grateful to noble Lords on the Benches opposite for raising this important issue in the past and for generating debate more generally in the House. I am pleased to say that the instrument proposes that those three offences are moved from Schedule 5 to Schedule 3 to the 2003 Act.
As I have mentioned already, we have had a long consultation with key partners and, as a result, a number of offences are being added to Schedule 5. First, we are adding two offences of child abduction. This is in response to a general concern and also to a particular case in York where an offender was convicted of child abduction. The offence was not listed in Schedule 3, so the offender did not become subject to the notification requirements as a result of his conviction. As the offence was not listed in Schedule 5 either, the judge did not have any power to consider making a sexual offences prevention order, which would have had the effect, among other things, of making the offender subject to the notification requirements for the duration of that order.
We do not feel that it would be appropriate to add the offences of child abduction to Schedule 3. Although they are serious offences, as many cases arise in the context of custodial disputes, those offenders—usually a parent or guardian—may not warrant automatic registration. However, by adding the offences of child abduction to Schedule 5, we are ensuring that judges have sufficient powers to make offenders subject to the register in cases where they deem that the child abduction had a sexual motive.
We have also sought to include a group of offences in Schedule 5 which may be indicative of stalking behaviour and may increase the risk of sexual harm. The offences are harassment, sending indecent articles by post and sending indecent messages. Theft and burglary with intent to steal are also being added to cover stalking behaviour where, for example, a person with a sexual motive steals a woman’s underwear from the washing line or breaks into a home to commit a similar act. The offences of
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC413
The list of offences in Schedule 5 was originally drafted to be consistent with the list of violent offences in Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, we have since formed the view that it is not necessary for these schedules to mirror each other in their entirety as they serve two distinct purposes. That is why we are making the changes to Schedule 5 with the aim of better protecting the public from sexual harm.
I should stress that a conviction or caution for a Schedule 5 offence will not automatically make someone subject to the sex offender register. Taking an example already mentioned, in a case of child abduction where the child was taken in the context of a custody dispute, it is unlikely to be appropriate for the offender to be made subject to a sexual offences prevention order, and consequently the register, unless the court was satisfied, among other things—as it might be if there was in fact a sexual motive—that such an order was necessary for the purposes of protecting the public or any particular members of the public from serious sexual harm from the offender.
The courts already have powers to make offenders subject to sexual offences prevention orders and, as a result, the notification requirements, for a wide range of offences already listed in Schedule 5. By adding the offences mentioned, we are seeking to ensure that all appropriate offences are covered. Attempts and conspiracy to commit offences in Schedules 3 and 5 are equally covered.
Similar offences are being added to Schedules 3 and 5 in respect of Northern Ireland, although Northern Ireland is also adding the offence of riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour under Section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. This is being added because the Police Service of Northern Ireland occasionally uses this provision to prosecute individuals for exposure in addition to the exposure offence under Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We are not adding an equivalent offence for England and Wales and there have been no requests that we do so.
This instrument does not have effect in Scotland. Scotland has a slightly different system from that in England and Wales which fits better with its common law traditions and the approach taken by the Scottish courts. Scotland has no intention to amend its equivalent schedules at the current time.
With the experience of how the Sexual Offences Act 2003 has worked in practice, and having taking on board comments from those involved in its operation, we are keen to ensure that the courts and police have the right and appropriate powers to deal with sex offenders. The draft order aims to do just that. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Amendment of Schedules 3 and 5) Order 2007. 5th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Viscount Bridgeman: We support the making of the order. I am most grateful to the Minister for his very comprehensive explanation.
My noble friend Lady Anelay tabled amendments at the Committee and Report stages of the Police and Justice Bill last year to achieve the objective provided by this order. It goes wider than the provisions of my noble friend’s amendment, but does so in a way that we can support.
My noble friend has asked me to put on record her thanks to the staff in the office of the Minister, Mr Vernon Coaker, for their courtesy in writing to her before Christmas to alert her to the fact that the order would be tabled on 18 December.
Sections 48 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which make provision for the offences of recruiting or controlling a child involved in pornography or prostitution, are not prescribed for the purposes of notification requirements under Part 2 of that Act. These sections are not being used by the police and prosecutors because they do not have the notification that applies to most of, if not all, the other provisions relating to the abuse of children. There is no valid reason why people convicted of such an offence should not be required to notify the police of their details because they are directly involved in the abuse and exploitation of children and need monitoring and risk assessment.
My noble friend explained in Committee on 11 July 2006—at col. 619 of the Official Report—that when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 passed through both Houses we, on this side, had missed that point. Without a departmental team behind us, it is perhaps not too surprising that we did not pick up on this omission. However, as soon as the problem came to light, we resolved to persuade the Government to rectify it. The prime mover of these matters was my honourable friend Sir Paul Beresford, and I pay tribute to his untiring work on these and other related matters.
When we debated these matters last year, the Government persuaded us that we should not press the question to a vote as they were carrying out a review on how the Act was operating, as the Minister has explained in some detail. As a consequence of that review, the Government are bringing this order before the Committee today.
We accept that the order will help to fulfil the policy objectives of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in that it will assist in public protection, the prevention and detection of sexual offences and the monitoring and management of risk posed by sex offenders. Even if there is no wide usage of these powers, it is right that they should be added to the statute book. We are aware of public concern regarding the risk posed by sex offenders, and that risk should be reduced and managed as thoroughly as possible. We support the making of the order.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the order. We did not comment on the amendment moved during the Committee stage of the Police and Justice Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, but we believe that the offences listed in the order are serious enough to warrant notification. We therefore support the order.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We seem to have a comity of view across the Committee, which of course is highly desirable, and I am grateful for that consensus. I am also grateful for the noble Viscount’s gracious remarks. The Government were very pleased with the outcome after the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, tabled her amendment. Clearly, it has sparked further consideration and I think that we now have something which not only is workable but covers all bases. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, on this issue.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007.
The noble Baroness said: I am glad to introduce this order, which provides for a complete overhaul of the legislation regulating pharmacists and extends statutory regulation to pharmacy technicians for the first time. This is an order about patient safety and public protection. It fits within the Government’s programme to modernise the way that health professions are regulated. In a number of important respects, it follows the model used for dentists, nurses, opticians and other health professionals. Our work is making regulation more responsive to patients’ needs and better at protecting them.
The order will improve the way in which the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain protects patients by: making clearer the society’s responsibilities in protecting the public and its accountability in doing so; reforming the society’s registration process, bringing pharmacy technicians in England and Wales into statutory regulation for the first time; updating provisions for education and training, and introducing statutory requirements for continuing professional development; supporting an emphasis on fitness-to-practise issues; reforming the society’s statutory committee structure; and making the necessary transitional arrangements from the current system.
Pharmacists play a vital part in the provision of healthcare services. They have long been involved in supplying medicines and advising people on their use. However, the practice of pharmacy is entering a new era—one where direct clinical care of patients will become core business. For example, no longer is the prescribing of medicines just the domain of doctors, dentists and nurses. Since 2003, there have been
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC416
The demand for clinical services from pharmacists continues to grow. In England, we will be introducing pharmacists with a special interest who, when suitably accredited, will specialise in a particular clinical area, just like GPs with a special interest. Pharmacists will also continue to play a huge part in educating, advising and supporting other healthcare professionals, including doctors and non-medical prescribers, on the prescription, supply and administration of medicines. Pharmacy technicians are also starting to provide more direct clinical care of patients. This trend is likely to continue as health reforms progress, with more flexible use of staff properly trained to undertake roles safely to increase access to medicines and care.
There is clearly great scope for pharmacists to do harm if they do not perform properly. That is why pharmacy was the earliest healthcare profession to be statutorily regulated. The latest legislation to do this was the Pharmacy Act 1954. That has served the profession well but is now out of date and limited in its scope compared with that of other health profession regulators. We wish to ensure that those who use the services of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians benefit from the same safeguards as those recently introduced for doctors, nurses, allied health professions, opticians and dentists.
The main provisions to bring pharmacist regulation in line with other professions are the requirement to undergo continuing professional development so that registrants keep their knowledge, skills and aptitudes up to date as long as they continue practising, and a wider range of powers and sanctions relating to investigating and dealing with allegations of impaired fitness to practise. These include impairment through ill health as well as performance and conduct, and impairment related to criminal convictions. New sanctions include the ability to suspend registrants when necessary to protect the public while their fitness to practise is being investigated and adjudicated, and the ability to restrict the practice of those unfit practitioners to areas in which they are safe to practise by attaching conditions to their registration; new powers enabling the society to disclose fitness-to-practise information where that is in the public interest, and to require others to disclose information to it about fitness-to-practise matters; a new duty to co-operate with other public authorities and bodies with an interest in pharmacy matters; and new powers to require practising registrants to be covered by an adequate and appropriate indemnity arrangement, although the implementation of this provision will be delayed while we consider further, in conjunction with the other regulatory bodies, the implications of a court judgment about indemnity arrangements that was handed down over the summer.
This order also contains some provisions specific to the world of pharmacy. The Government want to take this opportunity to extend statutory regulation to pharmacy technicians, in recognition of how their role has developed. They now play a major part in dispensing medicines and other areas of pharmacy practice which used to be the preserve of pharmacists. For example, in some hospitals pharmacy technicians will take a medication history of newly admitted patients. It is entirely right that those who use the service they provide should be protected by safeguards appropriate to their level of skill, knowledge and responsibility.
The provisions relating to the regulation of pharmacy technicians relate only to England and Wales. This is because of the separate powers of the Scottish Parliament to enact its own legislation in respect of devolved healthcare professions, which are those which were not subject to statutory regulation at the time of the Scotland Act 1998. However, we have agreed in principle with the Minister for Health in Scotland that we will introduce an amending order later this year, which will need to be approved by both the United Kingdom and the Scottish Parliaments, which will extend the scope of this current order to encompass Scottish pharmacy technicians. In order to make sure that the regulation of this profession happens consistently across Great Britain, we do not propose to commence the provisions of this order which relate to the regulation of pharmacy technicians until the amendments to its scope are in place.
Another provision peculiar to these professions is the introduction of a division of the regulator’s registers to distinguish between the vast majority of registrants who are in practice and the very few who do not actively practise, such as those who have retired or are on a career break, or who, although they have qualified as pharmacists, are working in fields where they do not practise as a pharmacist or pharmacy technician. For these people it will not be practical or relevant to keep up with continuing professional development or to be covered by indemnity insurance arrangements. I am satisfied that the definition contained in the order of what is meant by “practising” is broad enough to ensure that anyone whose work may have either a direct or an indirect impact on those using pharmacy services will be required to meet the requirements for practising registrants. This includes those working in academic research, management, journalism and industry who give advice on pharmacy matters and hold themselves out to be pharmacists or pharmacy technicians. The order contains provisions in the form of offences and the provision of guidance which will support this.
Members will appreciate that a piece of legislation of this size and scope has been in production for some time. It has been suggested that issues like the consideration of this order to amend the Pharmacy Act would be better held back until after the release of the findings of the Chief Medical Officer’s review of medical regulation and the parallel review of non-medical regulation in the light of the fifth report of the Shipman inquiry. However, the contents of this order are essentially an overhaul of the regulation of
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC418
This order has been well researched, and has found broad favour and support from those who are most affected by it. It has been subject to a full publication and public consultation as required by the Health Act 1999, under which the order is made. A copy of the report on the consultation is available on the Department of Health website. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007. 5th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Baroness Royall of Blaisdon.)
Lord McColl of Dulwich: The Committee will be grateful to the Minister for introducing this order so succinctly and clearly. It is an order which we broadly welcome. As she said, it serves to bring up to date the rules governing the regulation of pharmacists in Great Britain and, for the first time, to put in place arrangements to regulate pharmacy technicians in England and Wales under the supervision of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
The order has been the subject of extensive consultation within the pharmacy profession and outside it. As regards the principal provisions in it, we are satisfied that it reflects the society’s policy—which we very definitely share—to strengthen and clarify its powers to protect and promote the health and safety of the general public. In so doing, the order completely replaces the Pharmacy Act 1954.
I am pleased that there has been no question of diluting the role or function of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society as the body responsible for regulating the profession. We have said many times how strongly we support the concept of professional self-regulation, and in the case of pharmacists we see self-regulation, as set out here, encompassing the complete spectrum of regulatory activity, from registration to the setting of standards, and from education, training and continuing professional development to disciplinary procedures. The order is entirely consistent with the provisions contained within the society’s Royal Charter, and builds usefully upon them.
As the Minister well knows, much thought has recently been devoted, under the Donaldson and Foster reviews, to the whole area of professional regulation in medicine and allied professions. We do not yet know the outcome of those reviews. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me that, whatever the outcome in relation to other professional disciplines, she does not envisage substantial changes being necessary to the content of this order. Nothing, of course, can remain set in stone for ever, but I hope that after the very thorough work
24 Jan 2007 : Column GC419
Perhaps the most obvious way in which the new rules represent an improvement over the old ones is in respect of fitness-to-practise procedures. As we have seen with doctors, dentists and other professions, it is right for the relevant regulatory body to have at its disposal a menu of options—in this instance, not only the power to strike a pharmacist off the register but also powers to suspend a pharmacist or to place conditions on his registration, as the Minister has indicated. Without such powers the public could be at risk, so we welcome these new provisions.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |