Part of Offender Management Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 3:45 pm ar 18 Ionawr 2007.
I will direct my attention to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cheadle. Many of the points that he raised in the discussion on the previous amendment apply to this proposal, too. I assure him that I want to be helpful, but amendment No. 30 is both legislatively and operationally flawed. However, as it is a probing amendment, I hope he will not take that criticism too much to heart.
The purpose of the clause is to deal with issues related to the activities of non-certificated staff in private prisons. The amendment would apply the regulatory framework established by the 2006 Act to everyone who works in a private prison. The 2006 Act was debated in Parliament last year and received Royal Assent on 8 November. Consequently, all issues relating to the safeguarding of vulnerable groups have been considered very recently, and it was not felt necessary to include private prisons in that measure. That is the correct approach and nothing has happened in the interim to change it
The amendment extends significantly beyond the scope of clause 13. It would cover all staff of all grades in private prisons, whereas the clause is intended to apply only to non-PCO grades—PCOs are those officers who have direct day-to-day contact with prisoners. Under section 85 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, PCO grades must be authorised to perform their duties by the PCO certification unit. As part of that process, PCO staff are already subject to rigorous pre-employment checks, which include a requirement to disclose all previous convictions.
Although non-PCO staff do not have the same contact with prisoners and are not subject to the same certification requirements as PCOs, they are cleared by the same unit as part of their pre-employment checks. Any person who wants to work at a private prison receives a basic enhanced police check. In addition, anyone who will be working in a juvenile prison or who will come into contact with children or vulnerable adults also undergoes that CRB check. The pre-employment checks are consistent with those undertaken on equivalent grades in the public sector, where the amendment would not apply. An additional bureaucratic check is not necessary or justified, as existing safeguards on staff suitability are adequate.
The clause already limits the range of custodial duties that a non-PCO grade can perform and submits those tests to parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State will have to specify in an order subject to the negative procedure the activities that a worker may be authorised to carry out. The list in the clause specifically excludes the use of force.
A non-PCO has to be separately authorised at establishment level to carry out any task that is listed in an order. Such an authorisation can be given only by a director, where appropriate, and can be made subject to limitations or conditions. In determining whether an individual should be authorised or whether an authorisation should be limited or made subject to conditions, a director will need to satisfy himself that an individual has an appropriate level of experience and expertise in order to carry out the listed tasks in question, which is an inherent requirement of any such power. When a director makes a decision on the appropriateness of an individual for a particular task, he will have in mind the contractual penalties, including financial penalties, and the damage to reputation that operational failures in private prisons incur.
I trust that what I have said gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he requires. His amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that he will withdraw it.