---

Lord Glentoran: For clarification, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there are still parts of Northern Ireland in which the probation officer system cannot work? Does he understand that the amendments must relate to a fear of what substitution might be allowed in that regard?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand what the noble Lord says—he said it with his customary moderation and patience. My counter to that argument is that, if one desires a certain degree of flexibility—if the probation officer is not appropriate or if the social worker is not appropriate, or if neither is available—the court has the opportunity to obtain a written report from the organisations to which I referred. I do not agree that probation officers are not able to carry out their work, but that may be a matter of dispute. I cannot pretend that my knowledge is greater on the ground than that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: The noble and learned Lord said that it is open to the court to call for reports from any of the several organisations that he mentioned. Why, therefore, can that not be the normal rule? Why does the Secretary of State have to intervene from on high in the very basic detail of a very complex system?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I mis-expressed myself or the noble Baroness uncharacteristically misunderstood me. Paragraph (4) states:

"Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain and consider a written report".

That is, the obligation in all cases, prior to making the order, is to obtain and consider the written report. The categories of persons from whom that written report can come are,

"a probation officer . . . a social worker . . . or . . . such other person as the Secretary of State my designate".

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH132

My point was that a written report has to be obtained and that report has to be considered; the categories would include the opportunity for the Secretary of State to designate persons, as is set out in sub-paragraph (c).

Lord Tebbit: I am a little uncertain about the meaning of the provision. Paragraph (4), to which the noble and learned Lord referred, says the court must,

"obtain and consider a . . . report by . . . such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".

Is that a power for the Secretary of State to designate other persons in general in a way in which courts may take into account—I see that there are some nods from Members of the Committee—or does it mean that the Secretary of State thought, in relation to a particular case, that there should be a report from another person?

Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord accept that a problem arises because those people are not designated in the Bill, for understandable reasons? We do not know who they will be, although the noble and learned Lord gave some very good and reasonable examples. On the other hand, he refuses at every stage to accept a bar in relation to the appointment of people who are tainted with terrorism. If he could allow us to include a barrier against the appointment of tainted persons, that would ease our minds.

[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.44 to 4.54 p.m.]

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful for the illustration given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and I quite see that those are entirely respectable organisations with very good records which a court might usefully consider. However, under paragraph (4), the court must obtain and consider "a written report"—only one—which may be by a probation officer, a social worker of the appropriate authority or such other person as the Secretary of State may designate. A great many of us would be more at ease with this if there were an obligation to obtain and consider a report from either a probation officer or a social worker and then an option to obtain a further report from,

"such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".

I should like a requirement to obtain and consider a report from either a probation officer or a social worker. If the Secretary of State is to be able to designate somebody else, let that be an add-on.

Lord Hylton: Very briefly, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I can imagine a case coming up of perhaps a first offender who is not already known to a probation officer or a social worker but who may be known to a third party and the court will know that that third party exists. Therefore, I would like it to be within the discretion of the court to get the report or other information that it needs from the third person.

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH133

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall deal with the questions that were put by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He is quite right; there was vigorous nodding in assent to his first proposition—it is the former not the latter.

Bodies rather than individuals will be designated under the provision for,

"such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".

In other words, "person" is used in the sense of a corporate person—an organisation such as NISPCC or NIACRO.

The noble Lord also asked whether we could avoid tainted individuals. We have to trust these organisations to employ appropriate staff. The same applies to social services, probation officers and any local authority. I hope that that is of assistance.

Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Could it be made clear on the face of the Bill that "persons" is being used in that sense of a corporate body?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: May I give some consideration to that? I do not want to accept a drafting amendment that might have adverse consequences on a complicated, well thought-out Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy and I undertake to put thought to the issue with officials before we come back on Report. If I am able to write to the noble Lord and to all Members of the Committee in advance, I shall do so.

Viscount Brookeborough: That still does not completely clear up the Secretary of State side. If, as the noble and learned Lord says, the court might wish to bring in someone else, why can we not simply specify such a person as the court may deem suitable for the case? I do not understand the problem. The noble and learned Lord has just said that they will be the people who do it, so why do we not say so?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is a misunderstanding here. Any court at any time can, of its own volition, call for a report from anyone. The obligation here is that they must not make the reparation order without the consideration of a written report from one of these three designated categories. However, that does not prevent any court at any time—certainly when dealing with children and young persons—from applying of its own volition for a report. That does not need to be set out in the Bill; it is a commonplace of the administration of criminal justice, in my experience.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, wondered whether we might substitute the word "and" for "or". That would restrict flexibility. We want the court to have the opportunity to come to its judicial conclusion as to which body the written report should come from—the probation officer, the social worker or one of the designated categories.

That should deal with the questions that have been put to me.

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH134

5 p.m.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he has made one dangerous presumption, which is that, in the organisations or the types of organisation that he has listed, there will not be people who will be undesirable for the purpose of making an assessment in the case of a child involved in a criminal act. At every level of society in Northern Ireland—the noble and learned Lord will recognise this—there is pressure from the Northern Ireland Office to bring in those who have, in their former lives, been terrorists, been prisoners and been involved in all sorts of terrorism and criminality.

There may be good reason for that; I have mixed feelings. I believe that every dog should have his day and am happy, if there is genuine remorse, to see people absorbed back into society. However, it is too early to give them this type of responsibility. There may be people who have got through the net but who are not yet qualified, whether that is because of a lack of remorse, because they are of doubtful use to society or because they are not fully committed to a lawful society. It is too early to bring them in to make judgments, as could happen here. I made the point earlier, and I make it again: the Secretary of State has that responsibility, but it will be a delegated responsibility, and he will not learn about the problems until things go wrong.

I do not want to be tedious, but I will illustrate further what I mean. One might expect that, in the two areas in which we have restorative justice pilot schemes, society as a whole would see the knock-on effects, whatever good the system might do for the victim or however it may benefit the offender. That is not happening in, for example, the Short Strand, which is an area of the Mountpottinger district. It is certainly not happening in Ballymena, which is becoming Northern Ireland's drugs capital. I say that at the risk of offending my friends from Ballymena, particularly those who play rugby. However, there is nothing to indicate the success of restorative justice during this transitional period in Northern Ireland.

---