---

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
18 Before Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"POWERS OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS EXECUTING WARRANTS
(1) After section 125B of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) insert—
"125BA POWERS OF PERSONS AUTHORISED UNDER SECTION 125AOR125B
Schedule 4A to this Act, which confers powers on persons authorised under section 125A or 125B for the purpose of executing warrants for the enforcement of fines and other orders, shall have effect."
(2) After Schedule 4 to that Act insert the Schedule set out in Schedule (Powers of authorised officers executing warrants) to this Act."
19 Before Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"DISCLOSURE ORDERS FOR PURPOSE OF EXECUTING WARRANTS
After section 125C of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43) insert—
"125CA POWER TO MAKE DISCLOSURE ORDER
(1) A magistrates' court may make a disclosure order if satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of executing a warrant to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies to a warrant of arrest, commitment, detention or distress issued by a justice of the peace in connection with the enforcement of a fine or other order imposed or made on conviction.
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 239
 

(3) A disclosure order is an order requiring the person to whom it is directed to supply the designated officer for the court with any of the following information about the person to whom the warrant relates—
(a) his name, date of birth or national insurance number;
(b) his address (or any of his addresses).
(4) A disclosure order may be made only on the application of a person entitled to execute the warrant.
(5) This section applies to the Crown as it applies to other persons.
125CB USE OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED UNDER DISCLOSURE ORDER
(1) Information supplied to a person under a disclosure order, or under this subsection, may be supplied by him to—
(a) the applicant for the order or any other person entitled to execute the warrant concerned;
(b) any employee of a body or person who, for the purposes of section 125B above, is an approved enforcement agency in relation to the warrant;
(c) any justices' clerk or other person appointed under section 2(1) of the Courts Act 2003.
(2) A person who intentionally or recklessly—
(a) discloses information supplied under a disclosure order otherwise than as permitted by subsection (1) above, or
(b) uses information so supplied otherwise than for the purpose of facilitating the execution of the warrant concerned,
commits an offence.
(3) But it is not an offence under subsection (2) above—
(a) to disclose any information in accordance with any enactment or order of a court or for the purposes of any proceedings before a court; or
(b) to disclose any information which has previously been lawfully disclosed to the public.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) above is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
(5) In this section "disclosure order" has the meaning given by section 125CA(3) above.""
20 Before Clause 19, insert the following new clause—
"PROCEDURE ON BREACH OF COMMUNITY PENALTY ETC
Schedule (Procedure on breach of community penalty etc) (procedure on breach of community penalty etc) has effect."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 20.

We now move on to a number of measures introduced at Commons Standing Committee and Report stage concerning the enforcement of fines, warrants where an offender has breached a community penalty and warrants issued when there has been a failure to appear in front of the court when summoned. These new measures were introduced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, Christopher Leslie, as part of a large package of improvements the Government are currently taking forward to improve the overall
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 240
 
enforcement of criminal penalties and fail to appear warrants. These powers will relate only to criminal warrants.

One of the Government's top priorities within the criminal justice system is to increase the effective enforcement of criminal penalties and pre-conviction warrants. For example, through the review carried out by my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles, the criminal justice system seeks to increase the use of fines. However, if we are to do that and be successful we must first ensure that the fine is seen by the judiciary and the public as being a credible form of punishment. To enable that to happen the effective enforcement of fines is essential.

The successful enforcement of community penalty breach warrants and fail to appear warrants is equally crucial to improve the efficiency of the courts and the overall criminal justice system. These additional measures are needed to tackle offenders who wilfully refuse to comply with the orders of the courts.

Currently only about 30 per cent of distress warrants and 43 per cent of community penalty breach warrants are executed successfully. It is estimated that there are currently around 70,000 outstanding fail to appear warrants. I doubt whether any noble Lord would argue that improved enforcement in these areas is something that we should not implement immediately. That is why these measures have been introduced in the Bill. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill presented the earliest opportunity to see these new measures enacted. That is the background to why these measures appear before your Lordships' House today.

Therefore, the Government have introduced Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20, 62 and 63 to the Bill. Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 amend the Long Title. These measures will give civilian enforcement officers (CEOs) and approved enforcement agencies (AEAs) the powers they need to improve the enforcement of fines, community penalty breach warrants, and the execution of fail to appear warrants.

By way of background I should explain that CEOs are employed directly by the courts or the police and execute warrants ordered by the court in relation to offenders who wilfully default on their penalties or refuse to attend court when summonsed. AEAs perform a similar contracted service in those areas where the courts have entered into partnership with other agencies to underpin effective enforcement of the orders of the courts. In carrying out their duties, both CEOs and AEAs are expected to adhere to the same standards of conduct. AEAs and the officers they employ must satisfy the conditions set out in the Approved Enforcement Agencies Regulations 2000. The national standards are available on the Department for Constitutional Affairs website, but, for example, those regulations specify that no officer employed by an AEA could have a criminal conviction punishable by imprisonment or a conviction for dishonesty or violence. For example, when employing CEOs in Devon and Cornwall, criminal background
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 241
 
checks are carried out on the individuals as well as in-house checks to ensure that there are no outstanding warrants.

CEOs and AEAs have varying backgrounds; they include former police officers and others with experience of enforcement activities and debt management. I can assure the House that both sets of officers will receive thorough training in the execution of warrants, human rights and health and safety before they can operate—it will relate to both their existing powers and the proposed ones.

To that end, we want civilian enforcement officers and approved enforcement agents to have the power to enter and search premises to find an offender in order to execute a warrant of arrest, commitment or detention. This power can also be used in executing a warrant of distress, where he or she is in default in paying a sum, as a result of conviction. In all the above cases, the powers can be used only where the officer has reasonable suspicion that the offender who is the subject of the warrant is present. We also want them to have the power to search an offender for dangerous articles, such as hypodermic needles or knives, and items that the offender may use to facilitate an escape from lawful custody, and also the power to use reasonable force in exercising the powers that I have already outlined.

The new powers will not only lead to the more effective enforcement of fines, community penalties and "fail to appear" warrants but will also provide health and safety benefits for civil enforcement officers employed by both the courts and the police, and staff deployed by approved enforcement agencies. The officers involved in executing those warrants will, when an offender is deemed high risk, rely on police support. Those officers will receive detailed guidance and training before they can exercise the powers. We will involve key stakeholders, such as staff representative bodies, in the development of that provision. The main cost of implementation of those policies will be in the training.

I can assure noble Lords that the powers contain safeguards in that the power of entry can be used only to the extent that it is "reasonably required", a search can be conducted only on "reasonable grounds", and any force must be "reasonable" and "necessary". Should a civilian enforcement officer or member of an AEA exceed those limitations, the acts would no longer be lawful. The legal consequences will depend on what has been done, but a grievance can be pursued through the Magistrates' Courts Committee, through the AEAs' own complaints procedures, which they must have, or through legal redress in the criminal or civil courts, depending on the charge. We anticipate that powers of entry and search will be used only at the end of the process when necessary to enforce a warrant.

Secondly, we have also given magistrates' courts a new power to request specified information on offenders from organisations in the public and private sectors; for example, a financial institution or local authority. The information requested by the courts is
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 242
 
intended to help trace offenders whose whereabouts have become unknown. At present, courts do not have access to such data should the organisations involved be unwilling to co-operate. The measure is for use only in assisting the execution of criminal warrants, and the power will be available only to the courts.

Currently, in instances where the courts have been provided with poor-quality information, such as false or multiple addresses, or where information is out of date, they are severely hampered in the effective enforcement of fines and community-penalty breach warrants. The new power will help the courts by allowing them to require organisations to provide data where it is thought that more up-to-date information is held about a hard-to-trace offender. The intention is that this power will be used only on a case-by-case basis in helping the courts determine the location of an untraceable offender. All powers comply with the current data protection legislation. As this is a change to the current system that will have an effect on employers, albeit a relatively small number, we have consulted employers' representatives about the new power and its possible impact on business. They are happy that it places no significant burdens on them.

Thirdly, we are also putting in place measures that will allow proceedings for breach of a community penalty to be commenced and heard by a magistrates' court other than the court responsible for overseeing the community penalty. Magistrates' courts are restricted in respect of which court can enforce a community penalty in the case of non-compliance by the offender. Restrictions vary according to the type of sentence, but in practice they tend to mean that only the court that passes sentence can issue a warrant or summons to secure the attendance of an offender who is in breach. The warrant or summons must specify that the offender appears before that court.

If the offender moves away from the area, it will create problems for enforcement. Often, CEOs and AEAs have to travel long distances to execute a warrant. Although the CEOs have national jurisdiction, the execution of a warrant in another court area is often inefficient and impractical. The problems are compounded when the offender cannot be found at the address on the warrant.

Giving magistrates the power will not only enable the more effective and efficient enforcement of community penalty breach warrants but will lead to the more effective and efficient use of civil enforcement officers and approved enforcement agencies by the courts. It is worth saying that, during 2002-03, only 29 per cent of the warrants were executed within the target period. That has improved to 43 per cent, but the aim is a 75 per cent enforcement rate within the target period. In order to achieve that, the court will have received all the relevant paperwork before the proceedings take place.

As I noted at the beginning of my speech this evening, the effective enforcement of criminal penalties and "failed to appear" warrants by magistrates' courts and the police is a priority for the Government and sits at the heart of the criminal justice
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 243
 
system. Progress is being made, but we must do more to build on it and sustain the improved performance. These measures will help to do that. I can also confirm to noble Lords that, on the implementation of the powers, we will evaluate the effectiveness of the powers themselves and of the impact of the policy.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 to 20.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

---