---

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am advised by the Deputy Speaker that it would not be appropriate for me to speak to Amendment No. 62 in this group, although it is grouped with these amendments. There are more ways than one of skinning a cat—I love cats, so I would not do that. I shall speak briefly to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, and I shall not move Amendment No. 62A when we reach it.

Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, invited my noble friend Lord Bridgeman and me to a meeting to discuss this group of amendments. I am grateful to her. The way in which she presented the Government's position means that she has answered almost just about all the questions that I was going to ask her today.

It is a new batch of provisions. The noble Baroness will not be too surprised—I told her yesterday that I would do it—if I tease her a little about dropping them into the Bill with the parachute offered to the DCA by the Home Office. When the provisions were introduced in another place on 6 July, the Minister's colleague Mr Leslie said:

"we saw an opportunity to make what I regard as vital changes to the law".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 6/7/04; col. 358.]

One could say that the changes were so vital that no one had mentioned them until then, but, never mind, I see the reason behind the proposals. As a hard-bitten old magistrate, I was frustrated at the difficulty of serving warrants and getting effective fine enforcement in particular cases.

The proposal will take enforcement further within the constraints that the Minister set out. There will be proper training and guidance. There has been consultation with employers, and there will be safeguards for people caught up in the process. When a warrant is executed, there may be third parties around, particularly in a house in multiple occupation, who may find themselves injured or inconvenienced. There must be some method of redress for them. The noble Baroness has outlined it today.

I am content with the way in which the noble Baroness has presented the information, particularly the information that she gave about the dividing line between the occasions on which a civilian should take action and the occasions on which they can take action only with the police or when the police would take that action. The Government are aware that we are concerned about the growing tendency on the part of the Government to use civilians instead of police
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 244
 
officers. However, in this regard, the Government have drawn the right dividing line between their functions.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for having a meeting with my noble friend Lady Walmsley and me to explain these provisions. Amendment No. 63, which introduces the procedure on breach of community penalties and so on, is to be welcomed. It is a very good idea that a person does not have to be taken half way across the country if he is in breach of a community penalty.

Providing that there is a proper transfer of information between one court and another, so that there is no sentencing for breach of a community penalty in ignorance of what has happened in the previous proceedings, that is fine. The noble Baroness was good enough to give us that assurance yesterday and to repeat it in her remarks today. Precisely how that is done, whether by transfer of the file or by some magical IT, for which she is also responsible, is something that we will be very interested to investigate.

On the issue of disclosure orders, we are concerned, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with the increased use of civilian enforcement agencies. That is a growth industry. I am not very happy with it. I hope that it is not possible for an approved enforcement agency to do private work alongside public work, where the temptation to use information, for example, obtained by a disclosure order, would be given to private clients of the same organisation. I know that it would be an offence. I hope that, in accordance with the provisions set out here, it is made absolutely plain in contracts with that agency and in directions that are given to the court that the purpose of the disclosure order is limited to executing a warrant against an individual and that the information thus obtained is private.

I hope to say a little more on Amendment No. 62 if the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, expands on Amendment No. 62A. While I indicated unease at the use of civilian enforcement officers and, more particularly, enforcement agencies, I have a serious objection to the use of force when doing the various things that new Schedule 4A would allow: in particular, the searching of arrested persons by force; the entry to levy distress by force; and the executing of warrants of arrest with the use of force.

In some circumstances, I suppose, a warrant of arrest can attract the use of force. But the searching of individuals by force, left to a civilian agency, is a new departure in this country. It was a matter that was the subject of protest by my colleague Mr David Heath when the matter first came before the other place in July. I repeat the concerns that were set out then.

As regards Amendment No. 62A, I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is shaking her head and we will not be discussing it. I am sorry that she will not pursue the matter a little further.

Again, I hope that guidelines will be sent out to the organisations concerned that it will be contractually part of their responsibilities to ensure that only
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 245
 
reasonable force is used and that there is a review of contracts too. That is the sort of thing that bedevils the privately run prison service at the present time.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
21 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
"VICTIMS OF PERSONS SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT OR DETENTION
(1) This section applies if—
(a) a court convicts a person ("the offender") of a sexual or violent offence, and
(b) a relevant sentence is imposed on him in respect of the offence.
(2) But section (Victims of persons subject to hospital direction and limitation direction) applies (instead of this section) if a hospital direction and a limitation direction are given in relation to the offender.
(3) The local probation board for the area in which the sentence is imposed must take all reasonable steps to ascertain whether a person who appears to the board to be the victim of the offence or to act for the victim of the offence wishes—
(a) to make representations about the matters specified in subsection (4);
(b) to receive the information specified in subsection (5).
(4) The matters are—
(a) whether the offender should be subject to any licence conditions or supervision requirements in the event of his release;
(b) if so, what licence conditions or supervision requirements.
(5) The information is information about any licence conditions or supervision requirements to which the offender is to be subject in the event of his release.
(6) If a person whose wishes have been ascertained under subsection (3) makes representations to the local probation board mentioned in that subsection or the relevant local probation board about a matter specified in subsection (4), the relevant local probation board must forward those representations to the persons responsible for determining the matter.
(7) If a local probation board has ascertained under subsection (3) that a person wishes to receive the information specified in subsection (5), the relevant local probation board must take all reasonable steps—
(a) to inform the person whether or not the offender is to be subject to any licence conditions or supervision requirements in the event of his release,
(b) if he is, to provide the person with details of any licence conditions or supervision requirements which relate to contact with the victim or his family, and
(c) to provide the person with such other information as the relevant local probation board considers appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
(8) The relevant local probation board is—
(a) in a case where the offender is to be supervised on release by an officer of a local probation board, that local probation board;
(b) in any other case, the local probation board for the area in which the prison or other place in which the offender is detained is situated."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. These amendments seek to achieve a simple aim: that victims of serious sexual or violent offending should have rights to information about the release of the offender, whether the offender
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 246
 
has received a prison sentence or has been dealt with under mental health legislation. Noble Lords will know that that is an issue that Jayne Zito and the Zito Trust have spent a considerable amount of time on. I pay tribute to the work that she and the trust have done and the way in which they have campaigned so hard and so long for this change.

The combined effect of the amendments will be that when the court sentences for a serious sexual or violent offence, the local probation board acquires a duty to identify the victim of the offence. If the victim wishes, they are to be kept informed about decisions regarding the offender's release. They have the right to make representations about measures to be taken for their protection and to be informed about those measures.

The duty already exists under Section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 where the offender receives a prison sentence. But these provisions will extend it to cases where the offender is dealt with under mental health legislation; whether under a prison sentence or not. The provisions consolidate Section 69 of the 2000 Act with the new provision covering the three Mental Health Act 1983 powers under which such offenders may be detained.

I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. I should say with respect that these amendments would have little or no practical effect on the provisions as drafted. The amendments to lines 11 and 31 to remove the reference to "all" reasonable steps would have the effect of weakening only slightly the requirement on probation boards to identify a victim who wished to be informed or to make representations. We wish to retain the existing wording which conveys a high level of responsibility and is indicative of our commitment to keeping victims informed wherever they wish it and when it is practicable. I should point out that in the victims' panel which I chair, victims have constantly pointed out that they want the opportunity to be consulted and kept informed, if they indicate that that is really what they want. That is a strong desire that was expressed by all members of the advisory panel.

For the purposes of the line 12 amendment, a person need only appear to the board to act for the victims. So a person "appointed to act for the victim" would be included. I have taken a number of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to be probing in nature to make sure that we are including those people whom she would wish us to include.

In relation to the line 25 amendment, under the existing arrangements, which are to be maintained, victim liaison officers contact the victim about two months before the relevant decision. If the victim has not made representations in time for the decision process, it is a reasonable inference that they do not wish to do so. In any event, if a time period on making representations were to be provided for in legislation, it would need to be more precisely specified than just being within a "reasonable time limit". We consider that the current arrangements provide the appropriate degree of flexibility.
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 247
 

On the proposal to require the information to be conveyed "in writing", victims contacted by victim liaison officers do not always want information in writing, but prefer simply to have a meeting or sometimes a telephone call. We think that it is better to preserve flexibility to act in accordance with victims' wishes.

However, I understand the reason for these amendments. It is right that we ensure that these provisions are correct and that we have approached this with the appropriate level of sensitivity to meet the needs of victims in this rather delicate and difficult area.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

---