---

Baroness Anelay of St Johns rose to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 21A,

21A Line 11, leave out "all"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 21A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 21B to 21G. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. These amendments are probing in nature in order to try to flesh out some of the issues raised by the Government's new clauses. In that spirit, I have purposely tabled amendments only to the first relevant clause and certainly did not replicate them for the later clauses. I did not want to trouble the Printed Paper Office with the need to print that lot.

I recognise that the provisions before us have the support of mental health organisations. However, I have questions about the kind of consultation that is to take place with victims on these matters. What is the practicality surrounding the process, not only for the victim but also for the Probation Service which has to carry out these consultations? What happens when an offender is released but then moves from one area to another? Will the victim be advised of that change of residence?

What estimate have the Government made of the resource implications for the Probation Service, especially as it has now been subsumed within NOMS? The Minister will be aware from what has been said in this House—particularly at Question Time—about the concern of noble Lords with regard to the funding of the Probation Service and the financial challenges that it faces, especially in London where there is a shortage of professionals in post.

The noble Baroness referred to the fact that Amendment No. 21A would remove the word "all" from the phrase "take all reasonable steps". She said that it would not make much difference. I accept that. I am merely intrigued by the drafting simply because I have not seen it used before by the Government. It may be that it was in statutes passed before I began my two-and-a-half years in this job, but it seems to tie down the Probation Service to a particularly rigorous procedure. That is to be welcomed in that one wants to give the victim every opportunity to be consulted and
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 248
 
to give his views but it also imposes a particular rigour on the Probation Service. What happens if someone challenges the Probation Service and says, "You did not take all reasonable steps. These are the reasonable steps that you did not take"? One does not want the system to be undermined by a lack of faith in it, either from the Probation Service side or the victim's side.

The noble Baroness referred to Amendment No. 21B. I have simply redrafted the subsection so that the duty is to consult the person who appears to be the victim of the offence or to consult a person who appears to have been appointed to act for the victim. The amendment seeks to elicit whether it is right that someone should pop up and say, "I am acting on behalf of Mr or Mrs A and therefore you should consult me because I am the one who is acting in his or her best interests". Should there not be some kind of proof that that person has been appointed either by Mr or Mrs A, or by someone legally acting on his or her behalf, to be involved in the consultation process?

I know many pressure groups and individuals act very responsibly in taking up cases, but very sensitive information is involved in this particular process and one must be wary that one does not go too wide in opening out the availability of consultation.

The noble Baroness also referred to Amendment No. 21E, which requires the information to be given in writing. There again, the amendment seeks merely to raise the question of what reasonable steps the Probation Service has to take to get the information to someone and how long the response period should be. There could be victims who feel so scarred by the experience of what they have been through that they simply will not reply. It is not because they are being obstructive to the system or difficult intentionally but because they cannot face the thought of having any contact with an organisation which is trying to act on behalf of the person being released, even though the Probation Service has contacted the victim in his or her own best interests. It is a question of how long should be the time lag before the Probation Service says, "We have done everything we can; we have tried to contact the victim; now we are going to get on with it even though we have not heard back from him or her".

As was the case when I started the day a very long while ago, I shall move this amendment in the expectation that it will shortly be withdrawn and that those grouped with it will not be pressed.

Moved, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 21A.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, while we do not oppose the intent of the Commons amendment we have one concern upon which the Minister may be able to shed some light. When this issue was debated in another place, my honourable friend the Member for Somerton and Frome asked the Minister whether there would be any restrictions on the victim's use of the information, but the Minister, Paul Goggins, was unable to give him a definite answer on that occasion. I wonder whether the Minister can do so tonight.
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 249
 

The problem is that in some circumstances, the victim may wish to go to the local media with the information that a person who has caused him or his family a great deal of grief is about to be released into the community and may go back to live in the same vicinity. This could pose difficulties for the rehabilitation of that ex-offender and therefore be highly undesirable to all of us who wish all ex-offenders to be resettled in the community and living a positive life. It may even cause unnecessary anxiety to residents in the neighbourhood and/or lead to victimisation of the ex-offender. All those are highly undesirable consequences.

There are also questions of how the information can or should be shared with Victim Support, GPs or anybody who might want to give counselling to the victim. Since Mr Goggins was unable to give my honourable friend a definite answer in another place, I invite the Minister to clarify the situation for your Lordships this evening.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I very much understand why the noble Baroness raises this issue. The whole point of the amendments is to give victims of those who are mentally disordered similar rights with regard to information to those who are subject to the ordinary defendant.

What has really changed—and it is important that this is recognised—is that we have now set up witness and victims care units in the way in which the whole process of prosecutions will go. We hope that very soon there will be such a unit it all the 42 areas of local criminal justice boards with which we deal.

We hope that from the moment someone becomes a victim, there will be a proper assessment of what their needs are to get them through the process of the trial and an assessment of their long-term needs for help and assistance thereafter. During that time, we hope, an identified person will assist the victim right the way through. That is going to be available, and was available before these provisions for all those who were not subject to a disordered offender's offences. We are trying to bring all victims within the same category so that they all have similar rights.

It is absolutely fundamental that we listen to victims. The Probation Service will be responsible for finding out the way in which the victim may best want to receive information, who their contact points are or may be, and get some sort of confirmation on how that will be managed. We are producing good practice guides; the victims and witnesses unit in the Home Office is producing a tool kit which will go live and will, we hope, help local criminal justice boards to put in place the sorts of provisions that they will need to make sure that these things are implemented appropriately.

The provisions will mean that for the first time, victims of serious sexual or violent offenders will have the right to be kept informed. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about what happens to the information, because some of it is indeed confidential. Sharing information with victims must balance the
 
2 Nov 2004 : Column 250
 
legitimate needs of the victim to know what is in place, to address their legitimate fears, and the equally legitimate need to respect the medical confidentiality of the patient and avoid harming their chances of successful rehabilitation.

The decision must be case-specific. The decision one makes in one case may not be the sort of case one wants to make in another. That is why, where the victim has expressed a wish to make representations, we have restricted the information which the probation board must convey to what is needed to enable representations. In addition, where the victim has expressed a wish to receive information about conditions of discharge, we have restricted the information which the probation board must convey to the victim only to details of any conditions which relate to contact with the victim or his or her family. We have left to the board's discretion what additional information it may be able to give to the victim, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case. We would not expect victims to be given details of the offender's address because offenders also have rights to confidentiality.

There is also the possibility of seeking an injunction against disclosure by the media if appropriate and necessary in the circumstances, in particular for the purposes of protecting the patient. However, the board will have the responsibility for deciding, to take up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about who is deemed appropriate to act on behalf of the patient. This measure has been so longed for—and Jayne Zito and others have spoken very passionately about the matter; there has been a real sense of injustice—because we have had two tiers of victims. One gets one sort of help, support and information if the perpetrator is compos mentis and has all their mental faculties and a totally different set if he does not. We listened to that and to the pain that has caused many families. We hope that these provisions will help to redress that balance.

We understand the concern that has been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in relation to that balance. Similarly, we understand the practicality of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with her usual acuity saying, "What does this mean, how does it work and what will people do?". I will always commend the noble Baroness for that approach because it is absolutely the right one. It is what delivers on the ground for the people that we all care about.

---