|
Mr. Heath: We again concur.
Paul Goggins: I suspect that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham will, once again, be pleased and disappointed by my response. I hope that her pleasure will be sufficient to lead her to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 19 specifies that the Secretary of State should publish his reasons for accepting or rejecting suggestions to amend the code as a result of public consultation. I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady and the Committee that it is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's firm intention to publish his response to the consultation with stakeholders on the contents of the code. However, that will be in line with the best practice guidance issued by the Cabinet Office, rather than through an amendment to this Bill. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.
Column Number: 234
Mrs. Gillan: As usual, the Minister seeks to excite me and disappoints me at the last minute. I am most upset that he will not accept the amendment. I thought that it added to the Bill, and that was the view of many outside bodies, including Victim Support. I suppose that I will have to make do with the conciliatory remarks at the beginning of his response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Effect of non-compliance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lady Hermon: I have a minor, technical point to make. The Minister will be able to dismiss it quickly and resolve the question in my mind.
Given the example of the old code in Northern Ireland, I presume that the need to comply with the code of practice for victims will apply to the police. Subsection (2) says that
''the code is admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings and a court may take into account a failure to comply with the code in determining a question in the proceedings.''
Will a police officer's failure to comply with the code of practice for victims give rise, in England and Wales, to a complaint against them to the Police Complaints Commission? If the code were, in the fullness of time, to be extended to Northern Ireland, would a police officer's failure to comply give rise to a complaint to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland?
Paul Goggins: In all fairness to the hon. Lady, I am looking carefully at clause 23(2), to which she refers. It does not mention the independent Police Complaints Commission. I shall seek clarification and write to the hon. Lady to confirm whether it would be admissible. My assumption is that it would be, but I do not want to commit myself in case I am wrong and mislead her.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Investigations by Parliamentary Commissioner
Paul Goggins: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in schedule 4, page 31, line 23, after 'by', insert 'any of these'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments Nos. 74, 72, 75, 76, 77 and 83.
Government new clause 23—Victims of persons sentenced to imprisonment or detention.
Government new clause 24—Victims of persons subject to hospital order with restriction order.
Column Number: 235
Government new clause 25—Victims of persons subject to hospital direction and limitation direction.
Government new clause 26—Victims of persons subject to transfer direction and restriction direction.
Government new clause 27—Duties of local probation boards: interpretation.
Government new clause 29—Victims of mentally disordered persons: Northern Ireland.
Paul Goggins: The amendments provide a right for the victims of sexual or violent offences to be consulted and to make representations about the conditions of release of offenders. That right was introduced for the victims of offences when the offender received a prison sentence under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, but there was no equivalent provision when the offender was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. Victims of offences committed by mentally disordered offenders were left in ignorance of arrangements for the return to the community of those offenders.
The proposals remedy that deficiency. They have been the subject of wide consultation in the context of the draft Mental Health Bill when they attracted general support. They are strongly supported by groups representing the victims of offences committed by mentally disordered offenders. I stress that that does not mean that confidential medical information about offenders will be revealed. The provisions enable the victims of offences committed by mentally disordered people to be advised about arrangements for discharge and to make representations about the safeguards that they wish to see in place for their own safety and peace of mind.
The provisions will enable victims of mentally disordered offenders to know that the system has not abandoned them and that their legitimate concerns can be heard by those taking decisions about returning offenders to the community. Victims will feel secure that they will not one day find themselves confronting the person who caused them such harm, without having known that the person was, in fact, back in the community.
Mr. Heath: Do the provisions apply to those who were put into custody at a court martial?
Paul Goggins: My understanding is that precisely the same rules that apply throughout the general system will also apply to courts martial. Thus, the same provisions will apply. If I am advised to the contrary—[Interruption.] It seems that my advice this time is not in my favour. When I was advised previously, the answer was that the provisions would be the same and in parallel. However, on this occasion, I have been advised that the same rules do not apply to courts martial.
Mr. Heath: I find it helpful to have that answer, but it is not quite so helpful to the victims of a crime committed by a person who happens to be in military service. Should it not apply to people who are subjected to proceedings at courts martial?
Column Number: 236
Paul Goggins: Given that I did not readily know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, the least that I can do is reflect on his argument. Having thought about it, I shall certainly return to him with my conclusions. I am grateful to him.
The new clauses incorporate existing provision in section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 and would add to them, so that the rights and duties are not arbitrarily removed if an offender becomes subject to powers under the Mental Health Act 1983. New clause 29 would amend the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 to require the Secretary of State to create a similar scheme for victims of mentally disordered offenders in Northern Ireland. In principle, the Northern Ireland scheme would closely mirror the England and Wales model.
In England and Wales, local probation boards would be tasked with providing the service to victims, while in Northern Ireland it is more appropriate that the duty should fall to the Secretary of State. I hope that the hon. Member for North Down is pleased that we shall extend the provisions. There will be small differences between Northern Ireland and England and Wales in operation and organisation, but the spirit and objective will remain the same, and I hope that the outcome will be the same. With that assurance, I hope that the Committee supports the amendment.
Mrs. Gillan: I understand entirely what the Government are attempting to do with these amendments, but I have a couple of questions that arise from their drafting and the principle that is established by the way in which the Government seek to maintain the victim's involvement if any aspect of a hospital order is invoked for the offender. I appreciate that new clauses 25 and 26 in particular cover the eventualities of an offender going to hospital and, on recovering enough, being taken to prison, and of a person being sent to prison and subsequently being transferred to hospital.
I have a problem with new clause 24 with which the Minister may be able to help. Subsection (2) states that only one of the conditions laid out in the new clause needs to be met in respect of the offender before the new provisions bite. At subsection (2)(b), the conditions include a situation where
''a verdict is returned that the patient is not guilty of the offence by reason of insanity''.
If an offender has been judged to be insane, why should the victim, in this narrow instance, be consulted on the release of that individual? I could understand the victim being informed—that is reasonable, and probably desirable—but it will be a matter of fact that the decision has been reached that the offender is insane, so it will be interesting to know how the Minister envisages the consultation process taking place. It will be the doctor who reaches the conclusion that the offender can be released; it is difficult to imagine the conversation that will take place. It might go like this: the doctor says, ''It's all right. How do you feel about it?'' Without an insight from the Minister, this could be viewed as a gimmick, so I look forward to his explanation.
Column Number: 237
I would like to hear how these provisions—in particular, the one I have just referred to—square with human rights legislation. How can the Minister be certain that revealing the doctor's views on the mental health of the offender is not revealing medical information that would in other circumstances be treated as confidential?
Once again, I ask about the resource implications, particularly because the burden falls on the probation boards. What extra training and manpower have been allowed for? When will an impact assessment be prepared for the new clauses? The Minister knows only too well that with the advent of the National Offender Management Service the probation service is somewhat challenged at the moment, and is certainly under pressure right across the board, so much so that in many instances a fully trained probation officer is often not the person who interviews offenders. The implications are particularly important for the probation service.
Lastly, there are cross-border implications. Are there similar provisions in Scotland? What are the cross-border implications of the Government amendments and proposals? What happens if a foreign national is involved, and, having been detained under the provisions identified in new clause 24, he or she is deemed fit to leave hospital and becomes eligible for deportation? Is the involvement of victims covered in that instance? Obviously, that situation is not outwith the realms of possibility, and I am sure that the Minister is well aware of similar cases.
| 
