Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 73, in schedule 4, page 31, line 23, after 'by', insert 'any of these'.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

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.

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.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

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 David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

Do the provisions apply to those who were put into custody at a court martial?

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

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 David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

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?

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

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 Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

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.

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.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I was waiting for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to concur with the hon. Lady, but he has decided not to on this occasion.

I shall do my best to respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. There are several routes by which a mentally disordered offender may go from court through a period of custody and care and back into the community. Sometimes they will go to prison, sometimes to secure mental hospitals, and sometimes it will be a combination of the two. We want a standard form to apply.

The hon. Lady mentioned consultation with victims. I hasten to add that consultation is not the equivalent of a veto, but it is intended that the probation service—the service responsible for carrying out that work—should listen carefully to victims' legitimate concerns. As with serious offenders leaving prison, offenders leaving secure mental hospital may have conditions attached to their release—to reside in a certain place, for example. The power of consultation is designed simply to ensure that the views and legitimate concerns about when and where people might live are fully considered so that the probation service and other authorities have all the information to hand when setting such conditions.

I can confirm that our proposals are compatible with human rights legislation. We have made that clear throughout the Bill, and the point applies here too. We have discussed in other forums the issue of the

probation service. It does fantastic work under huge pressure—pressure that has been relieved to some degree by the additional £16 million that I was able to announce a few weeks ago. From the conversations that I have had on a local level and elsewhere, it seems to have been well received.

On cross-border issues, the probation board will, if it is appropriate, let the victim know that the offender has moved out of the jurisdiction. The case would then be dealt with under the rules of the receiving jurisdiction. Clearly, there will be a duty to communicate that information, but the offender would be dealt with under the regulations that pertain to where they reside.

I hope that I have been able to respond to at least most of the issues that the hon. Lady mentioned.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I thank the Minister for his response, but I am still not satisfied. I do not believe that he has dealt with my point about new clause 24(2)(b) and when

''a verdict is returned that the patient is not guilty of the offence by reason of insanity''.

I had hoped that he might get further inspiration to satisfy both me and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who is getting hot under the collar at the lack of a response. The Minister's other option is to write to us, and provided we could revisit the issue at a later stage, I would be willing to take information in the form of a letter.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

That is extraordinarily helpful. I suspect that the letter may be being drafted as we speak.

Mr Dominic Grieve (Shadow Attorney General, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Beaconsfield, Conservative)

I apologise for arriving at such a late stage in the proceedings, although better late than never.

There is an important point here. If someone has never been convicted of an offence but is detained in a mental hospital, there are some curious issues about how much information can be shared with their ''victim''—a victim in reality but not one who comes after a conviction in law—about that person's release from hospital. I would be grateful if the Minister considered the point, as there are significant, rather than dreamt-up, questions about how consultation should happen in such circumstances. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I was grateful for the offer from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham to write to her, as I saw the hon. Member for Beaconsfield come refreshed into the Room after we had been debating these issues for some time. However, even at this stage, we may have some helpful information.

Under clause 17, a hospital order may be made where a person is not guilty by insanity. The victim has the same interest in knowing what will happen to the perpetrator as they would have had if he had been

convicted. The victim will have suffered the same trauma, and we must emphasise the interests of the victim. Trying to understand the pain and difficulty that they have faced is our motivation. I hope that the hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman can regard that as a down payment on a letter to follow.

In the time that we have had to reflect on that matter, I have also had time to reflect on another issue that the hon. Lady raised—deportation. If a person were to be deported on his release from prison, it would be open to the probation board to tell the victim, if that was considered appropriate. Clearly, there has to be some discretion about whether that is in the interest of the victim, and the judgment must be

made by the probation officer concerned. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the hon. Lady on that matter; on the other point, I will write.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 74, in schedule 4, page 31, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—

'(b) sections [Victims of persons sentenced to imprisonment or detention] to [Victims of persons subject to transfer direction and restriction direction] of that Act (duties of local probation boards in connection with victims of sexual or violent offences).'.—[Paul Goggins.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 1 July at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.