§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 12, line 15, leave out from 'with' to 'for' in line 16 and insert—
- '(1) such requirements as are specified in the order; and
- (ii) such requirements as that officer may reasonably specify,'.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)With this we may take amendment No. 5, in page 12, line 38, after 'person', insert
'and if requested to do so by that person, to his legal representative, if any,'.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonAs originally drafted, the provisions in clause 14 would have obliged a person subject to a supervised release order to comply with such requirements as are specified in the order by the court and, subsequently, by the supervising officer.
I was happy to accept an amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) which inserted the word "reasonable" as a qualification in respect of such requirements. I still believe that all the requirements specified in or by virtue of a supervised release order should be reasonable; I am now persuaded, however, that a statutory reference to reasonableness is necessary only in relation to requirements specified by the supervising officer.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill for drawing attention to the matter. I hope that she and her hon. Friends will be satisfied that what we now propose accords with the spirit of the amendment that she moved in Committee.
§ Mr. McFallI thank the Minister for his letter to me about this point, dated 12 November 1992. He has written to me regularly about the Bill, and I have found all his letters helpful.
We intend to press amendment No. 5, because we think that a solicitor should be provided with a copy of the supervised released order. In Committee, the Minister argued that the clerk of the court could not send a copy of the order to a prisoner's solicitor as a matter of course, because if a client wanted a solicitor to obtain a copy, he could
make that clear to the relevant authorities."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee; 5 November 1992, c. 78.]That is the purpose of the amendment, and I commend it to the House.
§ Dr. GodmanI have a brief question about amendment No. 10. Can a person who challenges a reasonable requirement that is laid upon him by a probation officer obtain legal advice? I appreciate that a social worker or probation officer must be sensible and reasonable when imposing requirements on someone who is released under licence, but has the person any right of appeal? I do not recall that question being answered in Committee.
§ Lord James Douglas-HamiltonI should first answer the question about amendment No. 5. I listened carefully to 481 the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), and I read with interest the explanation for the amendment that was sent to me by the Law Society of Scotland. I have every sympathy with solicitors whose clients fail to keep in touch with them, but I regret to say that the amendment would not help and I believe it to be unnecessary.
So far as I am aware, solicitors have no difficulty in obtaining copies of papers that the clerk of court is required to send to their clients; they merely have to ask. That arrangement applies to a vast range of orders and other papers. It would not be wise to insert a statutory provision in relation to one kind of order in isolation.
The point that the Law Society has in mind is that, by receiving a copy of the supervised release order, the solicitor will find out which local authority or justices have been designated for the purposes of the order. That is not so. The designation of a local authority or justices for the purposes of the order is to be a matter for the Secretary of State shortly before the prisoner is released under clause 14(4). The order will give no hint of where the prisoner intends to reside after he is released.
Since amendment No. 5 would not assist solicitors, I suggest that it should not be pressed.
§ Amendment agreed to.