§ 5. Mr. Peter BradleyWhat plans he has to ensure that young offenders are asked to repair the damage they do to victims and to the community. [24616]
§ Mr. StrawA key aim of our plans to reform the youth justice system is to encourage young offenders to face the consequences of their behaviour and to make amends to their victims. We have brought forward, in the Crime and Disorder Bill, proposals for a new reparation order, which will require the young offender to make reparation to the victim, where the victim desires it, or to the community. Reparation will also be an element of the new action plan order, the existing supervision order and the proposed final warning scheme.
§ Mr. BradleyDoes my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to crime, prevention is a great deal better than cure? Will he join me in commending the Wrekin community safety partnership, which has done much to divert young people from offending, to reduce levels of crime and to enhance the quality of life in the community in my constituency?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time is ripe to put the victim back at the centre of our judicial system? Does he accept that reparation orders will play a great role in doing exactly that?
§ Mr. StrawI am happy to commend the work of the Wrekin community safety partnership.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we want to put the victim back at the centre of the system. The problem at present is that far too many offenders do not understand that there are victims of their crimes other than themselves. Part of the purpose of our youth justice 707 system is to ensure that young offenders face the fact that they have offended, that there is a victim, and that the victim is not them.
§ Mr. EvansDoes the Home Secretary agree that it is wrong to suggest that the majority of young people offend? The vast majority do not and it is a shame that they are all tarred with the same brush. In the context of the small proportion of young people who do offend, surely it is right that the victim should be properly consulted about reparation. We should endeavour to ascertain how he or she feels about how the young offender should pay back the price to society—or even to them, the victim.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the decision about boot camps? When the system was operating, it was shown to be extremely effective. The vast majority of my constituents, who are neighbours of the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman, thought that the idea of boot camps was long overdue. They will think it a great shame if they are done away with. Indeed, doing away with them might send the wrong message to young people, who might be given the impression that they can get away with crime.
§ Mr. StrawI agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial that the victim is consulted; there are a number of schemes to extend that process.
The previous Administration set up two high-intensity schemes that were described as boot camps. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are nothing like the brutal boot camps that exist in the United States. There is one at the Thorn Cross young offender institution; the other is at Colchester military prison.
I had to close the Colchester military prison experiment on the ground of cost; each place was running at £32,000 compared with £17,000 in an ordinary young offender institution and £21,000 at Thorn Cross. Furthermore, the evidence is that the Thorn Cross experiment does a marginally better job than that at Colchester.