Grand Committee Report of 18 June 2002

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

    The Committee met at half—past three of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I remind Members of the Committee this Committee operates exactly as it would on the Floor of the House. The noble Lord who is speaking does so standing and there are no Divisions. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the noble Lord who is speaking will quickly end that speech and we will adjourn for 10 minutes. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal wishes to say something.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): If I might mention just two or three matters of housekeeping. First, I would like to thank the House authorities for providing a much more suitable Room; they acted very quickly. Secondly, the intention is—I have had particular request from colleagues— to finish Part 4 today but to go no further and to deal with Part 5 tomorrow, if that is acceptable. Several Members of the Committee wanted to know the suggested programme. Thirdly, it is possible tomorrow that photographers may be allowed into this Room for the purposes of taking photographs for the annual report. All those persons who are desperate for further publicity should come appropriately attired.
    Clause 52 [Aims of youth justice system]:
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 180:
    Page 30, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
    "( ) The principal aim of the youth justice system in Northern Ireland is to prevent offending by children and to promote the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society.
    ( ) Every child in contact with the law shall be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, reinforcing the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others."
    The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 181.
    The establishment of a set of aims for the youth justice system is welcome. There has been a need for a clear set of guiding principles to inform all those working with children who are at risk of offending.
    CWH 114
    These two amendments seek to amend the aim and purpose of this part. I have read the debate in the Commons on this matter—there was some discussion about the phrase "preventing offending". Clause 52(1) states:
    "The principal aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public by preventing offending by children".
    If that were the main feature, the heading of Part 4 should be "Youth offending system" rather than "Youth justice". The amendments, if agreed to, would make this part more clearly child-centred. The wording of the amendments fits with international standards. As a start in relation to a very important and much appreciated part of the Bill, that would assist in setting out better the aim and purpose of the provisions. I beg to move.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Like many earlier amendments, Amendment No. 180 and later amendments would reverse the whole thrust of the Bill by shifting the balance to protecting the offender rather than the victim. While I have many reservations about other parts of the Bill, I have no quarrel with Clause 52(1) as it stands A reversal of that theme would—to use an oft-repeated phrase in our debates—send the wrong signal. That is the form of words which was addressed to me several years ago during debates on the Northern Ireland Act. I was condemned for favouring adherence to the known path which bitter experience has proved to have delivered a much more stable structure in governance of Northern Ireland.
    Whatever the scope and range of reparation orders, community responsibility orders arid youth conference orders envisaged in Clauses 56 and 57, I am gravely concerned that the beneficiaries of the former could include the "community at large" phrase, given the depth of penetration of terrorist organisations into many of our communities. What guarantees can be given by the Government to ensure that such orders will not be used to "contract out" court-imposed penalties to those who exercise community control in a very undesirable way; that is, by operating on the fringes of the law and sometimes well beyond the fringes?
    In the case of both orders, supervision is to be undertaken by what is termed a "responsible officer", who can be,
    "such a person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    However, it could be that that person might fall into one of the three categories, although only two of them would be in any way acceptable.
    In summary, my main concern is that no person so designated should have any hint of criminality associated with him or her. Those currently banned and barred from the office of constable should be similarly barred from this office. I believe that that would be a move in the desirable direction.
    Lord Hylton: I am in general sympathy with what these amendments are trying to achieve. First, however, they would be better if they repeated the words in the text of the Bill concerning the protection of the public.
    CWH 115 Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

    CWH 115
    Secondly, the movers might consider incorporating words to the effect that, "the welfare of the child shall be paramount, perhaps subject to the interests of justice". We all know that the welfare of the child being paramount is a standard phrase in all legislation concerning children.
    Thirdly, the second paragraph of Amendment No. 180 concerns:
    "Every child in contact with the law".
    We all know that that is a common shorthand phrase for being suspected of having committed a crime, or at least of antisocial behaviour. However, I am not sure it is a phrase that ought to appear on the face of a Bill. It might be preferable for that paragraph to refer to the youth justice system, such as, "Every child in contact with the youth justice system", or it might say, "suspected of crime or antisocial behaviour". With those reservations, I wish to support the amendments.
    Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may ask for clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. For many years, I have listened to his contributions and I know that he is a great supporter of children in the House. However, although the noble Lord said that the interests of the child must be paramount in all legislation dealing with children, is that also the case when children are criminals?
    Lord Hylton: That is precisely why I said "subject to the interests of justice", which must take priority in any court or criminal proceedings.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not disagree with the themes articulated by the noble Lord who moved the amendment and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Without discourtesy to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, perhaps I may deal with his specific concerns when we consider the particular amendments which have been tabled.
    In terms of approach, I do not believe that there is any difference between us. I would suggest that the sentiments for which noble Lords have contended are adequately reflected in the clause as drafted. Noble Lords have mentioned the reintegration of the child and the child's best interests, but those, in the belief of many of us, are addressed properly through preventing offending and re-offending in the first place.
    On the question of the paramountcy of the interests of the child, the noble Baroness is right. That concept is found in the Children Act, which deals with the civil aspects of the child's welfare. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, conceded, the child's interests can never, in a sense, be paramount, if paramount means supreme. Plainly, the interests of the public, the victim and the system of justice are powerful contenders for that supremacy. I appreciate that the noble Lord was not claiming it as an absolute supremacy. I suggest that we are saying exactly the same thing and that it is sufficiently and appropriately accommodated in the present wording.
    CWH 116
    Amendment No. 181 would introduce some confusion. If the amendment were made, the Bill would state that primary consideration should be given to the best interests of the child, and, at the same time, that the principal aim of the system was the protection of the public by preventing offending and re-offending. Those do not go happily together.
    The tension is more real than apparent. The clause replicates the language of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. In the context of the use of welfare and best interest, there is no material difference. If we have regard to the welfare of the child—a principle well known in law and practice—as set out in the aims, shall we not, to all intents and purposes, have regard to the child's best interests?
    I welcome the debate, but the Bill adequately caters for the concerns expressed.
    Lord Glentoran: I do not wish to add much. I tend not to support the amendment for a couple of reasons, which have been enunciated already by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal in his response.
    First, the words "child" and "children" can, in the context of this Bill, be misleading. The Bill accounts for all those aged up to 17 years 11 months and 30 days. We have already had many Bills in this House referring to the age of consent for different things, for heterosexual sex, homosexual sex and so on. For those, the age has been reduced to 16, which means, in effect, 15 and perhaps even 14. Although the Bill refers to "children", we are, for much of the time, talking about young adults, not children. My children would not have been happy to have been referred to as children—other than with a great deal of affection—once they had reached the ages of 17 or 18. I suspect that many other Members of the Committee have the same experience. We should bear that in mind throughout the part of the Bill dealing with youth justice. I shall return to that point at different stages.
    The second point was raised with me in discussion by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden yesterday. It is vital that, in the opening paragraphs of a part of the Bill that deals with something new—the youth criminal justice scheme is new—there is absolute clarity for the judges who will have to make decisions on sentencing. It is likely that they will wish to refer to the aims of the system, set out in this part of the Bill. It is important that the Government take that on board. The amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, and the other Liberal Democrats do not help that part of it. Overall, therefore, I would tend to stay with the status quo.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful to noble Lords, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for the comments that have been made. I am certainly not averse to some changes. Whether the important words "protect the public" should be so paramount at this point is a question on which we can reflect. We will think on those things. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

    CWH 117
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
    3.45 p.m.
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 182:
    Page 30, line 41, at end insert—
    "(3A) All persons and bodies exercising functions in relation to the youth justice system shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
    (3B) For the purpose of subsection (3A) the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of natural law."
    The noble Lord said: I would describe Amendment No. 182 as the, "assurance to child and child participation amendment". We are still considering the aim and purpose of this. Putting in place certain important principles in regard to the aim and purpose is the right thing to do. Therefore this amendment suggests that two new subsections (3A) and (3B) should be inserted to make it very clear that the youth justice system is child-centred. The person involved should be given assurances, as well as the opportunity to express his or her views. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree with the noble Lord that there is an absolute need for everyone, not only the child, to have the right to express their views and to have them heard. To an extent, perhaps we have the balance wrong at the moment. Very often it is the victim of crime who seems to go unheard. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that he said this is an aims and purpose clause and he is seeking to introduce process here. While it is not fundamental, perhaps it is an inappropriate place to include the amendment.
    We shall be introducing youth conferencing arrangements which, for the first time, will provide an inclusive process in which all those affected by crime can play an active, full and proportionate part in its resolution. The rights referred to in this amendment are fully safeguarded in the Bill. I would suggest to your Lordships that no further amendment is needed here and, indeed, there is a concentration in this amendment on the rights of the child—that is, the alleged offender—while being silent on the rights of anyone else.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
    Clause 52 agreed to
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 184:
    Before Clause 53, insert the following new clause—
    "PARTICIPATION AND UNDERSTANDING

    (1) Before making any order in respect of a child, the court shall explain to the child the nature of the proceedings and where the child is charged with an offence the nature of the charge.

    (2) The explanation shall be given in simple language suitable to the child's age and understanding."

    The noble Lord said: I am sure that the Committee will give a tremendous welcome to the idea that a child should have the proceedings explained to them, and that the explanation should be made in simple language. It seems to me that clarity and the use of simple language is essential when talking to a child, whether that child is a small child or a more elderly child, as discussed earlier. It is important that the child understands the proceedings and that the explanation is given in simple language. I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. It seems very sensible and would be a valuable addition to the Bill. I make that point despite not having attended a children's court or the preliminaries to children's court or youth court. Clear explanation of the procedures is absolutely vital to the whole process of reintegrating young offenders into society. The starting point, after being arrested and charged and all that goes with that, must be that they understand the whole process of the justice system in which they are, unfortunately, involved.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I could offer a triple reassurance—unless the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, wants to continue.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am afraid that the speed of events beat me. I apologise for that. There is a clause of this nature in the Bill. The important thing is that it be brought forward so that it covers all orders, not just the reparation order, where it currently appears. That was the major reason for tabling the amendment. The words are there, but only in respect of reparation orders, not in respect of community responsibility orders and custody care orders. I should have said that earlier.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I was going to draw the Committee's attention to paragraph (5) on page 32, which, as the noble Lord rightly says, deals with reparation orders. Perhaps it is helpful if I remind your Lordships that in June 2000, the Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction in Northern Ireland, which is similar to that in England and Wales, requiring that the Crown Court should take steps to ensure that a defendant understands court procedures and should conduct proceedings in a way commensurate with the ability of the defendants to understand and concentrate. In addition, as recommended by the criminal justice review, the Northern Ireland Court Service is bringing forward guidelines aimed at allowing young people better to understand and be engaged in youth court proceedings.

    CWH 119
    The matters that the noble Lord has properly referred to are being dealt with in those different ways. If he requires further reassurance before the Report, I am happy to meet him with officials to discuss these matters to see whether we can cure his concerns.
    Perhaps I can go a stage further. The provisions for community responsibility orders are dealt with in new Article 36F(5) inserted by Clause 54, on page 35, and those for youth conference orders are dealt with in new Article 36K(2) inserted by Clause 59, on page 54. I sympathise with the noble Lord. The provisions are to be found, but one has to look around a little.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful for that contribution. I may well take up the Minister's offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 53 [Reparation orders]:
    [Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 not moved.]
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 187:
    Page 31, line 25, at end insert—
    "( ) a person professionally responsible for the child's education where the child is in receipt of education;"
    The noble Lord said: This series of clauses brings into the script education and those involved in education, be they teachers or others. The reason for moving this series of amendments is to enhance the position of education within the Bill.
    Teachers and others connected with education may well know more about the child than those new people who enter the child's life subsequent to wrongdoing. The important feature of all the amendments is to bring education and those concerned with it into some of the decisions that will affect the lives of these young people.
    Education is a not a not-particularly-optional add-on for young people. It is a core activity for them. Often, the people involved in education have the most knowledge of that child, apart from the parents. Although probation officers and social workers and so forth ultimately become involved in the lives of these children, the people who were involved earliest and who have an in-depth knowledge and a link with the real world in which the children lived before they got into bother can perhaps help to get them back to that world instead of the world of trouble.
    It also occurs to me that this is part of joined-up government and joined-up life. The people involved in education have an important role in youth justice. This series of amendments highlights people involved in education—likely to be teachers—who can assist in finding the right way forward for these young people. I beg to move.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I understand what the noble Lord is attempting with the amendment. Nevertheless, as an old village schoolmaster, I oppose the idea. New Article 36A(4)specifies what the court "must obtain" before making a reparation order. The
    CWH 120
    amendment would put a legal obligation on schoolteachers to become involved whenever a child offended and was brought before the courts.
    In my experience, if there are extenuating circumstances in a case, schoolteachers will make a submission, where advisable, on behalf of the child. However, to make that obligatory by legislation would put an onus on a professional person who is not initially responsible for dealing with a child who becomes involved in criminal activity.
    A probation officer, whose job is to be directly involved, will be appointed, as will a social worker. However, it would be unwise and unfair to place such an obligation on members of the teaching profession.
    Lord Hylton: It is possible that the amendments may be technically defective or may not come in exactly the right place in the Bill. Nevertheless, I support the general thrust of them. We all know, whether in England or in Northern Ireland, that the time when most young people get involved in crime and antisocial behaviour is when they are at risk of suspension from school or have been suspended or totally excluded.
    I have personal knowledge of a scheme still functioning in Belfast, called Pathways. Set up as a joint venture between the Education and Library Board and a voluntary organisation, it is providing alternative forms of education for children who are found to be at risk of getting into trouble. It would be helpful if the Bill could incorporate some reference at least to educational input.
    Viscount Brookeborough: On the face of it, I am reasonably in favour of these amendments, but, bowing to the greater knowledge of our village schoolmaster, I accept that it would be difficult to put the obligation on to teachers. Can the Minister reassure us that, if children are involved with the courts, the school is always given an opportunity to put forward its point of view.
    Almost inevitably it is the children who are difficult at school who are more prone to this kind of difficulty. I have worked with a hospital trust which undertook child psychiatry. There is a problem with children with learning difficulties who are left behind at school. A large proportion of the children—somewhere around 50 per cent—who are acknowledged to have learning difficulties are not catered for in special schools or given assistance from special people because the funding simply is not there. That applies throughout the United Kingdom.
    As a result, these children are, first, more prone to homelessness later on; secondly, they are more prone to commit youth crime. Where they are attending a place of education or a child psychiatric unit where experts are helping them, I should like to be assured that, even if it is not specified in the Bill, in every such case the school or the professionals involved will be asked for their opinion.
    4 p.m.
    Lord Kilclooney: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I too am greatly influenced by the words of wisdom from a very old former teacher. To be serious, one of the major complaints in education from the teaching profession at the moment is the increasing burden of administration in schools: form filling and so forth. Here, yet again, we are going to put a further burden on the teaching profession. That will certainly mean less time for teaching the children.
    The second point I should like to make is this. If such a proposal is going to be made, then surely the teaching trade unions would have been approached and we would have had word of their opinion?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The former village school teacher—not the old village school teacher—is absolutely right. I can say that, given that my late father was a village school teacher. What the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, seems to be indicating is that one does not need to be overly prescriptive, a point made the other day by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. One needs to allow a certain amount of discretion and judgment. In very many cases it may well be necessary to contact the school and the school teacher, but it does not need to be made an absolute obligation in the Bill.
    The education of the young person is of course important and we want to avoid any conflict between educational interests and the general requirements of the order. It is neither necessary nor suitable to make provision for a person professionally responsible for the child's education to be specifically defined, for the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Kilclooney.
    The Secretary of State will have the power to designate persons to perform the relevant function in circumstances where it makes sense to do so. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that one would expect the expertise of social services or the probation board to be the most suitable for this type of work. In exercising their professional judgment, where appropriate, they would want to be in touch with the school teacher or the school.
    I accept that the factors set out in Amendment No. 188 are typical of the factors that need to be taken into account. Again, however, one would expect those considerations and others—for instance, the age and maturity of the relevant child—to inform the court's decision on the requirements appropriate to each case. We ought to leave it to the courts and the professionals who prepare the reports to reach sensible judgments.
    On amendment No. 189, I repeat, details of the child's education provision are very important and should be reflected in the court report. That is not the only aspect, however. There may be considerations of religion or work which also need to be taken into account. One would not want to introduce a prescriptive ranking of the importance of those various considerations. The Bill already provides that a reparation must, as far as is practicable, avoid
    CWH 122
    conflict with attendance at school or work or with the offender's religious beliefs. For myself, I am con tent that report writers and the courts will reflect on all the relevant factors when determining the appropriate requirements.
    Amendment No. 193 would add to the categories of persons who can be nominated as responsible officers. As the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Kilclooney, said, in many circumstances this would be an extremely unwelcome obligation placed on teachers and education professionals.
    In particular, let us look at the illustration of a teacher at work, as I once was myself. It would be quite wrong for someone who has responsibility for a child's education to be put in a position where they might be called on to enforce the court order—for instance, if breach proceedings were necessary. That would be unsuitable and, in my 'view, inconsistent with a teacher's professional ethics.
    The purpose of the provision at which Amendment No. 194 is directed is simply to transfer the authority for a reparation order from the court that imposed it to the court in the petty sessional division in which the child lives, if that is different.
    On Amendment No. 199, copies of a community responsibility order have to be given immediately to the child subject to the order, the parent or guardian and the supervising responsible officer. I cannot see the purpose of insisting that the teacher of a child must also receive a copy of the order. It is difficult to understand what use they might make of it.
    Amendments Nos. 215, 221, 225 and 228 relate to a child still in education. Amendment No. 215 would require the attendance at the conference of an education professional in all cases if the child is still in education. I echo again the point of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. That would mean that the conference could not go on without the teacher being present. The teaching professional could make an invaluable contribution to the conference, but it is too rigid to say that the conference cannot go ahead without the teacher being there. I put in brackets that most teachers of my acquaintance do not teach just one child. What is to happen to all the other children under the teacher's care in a particular class? The amendments are not workable. It is much better to allow a certain amount of informed discretion rather than being too prescriptive.
    In some circumstances, it might be in the interests of the child if the school were not informed of the order. For instance, if a child receiving education commits a petty offence on a Saturday, not on a school day, an apology and reparation to the shop owner in a shoplifting case, a restriction on being in town on a Saturday or a requirement to participate in a sporting activity might well be sufficient. In other circumstances, the school ought to be involved. These are further illustrations of an over-prescriptive approach.

    CWH 123
    The Bill already provides that the co-ordinator may allow the attendance of anyone whose participation would be of value. Under Clause 52—the aims clause— co-ordinators are already required, as we have seen today, to have regard to the welfare of a child being conferenced with a view, in particular, to furthering educational development. Amendment No. 221 would require the conference plan to contain details for provision of the child's education. For the reasons I gave a moment or two ago, that is unduly prescriptive.
    Amendment No. 225 would require that, when the director is informed of the extent to which the child has complied with the youth conference plan, he also receives a report on the child's attendance and performance at school. New Article 10D provides that a report must go to the director at the end of the period specified in the youth conference plan, informing him of the extent to which the child has complied with the plan. That information will enable him to decide whether he ought to instigate proceedings in respect of the child.
    On the other hand, if a conference plan stipulates that a child attends school or undertakes certain courses—perhaps the particular courses to which the noble Viscount referred—or even that he works to improve his grades in certain subjects, the director must be informed of the extent to which these requirements are being complied with. However, if the conference plan does not make any such requirements, the decision whether to prosecute should not be based on any such report.
    Amendment No. 228, which is the last in this quite lengthy grouping, would require a copy of the youth conference order to be given to a professional responsible for the child's education in all cases in which the child is still in receipt of education. Where the plan includes requirements relating to a child's attendance or performance at school, it will be necessary for the school to know that, to ensure that compliance is monitored. However, where the plan does not include any such requirement, I cannot agree that the school should, as a matter of course, be informed about the order.
    I have spent a little time on this group because it is important—it deals with various aspects. I return to the theme with which I began—that one does not need to burden teachers and schools unnecessarily, but one should allow the discretion to involve them where appropriate.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response and to the teaching fraternity. There are circumstances where the caring teacher will very much want to know what is happening to the child that has been part of the flock. We will think about these matters but I am not clear where in the Bill there is an acknowledgement in certain circumstances of the linkage between education and the Bill. There should be some acknowledgement that, in some circumstances, that linkage could be incredibly important. I would like to
    CWH 124
    think that that was possible. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to think about that again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Park of Monmouthmoved Amendment No. 187A:
    Page 31, leave out line 27.
    The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 196A, 209A, 209B and 217A.
    The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has said some of what I want to say on the amendment, but I shall say it just the same. My concern is—I am sorry to be prescriptive—about the provision in sub-paragraph (b), which refers to,
    "such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    I believe that the provision relating to that other person, who will have a significant role in relation to an offender who is subject to a community responsibility order, a reparation order or a custody care order, is too broad. Under the Bill, that designated person could be required to provide a written report on the offender or to supervise the offender and would presumably be one of the three adults required to be in regular contact with the offender.
    My concerns are as follows. The Bill is rightly designed to involve the community in the whole process of dealing with juvenile delinquency. However, in the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland, where the community is dominated by the paramilitaries, the Secretary of State and, still more, his successors—the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—might have a very strong and entirely reasonable political wish to advance the peace process by associating paramilitaries with the administration of law and order and the affairs of the community. That would be done on the principle of poachers turning gamekeepers.
    Sinn Fein/IRA and the UVF, for instance, have not been brought up in that tradition. However, that will not prevent Sinn Fein/IRA from using that as an argument for "rehabilitating" violent men and,
    "involving them in the peace process".
    What will happen to the community—the real, general community? The object of the paramilitaries and the political parties behind them is to establish by every means open to them that they, and not the police, control every aspect of the life of the community.
    They have not been slow to present themselves, for instance, as those who are policing drug-takers and expelling families—exiling them to the mainland—on the grounds of involvement with crime of some sort. They are the law and people do not dare to apply to the police. The Government are beginning to recognise that. I therefore strongly urge the noble and learned Lord to reconsider the sweeping and necessarily undefined power of nomination and to define the third post as being open to, for instance, any candidate with recognised and current professional qualifications and experience in working with children. There will be

    CWH 125
    teachers, I am sorry to say—I support the Liberal Democrats in that regard—doctors and other professionals who could still fill the bill.
    It is extremely important that a system that is designed to protect the public by preventing offending by children should not be hijacked by the Mafia dons of the IRA and the UVF, or discredited by association in the eyes of ordinary men and women with such people. As we shall see later in the Bill, when we come to the community safety strategy, it could give them yet more power to influence and dominate the lives of citizens. It would be an irony indeed if the very men who terrorise the young, train them to make firebombs and instil hatred in them were given the status to make decisions as the Secretary of State's nominee or that of the First or Deputy First Minister.
    I realise that that is prescriptive but I beg that some kind of safeguard should be placed in the clause to ensure that what I have suggested could not happen. I beg to move.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I wholeheartedly support the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in what she has cautioned. I hope that all Members of the Committee have taken note of the most appropriate warning at this particular stage. Professionally trained probation officers are involved in cases in which children are involved in crime and professionally trained social workers are also involved. However, there is another stratum in our society—its members are loosely known as "welfare workers". Some might say that they are professionally trained, mostly in Long Kesh or Maghaberry. I have to admit that some of those people come out, having spent a period in prison, and want to contribute something back to society. Many of them still remain part of paramilitary organisations and are the "acceptable face"—I emphasise the inverted commas—of those paramilitary organisations.
    None of us can believe that the Secretary of State will be the person who has his finger on the pulse and who will decide whether this other person should be designated to have a part to play. That would be delegated through the system, so that one merely has to establish a precedent by which those "welfare workers"—again, I emphasise the inverted commas—are involved in a case. Their power and influence may be so great as to intimidate—to overwhelm—the influence of the social worker: the professionally qualified person who really does have the child's interest at heart.
    There are many examples. I have been involved in trying to understand what is meant by the term "restorative justice" in Northern Ireland. It is a very fine term and what is intended could no doubt be worth while. However, in relation to the outworkings of that and in a society such as ours—a society that will have to endure many more years of transition until we become normal in general terms—we cannot allow anything to infiltrate the justice system. I respectfully caution the Minister to take on board the amendment
    CWH 126
    so as to ensure that we do not undermine the opportunity for children who commit crimes to be properly absorbed back into society. Conversely, a situation could be created where they are more likely to be absorbed into and brought under the influence of paramilitary organisations.
    Lord Laird: I too support the amendment. Two Members of the Committee have explained the reasons behind it. In my view, the thrust of Paragraph 4 is extremely good, with one or two amendments. I like the concept. I have talked with other noble Lords to learn how this kind of justice operates in the London area and I am quite satisfied with it. However, there is one major proviso: we must not allow this to become entangled in the web of paramilitarism referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. We must keep it away from the troubles of Northern Ireland and from the difficulties of the paramilitaries and their concept of justice.
    The problem is that, without the amendment, the provision will let in a little chink of light from the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, it has to be said that the experience of some of the actions of certain Secretaries of State has revealed that they were not as pure as they could have been. I say that although I am acutely aware that one or two former Secretaries of State are serving on this Committee. Obviously I do not suggest in any way that they were involved in difficult decisions.
    When I think of some of the political decisions that have been taken recently, we cannot be sure that things are what they are and, conversely, things are not what they are not. I am keen to support the amendment.
    Lord Hylton: I have a high regard for the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. Nevertheless, as I listened to her words it seemed that she was slightly overstating her argument. She appeared to imply that the whole of Northern Ireland is totally dominated by paramilitaries. I am sure that many Members of the Committee will know of many areas that are not so dominated.
    The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked what community restorative justice might be understood to mean. If it is of any help to the noble Lord, I should like to give my version. Community restorative justice is a process that puts the victim, as far as possible, back into the position in which he or she was before the offence took place. Furthermore, if the process is successful, it does away with the enmity and resentment that are likely to have arisen between the offender and the victim.
    The concept and the practice of community restorative practice have now been tested in many countries around the world, including here in England. In so far as the reparation orders prescribed in the Bill will work, they are to be supplemented by local community restorative justice. That will tend to reduce the number and severity of interventions by paramilitary groups, many of whom I know to be very

    CWH 127
    reluctant to carry out summary justice. However, they have been pressurised into doing so by the numerous complaints from neighbours and local residents.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may make two points in response to the noble Lord? First, a great deal of the crime that we are considering is likely to be urban; the experience of Belfast is not unrelated to the issue. Of course I accept that the situation is not the same all over Northern Ireland and I am glad that it is not. However, it obtains in enough of Northern Ireland to be a very serious problem. My other point is that I find it extraordinarily difficult to feel sympathy for these unfortunate, delicate paramilitaries, who feel obliged to administer summary justice when we have a perfectly good police force which they refuse to allow to administer that justice.
    Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendments and would like first to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. He is right that Northern Ireland is not dominated by paramilitaries and that the system has been tested throughout the world. It is my understanding that wherever it has been tested, it has been done within the legal and justice system of that jurisdiction. Paragraph 9.15 of the criminal justice review, on page 193, refers to schemes within the criminal justice process, quoting one in Mountpottinger where the police were involved and another in Ballymena. It then goes on to mention schemes outside the criminal justice process, without passing judgment on them. The Bill talks about those criminal justice schemes being within the justice and legal system.
    However, on the unofficial restorative justice schemes, the review says:
    "Those running the schemes in Loyalist areas have generally made efforts to involve the police and operate in a way that is (sometimes loosely) complementary to the normal criminal process. Those in Republican areas have no contact with the police, although they have developed links with other statutory agencies, and have no links with the formal criminal justice process".
    I am against both those systems, regardless of whether the loyalist ones talk to the police. They are both standing out on their own and coming to their own conclusions without the proper people necessarily being present.
    As I understand it, restorative justice cannot occur unless the perpetrator pleads guilty. After that, neither of these systems can possibly have any link to the police without there being consequences further down the line. If, as we hope, restorative justice is to try to turn people away from crime and to administer some sort of rebuke or, when it works, to allow the courts to be more lenient, we cannot have youths or young people being punished twice—first by the paramilitaries or whatever. There can be only one reason for these two systems that have appeared outside the criminal justice process: they do not want the criminal justice system involved. Therefore, most
    CWH 128
    people in Northern Ireland—by which I mean the law-abiding people—will see it as justice within a community being run by those who wish to run their communities by fear and disorder and terrorist means.
    Lord Glentoran: I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend, Lady Park. Earlier in the Committee I made the point that as we go through the Bill we must ensure that this criminal justice system, and in particular the youth criminal justice part, is maintained and clearly seen to be whiter than white. That means no sign, touch or feel of contamination. By contamination, I mean that people who have been exposed at some time in their lives as serious criminals and the like should not be allowed to be involved.
    Amendment No. 187A would delete new Article 36A(4)(c). Paragraph (4) begins:
    "Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain and consider a written report by—

    (a) a probation officer;

    (b) a social worker of the appropriate authority;".

    That is a carefully thought-out provision, specifying proper people who ought to be expected to produce such a report. However, the thinking then suddenly stops with sub-Paragraph (c), which merely says anybody else whom the Secretary of State might designate. That is not necessary because if the court requires to hear from anyone else, then the court will be aware of that. It will do the thinking and I am almost certain that—the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong—they will have the power to request that particular body to give them a report. Why then offer this unnecessary, open-ended and—I suggest with all due respect—ill thought-out statement?
    Amendment No. 193A addresses paragraph (4) of Article 36D on page 33. Here we have a similar situation where a "responsible officer" in relation to an offender subject to a reparation order means one of the following as specified in the order. Again, it is thought out: the probation officer or the social worker of the appropriate authority. Then suddenly the thinking stops once more. Anyone else the Secretary of State, the First Minister or Deputy First Minister might think of may be appointed. No prescription of any kind has been made. Why is the Bill prescriptive up to a certain point and then suddenly not in any way prescriptive?
    When we come to Clause 55 on page 41, we are considering the supervision of young people under custody care orders on probation. That must be a critical time in a young person's life; that is, coming through the supervision of a custody care order and the probation period. Again, the Bill specifies that the young person shall be under the supervision of a probation officer—a properly trained, accredited person. However, once more we encounter the strange phrase, "or such other person as the Secretary of State may designate"; or who may be designated by the First Minister or Deputy First Minister. What would they know about it? They should not know anything about

    CWH 129
    it; they are miles removed. I suggest that my noble friend's amendments should be given careful attention by the Government.
    4.30 p.m.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I do not have a new point to make. I seek only to add a little inadequate support to what has been said by my noble friend Lady Park and by those who have spoken in support of her. In particular, what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Glentoran draws attention to the point which ought to be at the heart of this debate. Nobody could possibly claim that the provisions in Part 4 of the Bill are other than carefully thought out. I am quite certain that they have been the subject of a great deal of consultation. Indeed, we know that to be the case. We see set out specifically the two persons who are to be eligible and amenable to making a report if the court wants it.
    That is not quite right. I am looking at page 31, line 20,
    "Any person so specified"—
    in the case of reparation orders—
    "must be a person identified by the court as—

    (a) a victim of the offence; or

    (b) a person otherwise affected by it.

    (4) Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain"—
    this is the point that I wish to emphasise—
    "and consider a report written by—

    (a) a probation officer;

    (b) a social worker of the appropriate authority; or"—

    here are the words that my noble friend Lady Park wants to delete, as do I—
    "such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    I hope that, in his response, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, will deal with two points. Who might be the categories of person the Secretary of State might be minded to designate? Could they be persons who have not as yet occurred to those responsible for drafting the Bill as being worthy of inclusion in this short list? The obvious people, as my noble friend Lord Glentoran has already pointed out, are the probation officer and the social worker with the appropriate authority. From whom else might the court need to see a report once the third category of person had been designated?
    I also hope that the noble Lord will bear in mind the realism of what my noble friend Lady Park said about the practice of entryism by the paramilitaries on both sides. I am sure it is right that the Secretary of State will be acting upon advice in designating people. It is not unrealistic to suppose that, for reasons that genuinely seem good to a future Secretary of State—or even to the current Secretary of State—somebody will be brought in with very undesirable objectives. That does happen and I hope the Government will take seriously my noble friend's warning.
    CWH 130
    I do not want to be wholly destructive—I thought that it might be possible to offer an alternative. Instead of a "must" there should be a "may" in respect of a third category. My alternative provision would state,
    "may obtain and consider a report from such other person as in furtherance of the principal aims"—
    or the furtherance of Clause 52—"they"—that is, the court—"may select". That might be a compromise way forward.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The amendments have a common purpose. I will follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, by restricting my comments, by way of illustration, as he did, to page 31. Clause 53(4) states:
    "Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain and consider a written report by … probation officer; … a social worker of the appropriate authority; or … such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    I think that the noble and learned Lord crystallised the questions in the minds of other Members of the Committee by inviting me to say what the thinking of the Government was about who might be in that third category of designation. I will happily reply. There are excellent bodies in the voluntary sector and partly in the statutory and voluntary sectors, which I shall enumerate, which might well be able to offer extremely valuable assistance—to take the example the noble and learned Lord—in terms of providing a written report.
    I refer, for example, to NIACRO and the Northern Ireland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, with which I had the privilege of working very closely when I was a trustee of the NSPCC. Members of the Committee will know that although the NSPCC is a charitable and voluntary organisation, it enters into statutory partnerships for certain purposes with government agencies. A wide range of projects is offered across Northern Ireland under the aegis of the Juvenile Justice Board. I hope that those illustrations answer the noble and learned Lord's question. I am glad that we are having this discussion and that my response indicates the Government's thinking.
    The court already has discretion about who it may ask for a report. The obligation is to obtain a report. There is no obligation to obtain a report from a probation officer—the obligation is simply to have a written report. Therefore, we hope that the explanation that I have given will satisfy Members of the Committee, although I fear that it may not. We are going to have a focused discussion in this regard later this afternoon—we shall later discuss amendments about disqualifications from certain positions. That will involve specific examples of what the noble Baroness referred to in her general introduction. I hope to assure Members of the Committee that only those who have the right skills and the appropriate contributions of the sorts I have mentioned will be designated for this important task.

    CWH 131
    I turn to Amendments Nos. 209A and 209B. These provisions replicate the supervision arrangements for juvenile justice centre orders on which custody care orders are based. We would expect a probation officer to undertake supervision in most cases—I stress those three words—but we should maintain flexibility particularly—I also stress that—in relation to younger children.
    On Amendment No. 217A, we want the flexibility to provide appropriate supervision arrangements. We do not intend to remove the general category in relation to custody care orders or to amend the 1998 order in relation to juvenile justice centre orders. I therefore hope that Members of the Committee will agree that the definition should remain as drafted.
    I do not overlook the concerns that have been ventilated—they are real and legitimate. I hope that I have at least been able to answer the noble and learned Lord's questions.
    Lord Glentoran: For clarification, does the noble and learned Lord agree that there are still parts of Northern Ireland in which the probation officer system cannot work? Does he understand that the amendments must relate to a fear of what substitution might he allowed in that regard?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand what the noble Lord says—he said it with his customary moderation and patience. My counter to that argument is that, if one desires a certain degree of flexibility—if the probation officer is not appropriate or if the social worker is not appropriate, or if neither is available—the court has the opportunity to obtain a written report from the organisations to which I referred. I do not agree that probation officers are not able to carry out their work, but that may be a matter of dispute. I cannot pretend that my knowledge is greater on the ground than that of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: The noble and learned Lord said that it is open to the court to call for reports from any of the several organisations that he mentioned. Why, therefore, can that not be the normal rule? Why does the Secretary of State have to intervene from on high in the very basic detail of a very complex system?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I mis-expressed myself or the noble Baroness uncharacteristically misunderstood me. Paragraph (4) states:
    "Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain and consider a written report".
    That is, the obligation in all cases, prior to making the order, is to obtain and consider the written report. The categories of persons from whom that written report can come are,
    "a probation officer … a social worker … or … such other person as the Secretary of State my designate".
    CWH 132
    My point was that a written report has to be obtained and that report has to be considered; the categories would include the opportunity for the Secretary of State to designate persons, as is set out in sub-paragraph (c).
    Lord Tebbit: I am a little uncertain about the meaning of the provision. Paragraph (4), to which the noble and learned Lord referred, says the court must,
    "obtain and consider a … report by … such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    Is that a power for the Secretary of State to designate other persons in general in a way in which courts may take into account—I see that there are some nods from Members of the Committee—or does it mean that the Secretary of State thought, in relation to a particular case, that there should be a report from another person?
    Secondly, does the noble and learned Lord accept that a problem arises because those people are not designated in the Bill, for understandable reasons? We do not know who they will be, although the noble and learned Lord gave some very good and reasonable examples. On the other hand, he refuses at every stage to accept a bar in relation to the appointment of people who are tainted with terrorism. If he could allow us to include a barrier against the appointment of tainted persons, that would ease our minds.
    [The Sitting was suspendedfor a Division in the House from 4.44 to 4.54 p.m.]
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful for the illustration given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and I quite see that those are entirely respectable organisations with very good records which a court might usefully consider. However, under paragraph (4), the court must obtain and consider "a written report"—only one—which may be by a probation officer, a social worker of the appropriate authority or such other person as the Secretary of State may designate. A great many of us would be more at ease with this if there were an obligation to obtain and consider a report from either a probation officer or a social worker and then an option to obtain a further report from,
    "such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    I should like a requirement to obtain and consider a report from either a probation officer or a social worker. If the Secretary of State is to be able to designate somebody else, let that be an add-on.
    Lord Hylton: Very briefly, I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I can imagine a case coming up of perhaps a first offender who is not already known to a probation officer or a social worker but who may be known to a third party and the court will know that that third party exists. Therefore, I would like it to be within the discretion of the court to get the report or other information that it needs from the third person.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall deal with the questions that were put by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. He is quite right; there was vigorous nodding in assent to his first proposition—it is the former not the latter.
    Bodies rather than individuals will be designated under the provision for,
    "such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    In other words, "person" is used in the sense of a corporate person—an organisation such as NISPCC or NIACRO.
    The noble Lord also asked whether we could avoid tainted individuals. We have to trust these organisations to employ appropriate staff. The same applies to social services, probation officers and any local authority. I hope that that is of assistance.
    Lord Tebbit: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Could it be made clear on the face of the Bill that "persons" is being used in that sense of a corporate body?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: May I give some consideration to that? I do not want to accept a drafting amendment that might have adverse consequences on a complicated, well thought-out Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his courtesy and I undertake to put thought to the issue with officials before we come back on Report. If I am able to write to the noble Lord and to all Members of the Committee in advance, I shall do so.
    Viscount Brookeborough: That still does not completely clear up the Secretary of State side. If, as the noble and learned Lord says, the court might wish to bring in someone else, why can we not simply specify such a person as the court may deem suitable for the case? I do not understand the problem. The noble and learned Lord has just said that they will be the people who do it, so why do we not say so?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is a misunderstanding here. Any court at any time can, of its own volition, call for a report from anyone. The obligation here is that they must not make the reparation order without the consideration of a written report from one of these three designated categories. However, that does not prevent any court at any time—certainly when dealing with children and young persons—from applying of its own volition for a report. That does not need to be set out in the Bill; it is a commonplace of the administration of criminal justice, in my experience.
    The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, wondered whether we might substitute the word "and" for "or". That would restrict flexibility. We want the court to have the opportunity to come to its judicial conclusion as to which body the written report should come from—the probation officer, the social worker or one of the designated categories.
    That should deal with the questions that have been put to me.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he has made one dangerous presumption, which is that, in the organisations or the types of organisation that lie has listed, there will not be people who will be undesirable for the purpose of making an assessment in the case of a child involved in a criminal act. At every level of society in Northern Ireland—the noble and learned Lord will recognise this—there is pressure from the Northern Ireland Office to bring in those who have, in their former lives, been terrorists, been prisoners and been involved in all sorts of terrorism and criminality.
    There may be good reason for that; I have mixed feelings. I believe that every dog should have his day and am happy, if there is genuine remorse, to see people absorbed back into society. However, it is too early to give them this type of responsibility. There may be people who have got through the net but who are not yet qualified, whether that is because of a lack of remorse, because they are of doubtful use to society or because they are not fully committed to a lawful society. It is too early to bring them in to make judgments, as could happen here. I made the point earlier, and I make it again: the Secretary of State has that responsibility, but it will be a delegated responsibility, and he will not learn about the problems until things go wrong.
    I do not want to be tedious, but I will illustrate further what I mean. One might expect that, in the two areas in which we have restorative justice pilot schemes, society as a whole would see the knock-on effects, whatever good the system might do for the victim or however it may benefit the offender. That is not happening in, for example, the Short Strand, which is an area of the Mountpottinger district. It is certainly not happening in Ballymena, which is becoming Northern Ireland's drugs capital. I say that at the risk of offending my friends from Ballymena, particularly those who play rugby. However, there is nothing to indicate the success of restorative justice during this transitional period in Northern Ireland.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I would say, in answer to that last observation, that restorative justice has not yet had its opportunity. I take what the noble Lord says with great seriousness. He said earlier, with typical generosity, that there might be some who have served lengthy prison sentences but who might have become truly remorseful—the adverb is important, I agree—and have demonstrated their ability to contribute, perhaps even realising the dreadful wrongs they have done to their fellow citizens.
    That is of course true of all organisations. It is true in some circumstances in the probation service or in social work and one has to be extremely careful and cautious, perhaps overly cautious, before employing anyone who has been in trouble with the law in the past. But I repeat that what is suggested here is that the

    CWH 135
    Secretary of State should have the opportunity of designating bodies which may be called on by the court before it makes such a reparation order.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: I thank all those Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of the amendment and I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the patient way in which he has dealt with a number of the issues. However, I am in no doubt that we shall wish to return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 190:
    Page 31, leave out line 38.
    The noble Lord said: The amendment would strike out the restriction on making a reparation order in respect of an offender if it proposes to pass a custodial sentence on him or her. I am interested to know why this article has been introduced. I do not understand the thinking behind it. Essentially this is a probing amendment to find out, given that I am not very literate in judicial matters.
    However, one can see that there is a degree of overlap between community service orders and reparation orders. Why are reparation orders to be restricted to those who are not to be given any other sentence or order, even though a court might believe that a reparation order would be beneficial in a particular case? I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall explain the thinking behind the article in response to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Reparation orders are intended essentially for those children whose offending is at the lower end of the scale; that is, relatively minor. It is intended therefore to be a low-level disposal, one particularly suited to those who have not progressed to more serious offending. Custody, in particular for children, is well known to be—and ought to be—the last resort reserved for serious offenders. If a child is a sufficiently serious offender to warrant custody, then plainly it would not be appropriate to pass a reparation order. That is the thinking behind this provision and I believe that it is correct.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 191:
    Page 32, line 24, leave out "24" and insert "160"
    The noble Lord said: This group of amendments is aimed at increasing the duration of reparation orders in relation to sentencing and providing an opportunity to separate the provisions for reparation order-making and sentencing for 16 and 17 year-olds and for those aged under 16.
    CWH 136
    We are concerned that the Bill will not provide the courts with sufficient flexibility. The number of hours that I have proposed in the amendment are not intended to be specific; they are purely for the purposes of debating the lack of flexibility offered to the courts. I am concerned that the courts will not have made available to them sufficient discretion to deal effectively with all age groups and with offences of varying degrees of seriousness. Thus I admit that the figures in the amendment are arbitrary.
    I seek to draw attention to the fact that the courts will be prohibited from imposing a longer reparation order even if they thought that this might give an offender a better chance of understanding the distress and inconvenience that his actions had caused, thus enabling the victim more easily to come to terms with the offence. We do not see why that should not be the case. I am aware that Section 74(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 states:
    "A reparation order shall not require the offender to work for more than 24 hours in aggregate".
    That is a provision for England and Wales. I do not feel that it necessarily defeats my argument. We are bringing in a new system. It is a new criminal justice system and a new system for youth justice, and I see no reason why we should be tied rigidly in such matters to what has been passed for England and Wales. The Northern Ireland judiciary and the Northern Ireland judicial system are, after devolution, essentially different, and there is every reason to debate whether the Bill has the matter right or wrong.
    Amendment No. 230 makes separate provision for those aged 16 and 17. The inclusion of that age group will bring into the youth justice system more offences such as violent crime and motoring offences, albeit that there are plenty of motoring offences being committed in Belfast involving pilots of about 12 or 13. That is a separate problem now, but it will not remain a separate problem once the Bill is passed. We must take that into account.
    I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the courts will be permitted to use their discretion and will have appropriate penalties at their disposal to deal with serious offences committed by 17 and 18 year-olds, as opposed to 12, 13 or 14 year-olds. I beg to move.
    Lord Laird: We support the amendment keenly.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 would, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, increase the maximum duration from 24 hours to 160 and 240 hours respectively. He is right in saying that 24 hours is the maximum in England and Wales. He is also right to say that what happens in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland does not always go hand-in-hand with what happens in England and Wales. It is important, however, that the success in England and Wales has been significant.
    I repeat my point about Amendment No. 190. That is intended to be low-level intervention for low-level crime. In the life of someone in that category, 24 hours

    CWH 137
    is a significant period and should not be underestimated. For the older person to whom the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred, there are, of course, appropriate penalties, as he described them. I shall give him the reassurance that he wanted. There are other disposals, including, for instance, a probation order or, for the 16-plus age group—to which the noble Lord particularly referred—a community service order of up to 240 hours. So, there is a more serious penalty available in the case of a more serious offender, aged over 16.
    The provision in Schedule 10 is taken directly from the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. It relates to the imposition of a community service order for the breach of an order as defined in the 1996 order. It is not relevant to children under 16, who cannot be made subject to a community service order. For those who are aged 16 and over, the court already has the power under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to impose an additional penalty of up to 60 hours' community service for the breach of an order. It is limited for that reason.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 192 to 194 not moved.]
    On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise for asking this question, which arises out of the review on criminal justice. I do not know where else I would ask it. I would quite understand if the Minister felt more inclined to give me a written answer, rather than answering today. Paragraph 10.89 of the review says:
    "In respect of juveniles, we recommend that the Government should commission independent research into the effects of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 on juvenile defendants as a matter of urgency, and that the findings of that research should he published".
    Have there been any developments in that regard since the review was published?
    5.15 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: In response to the noble Lord's question, I have to exercise my right of silence, because I do not know the answer—oh, I do now. I understand that that research has been commissioned, but not published.
    Clause 53 agreed to.
    Clause 54 [Community responsibility orders]:
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 195:
    Page 34, line 18, leave out "instruction" and insert "teaching"
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 196. We have been too economical with these amendments. The word "instruction" appears four times between lines 15 and 20, two of which are covered by these amendments. Our view is that the word should be changed on all four occasions,
    CWH 138
    but this is a technical matter that could be tidied up on another occasion. It would be more appropriate to speak to the principle of whether the word is appropriate and to hear the Government's response. The words "teaching" and "learning" have two sides. I am not convinced that the recipient of "instruction" would be as enthusiastic about the matter.
    If we think of Santa Claus coming and bringing us a little box at Christmas, when we open the box and find all sorts of little bits we look for the instructions. We are willing participants, trying to puzzle it together. It could be said that someone will have to undertake the giving of instruction. It could be said that all one needs to do is to give the sheet and ask the person to read it and then, when they have read it, ask them to read it again—and again, and again.
    This should be about teaching and learning. The word "instruction" would be best banished from this provision and replaced with something friendlier and more likely to achieve a response from the person whom it is suggested should receive that instruction. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The reason for choosing the word "instruction" and sticking adamantly to it is that "instruction" has those further overtones that are needed for children in this category—of guidance and direction as well as literal teaching. The instructions on the toys one receives at Christmas normally say, "Battery not provided".
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: We will think again when we have recharged our batteries, when we next consider the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment Nos. 196 to 199 not moved.]
    Clause 54 agreed to.
    Clause 55 [Custody care orders]:
    Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 200:
    Page 38, line 2, leave out "one half or
    The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment referring to custody care orders. New Article 44A(6) provides that,
    "the period for which a child is to be kept in secure accommodation under a custody care order shall be one half of the period of the order".
    Referring to paragraph (2) of the same article, I would like clarification that that is a fixed proportion of the sentence, the remaining period being a period of suspension. My friends in the judiciary are concerned that any discretion would not be welcome. They are wary of legislation imposing sentencing directions. I beg to move.
    Lord Hylton: I welcome the new invention of custody care orders. However, it is unclear how they will work in practice. The numbers of children arid young people affected by them may be very small indeed. Therefore, one wonders where these people will be kept. Will they be mixed with ordinary children in care, or will they be separate? if they are to be

    CWH 139
    separate, is there some danger that they will be in ones and possibly two, and therefore isolated? There are risks either way, whether they are mixed or separate. Close co-operation will be needed between the NIO and the Department of Health. I would be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord would comment on those aspects.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I should like clarification on the effect of the provision. I think that it stems from a policy decision that when a custody order is made, the period in custody shall be no more than half the total, and that the remaining half shall be under supervision. In other words, they are to be divided 50:50. If that is the case, what is the reasoning for that policy decision? I assume also that it extends to custody orders that are made by the court for a longer period than six months. I recognise that the court will have to give reasons for the award of a longer sentence. Does the same 50:50 division apply there?
    I hope that no element of parity with remission rules comes in here. We know that there is a statutory period of remission of 50 per cent for sentences of imprisonment. It is inappropriate to apply that sort of reasoning to a custody care order, because the court will make a careful judgement as to whether a custody order is appropriate. It would seem quite wrong to have a statutory period dividing by half that period on the same basis as remission of sentences. I do not think it arises, but I thought it might. I would be grateful if that could be cleared up.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: As a layman, I have to confess that I find this somewhat baffling. I am sure that clarification and guidance would be welcome not only from my limited intake but to—I hesitate to bracket other Members of the Grand Committee with me—the general public and others who would be engaged in the enforcement of this provision.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to respond. The provision is for children between 10 and 13 who need the most careful attention. It is intended to be a fixed term of half spent in secure accommodation—I confirm the understanding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—and half thereafter to be spent under supervision, probably by a probation officer, in the community. As the noble and learned Lord said, it is a policy decision following the recommendation of the criminal justice review that children who require custody at quite tender years should be accommodated within the care section rather than in a juvenile justice centre.
    In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, we anticipate relatively small numbers, but this is a gap in our present system. We are not currently able to provide this, which is intended to give children—I stress quite few in number and of young years—the opportunity to remake a life if he is on the downward track. They will be kept by the appropriate authority in secure accommodation. I cannot give the noble Lord the final details, but when I have further details
    CWH 140
    I shall write to him. I echo and endorse his comments that there must be the closest possible co-operation between the relevant authorities.
    If the amendment were passed, the half-half split would not obtain and children of 10 to 13 would be treated much more harshly than older children. I entirely accept that this was intended to be a probing amendment and I hope that I have satisfied the Committee.
    Lord Hylton: Can the noble and learned Lord assure us that continuity of education will be maintained during the time spent in secure accommodation? That would go some way towards overcoming the possible problems of isolation.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Continuity of education will be maintained. In the nature of things, it will not be maintained at the educational establishment that the child formerly attended, but one of the benefits in my experience of secure accommodation managed properly is that quite intense educational opportunities are provided with a much lower pupil-teacher ratio than one finds in a mainstream state school.
    Lord Glentoran: I wonder whether this is an appropriate time to ask this question. This system, particularly the youth criminal justice system, is a Rolls-Royce system. The more I know about it, the more I like it, provided we can keep the parameters right. However, I sense that it will be extremely costly. What are the Government's intentions on how the system will be funded?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is expensive. From my fairly recent memory, secure accommodation in England and Wales costs of the order of £125,000 a year. On the other hand, as a number of noble Lords have observed, the alternatives are extremely expensive in social disharmony and real distress caused by quite young children, wholly disproportionate to their chronological age. The funding will have to be made available.
    Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his clarification of the points raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 201:
    Page 38, line 3, at end insert"; but the appropriate authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, at any time discharge a child who is being so kept"
    The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 202 and 212 in this group. Within Clause 55, new Article 44G defines the legal regime under which a child subject to a CCO will be detained. Because accommodation is provided within the care system, it draws on the provisions in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It has been brought to our attention that we have produced unintended results. We have disapplied provisions

    CWH 141
    within the 1995 order which have wider application. For instance, Article 3 of the 1995 order, which requires a court in civil proceedings, in determining any question with respect to the upbringing of a child or the administration of a child's property, to have the child's welfare as its paramount consideration, is disapplied. That was an unintended effect. New Article 44B has been recast with exactly the same policy aim in mind, removing the unintended anomaly.
    We had various representations, which I ought to touch upon. The amended article now makes specific provision within the prescribed legal regime for reviews and representatives as provided by Article 45 of the 1995 order. This will undoubtedly strengthen the process of managing a child's period in secure accommodation. The recast, new Article 45B does not contain any further provision relating to the discharge at any time of a child in secure accommodation by the appropriate authority with the consent of the Secretary of State. The provision has been retained and now appears more logically in new Article 44A(6) and new Article 44F(3)(b), where it is associated more appropriately with the definition of periods to be spent in secure accommodation. The meaning and purpose has not changed. Those are in a sense technical amendments. They were rather convoluted and I hope I have explained them. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 202:
    Page 38, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 39 and insert—

    "(1) This Article makes provision about the application of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (N.I. 2) in relation to a child during any period for which he is kept in secure accommodation by the appropriate authority under a custody care order (or under any other order under this Order or as a place of safety).

    (2) Of the provisions about a child looked after by an authority (within the meaning of Article 25) those specified in paragraph (3) (and no others) apply.

    (3) Those provisions are—

    (a) Article 26 (duty to safeguard and promote welfare);

    (b) Article 27(1), (2)(b), (e) and (f), (8) and (9) and Article 28(2) (accommodation and maintenance);

    (c) Article 29(1), (2) and (4) to (6) (promotion and maintenance of contact with family);

    (d) Articles 30 and 31 (visits);

    (e) Article 34 (death);

    (f) Article 35(1) and Article 36(1) and (4) (advice, assistance and befriending);

    (g) Article 45 (reviews and representations); and

    (h) Articles 72 and 73 (provision of homes).

    (4) In their application by virtue of paragraph (2)—

    (a) Article 29(4) has effect with the omission of subparagraph (a); and

    (b) Article 34(1)(a) has effect as if the reference to the Department were to the Department and the Secretary of State.

    CWH 142

    (5) The following provisions—

    (a) Article 5(7) (person having parental responsibility not to act inconsistently with order);

    (b) Article 52(3) to (6), (7)(a) and (9) (effect of care order); and

    (c) Article 53(1) to (9) (parental contact),

    apply as if the custody care order (or the other order or the placing of the child in a place of safety) were a care order and the appropriate authority were the authority designated by it and in whose care the child is.

    (6) Articles 8 to 14 (residence, contact etc. orders) and Articles 17 to 24 (children in need) do not apply.

    (7) No care order or supervision order under Part 5 may be made or, if such an order has already made, it does not have effect."

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 203:
    Page 39, line 33, at end insert "and.
    (ii) will be offered an independent advocacy service within 24 hours of his return to secure accommodation to ensure that the reason for his escape is fully understood and reported to the Secretary of State in writing."
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 210. The amendments refer to the provision relating to escape from secure accommodation. Amendment No. 203 would insert a provision for the person who escaped to be offered an independent advocacy service within 24 hours of return—excepting all the business about being rounded up and returned—to ensure that the reason for the escape was fully understood and reported to the Secretary of State in writing.
    It has not been totally unknown—though only on rare occasions—for some institutions to be places from which it might be no bad thing if somebody escaped. If somebody tries to escape because something is going wrong in the institution and they cannot cope with it, it is proper that the Secretary of State ought to know about the problem. There should be provision for that independent advocacy service. I appreciate that we would hope that such a provision would be rarely, if ever, used, but it is important there should be some understanding if there is something going wrong and a child escapes. They should have a way of being able to report what has gone wrong and hopefully then it will be put right. I beg to move.
    Lord Hylton: I support the general thrust of the amendment. However, I wonder whether an independent advocacy service should not be provided before somebody escapes. That may prevent the escape taking place.
    I can cite the experience of the existing training schools which are secure or semi-secure. In those NIACRO, of which I have the honour to be president, has been instrumental in providing an advocacy service for all inmates, regardless of their intention to escape or not. Perhaps that precedent could he taken into account in the new system.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure what an independent advocacy service is intended to be,

    CWH 143
    although I take the point made by the noble Lord; namely, that any escape of a child from custody ought, of itself, to cause alarm bells to ring. Escaping is an arrestable offence, but a child can be taken before a court only with the agreement of the Secretary of State. If that happens, then of course the child would be legally represented at the court.
    I think that the noble Lord who has proposed the amendment is not so much interested in legal representation as, if I understand the case correctly, in introducing a mechanism for bringing to the attention of an appropriate outside authority—that is, not the secure accommodation itself—the fact that something has gone wrong. I do not think that the amendment offers a mechanism for bringing that about. It is more likely to be brought about by the system recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
    We should not forget that there will be appropriate inspection of these authorities. I accept that, in the past—and I hope it is in the past—independent inspections did not always work. I shall certainly give some thought to what the noble Lord seeks with his amendment, but I am absolutely certain that the amendment as drafted is not the way to bring it about.
    I have been helpfully reminded—I seek to assist the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, in particular and the Committee in general—that the amendment we have just made to Article 45 in the 1995 order means that the authority holding the child will have to make arrangements for reviewing the detention of that child. That may provide some reassurance, but I would like to consider the matter with officials and, if it proves to be necessary, with the noble Lord and any other noble Lord who wishes to join us. We should examine whether we can satisfy the Committee further on this issue. I will undertake to give some distinct thought to this before we return to it on Report.
    Finally, I am reminded to confirm the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that independent representation by NIACRO is provided in secure care accommodation as well.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I am grateful for the contribution of the noble and learned Lord. In the light of his remarks and with the possibility of discussions taking place, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Viscount Bridgemanmoved Amendment No. 204:
    Page 39, line 42, leave out "30 days" and insert "six months"
    The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 204, and speak at the same time to the amendments included in this grouping; that is, Amendments Nos. 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213 and 214. Amendment No. 204 would increase the duration of an extension to a child's custody order. I note that under paragraph (3)(b) of new Article 44C, the court may revoke the custody order altogether and deal with the child in any other manner which it thinks fit. We are concerned that an extension of 30 days or less might invite more frequent attempts at escape.
    CWH 144
    Amendment Nos. 205 to 209 would increase the penalties for those who knowingly assist a child's escape, who remove a child without lawful authority, who harbour a child who escapes or who otherwise obstruct the implementation of a custody care order. In view of the fact that outside interference could have very serious consequences for the child concerned, I should appreciate some assurance from the Minister that the Government expect to see these offences treated with due seriousness.
    The remaining amendments relate to the breach of supervision requirements. I should be grateful for an assurance that, as far as possible, no child will undergo a cycle of detention followed by escape, which would jeopardise the child's chances of rehabilitation and acceptance back into the community. That does not currently appear in the Bill.
    Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 214, which would substitute the word "may" for "shall". That is in line with our concern that the courts should have the maximum discretion. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: A proposal to increase the maximum penalty from 30 days to six months is quite excessive and wholly disproportionate. That relates to the escape of a child from secure accommodation. I could not agree to the suggestion that six months' further incarceration should be appropriate in those circumstances. There is also a question about increasing very substantially the maximum fines but one needs to bear in mind the sort of child with whom one is dealing and what the purpose of very large maxima punitive fines should be.
    The provisions simply replicate the existing penalties in the Criminal Justice (Children)(Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and they represent the general norm for this type of offence. The penalties in the Bill for children who escape are proportionate. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
    In Amendments Nos. 211 and 213, the same approach is adopted. The maximum penalty for noncompliance would go up from 30 days to six months' further detention, which I remind Members of the Committee is the equivalent of a 12-month sentence. That is excessive and quite disproportionate.
    On Amendment No. 214, we believe that the direction should use the word "shall". I simply part company with the noble Viscount because we have a different approach of principle. I do not think I will persuade him or that he will persuade me.
    Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. We would like to revisit on Report the subject of treatment prejudicing a child that jeopardises his or her chances of rehabilitation and reacceptance into the community thereafter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 205 to 211 not moved.]
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 212:
    Page 42, line 4, at end insert"; but the appropriate authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, at any time discharge a child who is being so kept"
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 213 and 214 not moved.]
    On Question, Whether Clause 55 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have one small technical question. A purist might say that I should have raised it in relation to Amendment No. 209B but it is much easier to raise my question once that amendment has been withdrawn and we are still with the existing terms of the Bill. Article 44E(1) on page 41 states:
    "During the period of supervision under a custody care order, the child shall he under the supervision of a probation officer or such other person as the Secretary of State may designate".
    That establishes who is going to be the person supervising the child. Paragraph (3) contains the phrase:
    "During the period of supervision the person under whose supervision the offender is".
    In view of that language, one would logically go back to the two alternatives in Article 44E(1). The paragraph goes on to use the phrase that my noble friend Lady Park sought to remove from the Bill; that is,
    "or another person designated by the Secretary of State."
    My question is whether this other person designated by the Secretary of State is a new person in addition to the person referred to in paragraph (1). I have to infer from the language that that is the case but it would be helpful to know why.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is. The reason is to allow flexibility: if it was more appropriate that the notice be served—this concerns only the question of serving a notice—by another person, that flexibility should be available. It is only a notice-serving power.
    Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
    5.45 p.m.
    Clause 56 [Youth conferences and youth conference plans]:
    [Amendment No. 215 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 215A:
    Page 43, line 14, at end insert—
    "( ) a representative of the prosecution"
    The noble Lord said: The amendment is straightforward. It would add a representative of the prosecution to the list. It seems to me that the circle should be complete, or thereabouts. We are talking about a serious matter. Even if the representative of the prosecution did not take any part, at least so far as
    CWH 146
    the young person is concerned, he has not been let off—a prosecution would still be going on. That seems appropriate to us in relation to the youth conference meeting. The article states:
    "A meeting does not constitute, or form part of, a youth conference unless the following persons participate in it".
    It is important, as I said, that the circle should be complete and that the prosecution should be there, albeit, if necessary, in some observational role. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I advise Members of the Committee not to agree to the amendment. The amendment would add to Article 3A(2) on page 43 new paragraph (e), which would refer to a prosecutor. It would mean that if a heavily stretched prosecution service did not provide a prosecutor, the meeting could not constitute itself or be lawfully continued. There is no part for the prosecutor to play at this stage because a referral to a diversionary conference can he made only after an admission of guilt, and to a court-ordered conference after a finding of guilt. That is not a forum for questioning again the facts of the offence and it is not intended to be adversarial. The legal representative of the child is not there to re-defend him, and no one at the conference is there to re-prosecute.
    The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that the prosecutor might just be there. The interests of the public at large—in which, of course, I include all those who have been hurt and harmed by the crime—are reasonably served by the presence of the police officer. It seems, first, that the prosecutor would have no role to play. Secondly, it would waste resources and, thirdly, it is capable of confusing those conference occasions with either the admission of guilt stage or the finding of guilt stage. That would not be desirable.
    Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 216:
    Page 43, line 17, at end insert"; or
    ( ) the probation Board of Northern Ireland"
    The noble Lord said: Arnendment No. 216 seeks to include the Probation Board of Northern Ireland as youth conference co-ordinators. The Probation Board of Northern Ireland has extensive and direct experience in dealing with matters of youth justice in Northern Ireland. As such, it seems sensible that the probation board appears alongside the Civil Service as an organisation that supplies youth conference coordinators. It is an expert group, as I have said, and it is at the front line of the justice system. It seems to me and, perhaps more importantly, to it that it would be appropriate for it to be included in this regard. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree with the noble Lord that those who work in the probation service for Northern Ireland are, first, experienced and, secondly, of very high quality. I want to stress that existing probation officers who meet the required criteria for

    CWH 147
    youth conference co-ordinators will be most welcome to apply for the posts. If they are successful, they would then resign from their existing employment and become civil servants within the youth conferencing agency.
    This was the recommendation of the review; namely, that the youth conferencing service should be housed within a separate agency. The problem with regard to including the probation board is that it would be foolish for conference co-ordinators to be managed by two completely different employing bodies. It would be wiser to work from a single agency, but I stress that anyone from the probation service of Northern Ireland is more than welcome. We would warmly welcome their applications if they have the appropriate qualifications and experience. Such applicants would be well regarded as employees of the single agency.
    Lord Glentoran: How would they know about it?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Appropriate advertisements will be placed in the usual way. I know that our proceedings here—I do not think that I am being presumptuous in saying this—are quite carefully scrutinised in Northern Ireland. They will be more than welcome to apply.
    Baroness O'Cathain: I rise to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal to clarify one point. I believe that the noble and learned Lord has made it clear that civil servants from other parts of the United Kingdom as well as from Northern Ireland would form the agency; namely representatives of the Civil Service of the United Kingdom and the Civil Service of Northern Ireland In effect, those are two different organisations. I cannot see why it should be a problem to involve the probation service of Northern Ireland as well.
    The noble and learned Lord stated very generously that if probation officers wished to apply, they could do so. However, we should put ourselves in the mind of a person working in the probation service in Northern Ireland. He or she might make it known that they want to get involved in the new service. They apply, but they do not get the job. They might have great difficulty moving back into the probation service in Northern Ireland.
    Will their pension rights and so forth be transferred? It seems easy, given the skills and expertise of the probation officers, just to put on to the face of the Bill a provision that would allow them take part in this, but to remain members of the probation service of Northern Ireland.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the point made by the noble Baroness. However, if we are setting up a youth justice agency then it is wiser that all of those who are subject to its directions should be employed by it. The staffing arrangements for the youth co-ordinators replicates the existing order settling arrangements for the staffing of the Northern Ireland
    CWH 148
    Office. I am not sure that is a perfectly convincing answer, or perhaps it is my reading rather than the writing.
    I can only repeat what I have said: they will be welcome to apply. If they do not apply, of course, that is the same with all organisations. A police officer may want to become a probation officer; if he or she does not succeed, then he or she can carry on as a police officer and vice versa. That is quite commonplace.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 217 and 217A not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 218:
    Page 44, line 13, after "may" insert ", subject to the agreement of the police officer participating in the youth conference,"
    The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 218 returns to my theme—perhaps it is now a little worn—of keeping the mechanisms of youth conferences and so forth cleaner than clean.
    Amendment 218 would change the Bill to read:
    "A youth conference co-ordinator may, subject to the agreement of the police officer participating in the youth conference, allow other persons to participate".
    That keeps the police officer on board for the purposes of Amendment No. 220, which would ensure that we do not have people involved in youth conferences whom all of us in Grand Committee would prefer not to be. Again, I am trying to protect the concept of youth conferencing and this part of the Bill in general, which—in Northern Ireland more than anywhere— will be put seriously at risk otherwise.
    I have spoken to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and to the superintendent concerned with the trials of the system going on in Belfast. They support the system, as do we. However, they are also fearful, as we are, of the situation in west Belfast and in parts of north Belfast, where a similar or parallel scheme is being carried out by the paramilitaries. If youth conferencing is to work, it must take place within the criminal justice system, which means that the participants must sign up to the criminal justice system.
    We know that communities in certain parts of the Province—fortunately, not many—will not sign up to supporting either the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the British judicial system. On that front, we must be extremely careful that we clearly define the line between legal youth conferences and those taking place on the black market. The situation in parts of the Protestant community is not dissimilar, but I am told that they are more inclined to accept the judicial system; they are certainly more inclined to accept the authority of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
    I stress that Amendments Nos. 218, 219 and 220 are necessary to ensure that youth conferencing, as described in the Bill, is not in any way contaminated or—worse—hijacked by those whom we would prefer not to be involved in it. I beg to move.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: I support the amendment strongly and think that police officers

    CWH 149
    must be consulted. It is relatively easy to say that people who have been convicted and been put in prison are not eligible; it would be surprising if anyone thought that they were. There will be a certain number of paramilitaries known in the community to be men of violence who beat people, exile people and even arrange to shoot people, but they may not have been arrested or convicted because no one has dared to testify, leaving the police powerless. Therefore, it is extremely important that there should be a long stop, a way of dealing with a situation in which a youth conference organiser might, in perfectly good faith, wish to appoint or include in the operation somebody who falls into that category.
    Lord Glentoran: I shall add one more thing to save time. The noble and learned Lord will not have missed the point of the wording in Amendment No. 219:
    "who have not been convicted of an offence under Schedule 1 … or are, in the opinion of a police superintendent or higher ranking officer, a member of a proscribed organisation."
    I am sure that he will remember that those are almost the exact words used in the Terrorism Act 2000, the legislation enacted after Omagh, to allow superintendents to give evidence. It is true that a person cannot be convicted on that evidence solely, but it states quite clearly in the Act that such evidence is admissible.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right on that last point. He has reminded us that the 1996 Act has been repealed, but that the provision is the same in the Terrorism Act 2000.
    Perhaps I may turn to the Bill itself. Earlier we held discussions on this topic and clearly it is a matter of great concern. On page 44 of the Bill, subsection (8) states that:
    "A youth conference co-ordinator may allow other persons—

    (a) to participate in any meeting constituting, or forming part of, a youth conference; or

    (b) to attend any such meeting for any purpose specified by him"—

    and then these important words—
    "if he considers that their participation, or attendance for that purpose, would be of value".
    When the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, intervened a little earlier, we discussed the question of who may become a youth conference co-ordinator. It will be an independent professional of high quality. Co-ordinators will not be given authority in that position without being possessed of those qualities.
    I know the limitations of rhetorical questions, but if such a person, a youth conference co-ordinator, came to the conclusion that the participation of an individual for the whole of the meeting or part of the meeting, or attendance for a particular purpose for part of the meeting, would be of value, would it not be inappropriate, first, to give the police an absolute veto? Secondly, would it not be inappropriate absolutely to disqualify anyone from attendance and participation for part of the meeting, for any purpose specified by the youth co-ordinator, if that independent professional—plainly someone of quality
    CWH 150
    and judgment—has come to the conclusion that such attendance might be of value? I suggest that that would be an unwise step.
    I should like to develop my theme. A unifying factor throughout our discussion of Part 4 of this Bill has been that everyone wants to make it work. Warm tributes have been made to the success, for example, of the North London schemes which the noble Lord, Lord Laird, has visited, as have other Members of the Committee, as well as the Thames Valley scheme which has also been so successful.
    What would be brought about by Amendment No. 218 is that the police officer, who has a part to play, is to be given an absolute veto over the coordinator. That cannot be right. The police officer is extremely important, but he will not necessarily have the qualifications and the apparent independence of judgment in all circumstances to be able to override the attendance of a particular individual.
    I am not sure whether that is what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, wishes to bring about, but it would be very remarkable and rather alarming to give the police officer the veto. I know what the noble Lord is aiming for, but to give a police officer a veto in these delicate circumstances would be wrong.
    Perhaps the important meat of this resides in the linked amendments to which I also now refer. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that he wanted to avoid the tainting of the procedures by those who were themselves polluted or tainted—I think I have paraphrased his remarks fairly. I take that point, but my counterpoint goes back to what was said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
    In his experience—which I humbly accept is greater than mine—there are some who have committed gross crimes, but who have redeemed themselves in so far as any human being can, and have been able to offer some kind of restoration—not to their immediate victims and not to their connected victims, but to the community that they have wounded and disgraced. Is it wise to obliterate their possible contribution in every conceivable circumstance although the co-ordinator— I know that I am repeating myself—who must be a person of quality, experience, expertise and judgment thought that there might perhaps be value for a young offender?
    If young offenders are not stopped, none of us needs the gift of prophecy to know that they will continue to repeat their offences until they start to stop in their late forties for various reasons, which may perhaps concern the passage of time and not the fact that they have truly repented. Early intervention is critical. This is a sensitive device and I understand the situation absolutely. However (in some ways I am reluctant to say these words because I do not have the bitter experience of many in this Room) is it wise to put an absolute bar or veto in the hands of a police officer, whatever the rank—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that the rank may be of senior status—and whatever the benefit that that might bring to the child in question?

    CWH 151
    I go back to the question: where are the child's interests to be? That was raised in the discussion involving the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Shutt. We disagreed about the paramount interests of the child in a criminal context, although that may be appropriate in the civil context. However, if real value is possible or seriously likely in the judgment of the co-ordinator, should the veto be given? I suggest, although I know that Members of the Committee will not necessarily find this argument persuasive, that that is not the right thing to do.
    6 p.m.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: We are told that the youth co-ordinators will be drawn from the Civil Service of the mainland or the Civil Service of Northern Ireland, and I entirely accept his point that any member of those services should be, and would be, someone of quality and probity. However, those from the mainland will know nothing about the personalities in Northern Ireland. All that we are saying is that they need that information. The police are in a position to give it and they are probably the only people who would dare to give it. They also know that none of the people who have suffered at the hands of Mr X—who has been arranging for boys to have their arms and legs broken and who has been doing 100 things that hurt the community—dares go to the police. Therefore, the co-ordinator might appoint somebody in good faith who appears to be, in every other respect, a worthy representative of the community and someone who could usefully and in any other place and in any other circumstances, be well associated.
    However, the young boy—the offender—knows as well as anybody the people who are the villains in his community. He might be considerably taken aback to find himself confronted by someone who has almost certainly never been to prison but is well known as a villain. Therefore, it is a waste to have a police officer associated with this arrangement, as he should be, and not to use the knowledge that the excellent but ignorant civil servant will not have.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness has been guilty, for the first time in my experience, of imprecision. She said—I wrote this down, so it must be true—"the civil servants, admirable though ignorant, need to know; that is all we are saying". She used those words. That is not what the amendment says, however. It would give an absolute veto to a police officer.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: I was assuming, naturally, that any normal person faced with the evidence that a police officer would give, would withdraw the idea. It comes to the same thing.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: With great respect, it does not. The amendment would insert after "may",
    "subject to the agreement of the police officer participating".
    CWH 152
    There is no inhibition on any youth co-ordinator, if he or she feels that their experience is entirely based on England and Wales, making an inquiry. All that we are saying is that they ought to know. There is no difficulty at all about making an inquiry; they can do that if they wish to. I suggest, however, that it is objectionable that the police officer should have an absolute veto or that past history should have an absolute veto.
    I shall stress it again: the youth conference co-ordinator may allow the participation or attendance for any purpose specified of any person,
    "if he considers that their participation, or attendance for that purpose, would be of value".
    That is the only point that I seek to make. It is unwise to allow either a police officer or, as I said, the constraints of history—from which, we know, Northern Ireland has suffered rather too much—to have a veto.
    Baroness O'Cathain: Can I see whether there is a way out of this? With due deference to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, I must say that there is a great concern here. The situation in Northern Ireland is unlike anything that most of us have experienced. We could consider using a phrase such as "in consultation with a police officer"? If youth conference co-ordinators could consult police officers who knew the history of particular individuals, it would be of great help to them.
    Lord Hylton: I agree with the Government that the amendments, although they bear on different aspects of the process, are all too sweeping. I wonder whether there may not be a way out, as has been suggested, by making sure—not in the Bill, but administratively— that youth conference co-ordinators are fully briefed on the kind of local characters that they may come up against in particular cases.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not want to be discourteous, but I want to do full justice to such deeply held views. A youth conference co-ordinator is likely to take those steps in any event. He will want to satisfy himself that someone's participation, in whole or in part, or attendance, in whole or in part, will be of value. The prudent co-ordinator will make appropriate inquiries.
    Lord Glentoran: I would like to look for a compromise solution. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain has suggested one. There are several issues. Perhaps, there could be a code of practice for organisers of youth conferences in which the matters that we are concerned about would be covered. I also wonder whether anybody is in a position to object to participation by a particular person in a youth conference. If the youth conference co-ordinator brings X, Y, Z and two or three others to the conference and says, "This is my conference team", is anybody in the whole process in a position to object to any of those people? I am not sure. It certainly does not come through to me in the Bill.

    CWH 153
    There are two areas on which I would like clarification. First, the compromise suggestion, and secondly, what I have just said.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My name appears as one of the proposers of the amendment. I am not attempting to move another amendment in response to what my noble friend Lord Glentoran said. He has made a good job of guiding us through this along with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. It would be a rather more negative approach, perhaps, than our amendment, but we could consider adding the following condition:
    "if the officer considers that the presence of a particular person could be damaging".
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked whether someone can object. Anyone can make their views known, but, to revert to the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, no one in those circumstances would have a veto.
    On the guidelines, I am trying to be as helpful as possible. The co-ordinators will have guidelines and rules of procedure to deal with the sort of issue that has been raised by a number of your Lordships. They have not been produced yet, but we do not see any reason why they should not be published in due course.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate and I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 219 to 221 not moved.]
    Clause 56 agreed to.
    Clause 57 [Diversionary youth conferences]:
    6.15 p.m.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 222:
    Page 48, line 12, leave out "not" and insert "only"
    The noble Lord said: The aim of Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 is, rather cheekily, to clarify the drafting. I do not think that they would change anything. In my opinion they would make the Bill much clearer—and, probably, stronger—on the consequences. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not for the first time I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord Lord Glentoran. I do not think that the amendments make any difference. Being of extremely modest intellect, I could not understand the point of the amendment. I think that it comes to the same thing.
    Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 224:
    Page 48, line 28, at end insert "which must be delivered within ten working days of the end of the diversionary youth conference"
    CWH 154
    The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is straightforward. Not for the first time in the Bill, I want to make sure that, after certain decisions have been taken or reports written, the process continues. The Bill talks about youth conference co-ordinators' reports, but it does not say within what timescale they should be delivered. That seems seriously inappropriate, particularly in a situation dealing with young people. If a report has been written and made, they will be anxious to know what it is all about. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not for the first time, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, because I entirely agree with the purpose behind his amendment. By virtue of new Article 3B, the Secretary of State can make rules, about the procedure of youth conferences, including,
    "the period within which youth conferences must be completed and the functions of youth conference co-ordinators must be performed".
    We expect that the rules will be such as to set limits for each of the stages of the conference, including the period between the conclusion of the conference and the report to the director, to which the noble Lord referred. There is the ability to make the rules and the intention to make them to deal with the noble Lord's point.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for the comfort in that statement, which I find quite satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
    Clause 57 agreed to.
    Clause 58 [Court-ordered youth conferences]:
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 226:
    Page 49, line 38, leave out "must" and insert "may"
    The noble Lord said: Once again, I am looking to change the Bill because it seems to me to be rather too prescriptive.
    Articles 33B and 33C provide a court must refer the case of a child who has been found guilty of an offence by or before the court to a youth conference coordinator. This is a new system. I have made the point before in our debates. It is a new system on trial in what is perhaps not the most suitable place for seeking to trial a system of this nature; that is, in a very challenging environment. There are certain points in the Bill where I believe that we should not be too prescriptive and that we should allow the courts more scope.
    Instead of insisting that the courts "must" refer the case of a child who has been found guilty of an offence to a youth conference co-ordinator, they should be given the option of deciding whether they believe it appropriate or inappropriate. The insertion of the word "may" instead of "must" would achieve that. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I hope that I can meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.

    CWH 155
    The review originally recommended that the courts should be required to refer all cases to a youth conference other than those triable only on indictment. We have varied that recommendation so that now there is a good deal more discretion than was envisaged by the review. Offences of murder may not be referred to a conference, obviously. A child who is to be discharged, conditionally or unconditionally, may not be referred to a conference. Scheduled offences may be referred to a conference only at the discretion of the court. Summary offences, charged together with either indictable-only or scheduled offences, will attract discretionary referrals.
    In certain circumstances a court does not have to make a referral to a conference, such as when a diversionary conference has already been held in respect of the same offence and the court does have discretion to consider an application from a youth conference co-ordinator not to refer to a child to a conference. Thus, there is a certain amount of discretion.
    I hope that this meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. We shall not roll out the provisions until we are satisfied, by virtue of a pilot study, that the scheme will work. In the light of the evaluation of that pilot, we may use the power of new Article 33A(10) to amend the legislation. I take the point made by the noble Lord: by and large we are moving in uncharted waters. I hope that my remarks will meet his concerns.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation and I am very encouraged by it. It seems an eminently sensible way to progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 227:
    Page 51, line 41, at end insert—
    "( ) The court may not order a diversionary youth conference in respect of a child who has completed two previous diversionary youth conferences in connection with previous offences."
    The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks quite simply to prevent the situation where a continual truant can ride on the merry-go-round again and again with no apparent structure in the system to prevent it. Once a youngster has twice been around the youth conferencing system, then the youth conferencers—if I may refer to them as such—have had two bites of the cherry. I should have thought that that should be enough. This amendment seeks to prevent the continuous process of youth conference/re-offend/ youth conference/re-offend and so on. I beg to move.
    Viscount Brookeborough: I support this amendment. When some noble Lords visited the North London centre, it was absolutely clear that, although the victim and the perpetrator of a crime are very important, it is vastly expensive to set up a conferencing system as a whole organisation, taking into account the training, the support needs and so forth. Although those two parties are important, in the longer term the most
    CWH 156
    important function is to reduce future crime levels. If an offender is a repeat offender, then clearly in that case we would be spending the money on the wrong person. That would set an incredibly bad example and would defeat our intention to create a good example; namely, that of a young offender being reformed and going back into the community. He should then influence others. If we have repeat offenders, we shall not achieve that aim.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are not too far apart in our approach. That approach would involve a mandatory limitation on the number of conferences. My suggestion to the Committee is that that would probably be a mistake. I understand the points that were made by both noble Lords. If one simply allowed persistent offenders to carry on going to conference after conference, that would be, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, a joke. It would also be a deeply offensive joke, not simply for reasons of expense but also because someone would be manipulating the system—in the same way as people are, in our view, constantly given bail when they should not have it because they make an extremely offensive gesture to the whole concept that the justice system seeks to obtain.
    That is not the only answer. We have to bear in mind the fact that conferences may fail through no fault of the child. Let us assume that a conference fails through no fault of the child. It surely would not be right to penalise the child and to deprive society of the opportunity of rehabilitation through reparation in those circumstances. It may well be that more than two conferences should be allowed.
    Let me take another illustration that arises from the experiences of the noble Viscount. It may be that the victim of a fourth or fifth offence is keen to participate in a conference and wishes to confront the child. Should the opportunity of that victim be taken away because the child has already been to two conferences? I would suggest not. I agree that there must be some mechanism to ensure that there are not multiple redundant conferences—that is what is offensive. If the conference is worth having, it is not offensive but, if it is redundant, it is.
    We have included a provision later in the clause—in paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 33D—to allow the court to consider an application from a conference co-ordinator that a conference should not be held. That is the in-built mechanism to protect us all against inappropriate multiple conferences. There will be rules for co-ordinators to ensure that there is clarity about when such a recommendation is made. I hope I have been able to assuage some of the concerns of Members of the Committee.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation, which has helped me to feel a little more comfortable about the whole process and that my worries are understood within the process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 58 agreed to.

    CWH 157
    Clause 59 [Youth conference orders]:
    [Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
    Clause 59 agreed to.
    Clause 60 [Legal aid for youth conferences]:
    [Amendment No. 229 not moved.]
    Clause 60 agreed to.
    Clause 61 agreed to.
    Schedule 10 [Youth justice orders: enforcement etc.]:
    [Amendment No. 230 not moved.]
    Schedule 10 agreed to.
    Clause 62 agreed to.
    Schedule 11 agreed to.
    Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: This may be a convenient moment for us to adjourn before we re-congregate tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday 19th June at 3.30 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at half-past six o'clock.