Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1989

HL Deb 15 June 1989 vol 508 cc1574-83

7.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, that the draft order which was laid before the House on 9th May 1989 be approved.

This is the first of two orders before the House this evening. The second is the Community Service Orders (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1989. As the second is consequential upon the first, I am sure it would be convenient, if your Lordships permit, if I deal with both orders together.

The substantive order, the Treatment of Offenders Order, contains a package of measures which, taken together, will widen the powers of courts in Northern Ireland to deal with both young and adult offenders. Some of these are concerned with non-custodial measures which will provide the courts with alternatives to custody.

An important example is to be found at Article 3 of the order which will extend the powers of the courts to attach what are commonly known as "fourth conditions" to probation orders. This follows similar provisions for England and Wales in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and will enable the court to make it a condition of a probation order that the offender attends an activity centre or a day centre for a maximum of 60 days. It is hoped that this provision will be used by the courts as an alternative to custody.

Article 10 has the same aim and will reduce the age for community service from 17 to 16 years of age. Again this is similar to the change which was introduced for England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1982.

That Act also provided reciprocal arrangements between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to ensure that courts anywhere in the United Kingdom could impose a community service order where it was known that the offender intended to reside in another jurisdiction within the UK. Because the age for community service in Northern Ireland would be 17, whereas it would be 16 in the rest of the UK, the 1982 Act imposed a restriction on courts in Great Britain—and I am sure your Lordships will accept that that is England, Scotland and Wales—to ensure that community service orders imposed on persons intending to reside in Northern Ireland were confined to persons aged 17 or over. As the effect of the Treatment of Offenders Order will be to make 16 the age for community service throughout the UK, that restriction is no longer necessary and is removed by the Community Service Orders (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order. I hope the House will agree that I have dealt logically with this.

I shall now return to the remaining provisions of the substantive order. Articles 6, 7 and 13 deal with custodial sentences and remands in custody of young offenders. Article 6 will reduce the maximum period of detention in a training school from three years to two years, and it will also reduce the period within which the consent of the Secretary of State is required before release on licence from 12 months to six months. The effect of this change should be to reduce the average period of detention in a training school.

Under existing law a young adult between the ages of 17 and 21 who receives a custodial sentence may only serve it in a young offenders' centre if it is for less than three years. Sentences of three years or more must be served in a prison. As the young offenders' centre is better suited to the needs of young adults and, as the only young offenders centre in Northern Ireland has some spare capacity, Article 7 will increase the maximum period of detention which can be served there from three years to four years.

Spare capacity at the young offenders' centre will also enable it to accommodate a number of young adults who are remanded in custody. At present all persons aged 17–21 who are remanded in custody are held at Belfast Prison. However, as the Young Offenders' Centre will not be able to accommodate all young adults—and indeed it would not in any case be suitable for the more serious or a terrorist-type (scheduled) offender—Article 13 gives the Secretary of State a discretion to decide which of those young adults held on remand should be transferred to the young offenders' centre.

Having dealt with Articles 3, 6, 7 and 13 I bring your Lordships back to Article 4, on page 4 of the substantive order. Article 4 also relates to young offenders and will amend the law to provide that where a juvenile is jointly charged with an adult he may be referred to the juvenile court for both trial and sentence if the adult defendant pleads guilty and the juvenile pleads not guilty. Under existing law a juvenile charged jointly with an adult must be tried in an adult court and may only be referred to the juvenile court for sentence. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, in those circumstances, it is preferable that young offenders should be dealt with by the juvenile court which is better constituted to meet their needs.

Article 5 deals with attendance centre orders and makes a number of amendments which should improve the effectiveness of such orders.

I apologise for taking your Lordships on a treasure hunt through the order but I should like to draw the attention of the House to an additional amendment following receipt of comments on the proposal for this draft order. Our attention was drawn to the fact that as the law stands there is no appeal against an alternative sentence imposed following breach of an attendance centre order. This mild lacuna is dealt with in paragraph 26 of Schedule I to the order, which amends Article 140 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and remedies that defect. Therefore we are referring to an attendance centre order coupled with Article 5, and that is why I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for taking him through the order in this fashion.

I now turn to Articles 8 and 9 of the order. Article 8 will abolish the common law power of the courts to record sentences and Article 9 will replace that with an enhanced power to suspend sentences. Recorded sentences which are peculiar to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are similar to suspended sentences in that sentence can be deferred while the convicted person enters into an obligation to be of good behaviour during a specified period. However, in the case of the recorded sentence there is no limit on either the sentence or the period during which the person may be bound over. In addition, it lacks the flexibility of a suspended sentence as it must be—it is compulsory—reactivated in full if the person reoffends within the operational period. Because of that inflexibility we feel that injustices can arise if, for example, there is a subsequent conviction for a trivial and quite unrelated offence which reactivates the recorded sentence. We therefore consider that the power to suspend sentences is more satisfactory and the new provisions in Article 9 will achieve that.

I now turn to Article 11 of the order, which amends the powers of the courts to defer sentence. By providing that the period of deferment will run from the date on which it is announced rather than, as at present, from the date of conviction, the defendant will obtain the benefit of the full six months period to enable him to demonstrate to the court—for example, by making reparation for his offence or by a change in his circumstances such as finding a job or, I am advised, by getting married—that he has both the desire and the ability to stay out of trouble. This amendment is similar to that introduced for England and Wales by the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Finally, Article 12 will increase the maximum penalty for a number of offences to bring them into line with similar penalties which are available to the courts in England and Wales. Those offences are given on pages 13 and 14 of the order. The maximum penalty for indecent assault on a female will be increased from two years to 10 years and the maximum term of imprisonment for attempted rape or assault with intent to commit rape is to be increased from seven years to life imprisonment. The maximum penalty for child cruelty, which was increased recently for England and Wales by the Criminal Justice Act 1988, is to be increased from two years to 10 years.

While the provisions of the two orders are of a somewhat varied nature—as I am sure noble Lords appreciate—taken together they will form a package which we believe will provide the criminal courts in Northern Ireland with useful additions to their powers to determine the best manner of dealing with both young and adult offenders.

I apologise for taking your Lordships back and forth through the two orders and I thank noble Lords for all the good will shown to me. I commend the orders to the House.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)

7.15 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing the order and throwing light on its provisions. I believe that it is an important step in the right direction. Moreover, it provides us with an opportunity to raise a few questions and to emphasise our continuing concern about the treatment of juvenile and young offenders in Northern Ireland.

It would have been helpful if the Minister had been able to give the House a perspective of the position of young offenders in Northern Ireland and to tell us how the Government see the new provisions being applied by the courts; but we have not been given that perspective, though that is not intended as a personal criticism of the Minister. However, we are indebted to the Probation Board for Northern Ireland for the briefing it has prepared and circulated in anticipation of the debate on the order.

The board reminds us that the Northern Ireland crime rate is less than that in 40 of the 42 police forces in England and Wales. That is surprising but encouraging news. However, the board also alerts us to the fact that after allowing for terrorist offences the 16 to 20 year-old age group constitutes a higher proportion of the prison population in Northern Ireland than in any other European country. Clearly that is a worrying and disturbing fact. It gives us some sense of the nature and the scale of the problem facing Northern Ireland. Why should so many young people be in gaol? Should so many young people be sent to gaol? Why are so many fine defaulters imprisoned? I should like to know how the Government answer those questions. Is it too much to expect the department to set up a study to consider how the number of young offenders who end up within prison walls can be substantially reduced in the short term?

We support the Government's policy of encouraging non-custodial penalties for juvenile and young offenders. Custody must be the very last resort; but what kind of offender and what kind of offences will attract the three different sentences and extended sentence provided for by Articles 3, 5 and 10 respectively? Who shall receive a probation or supervision order with a fourth condition attached? Who shall go to the attendance centre or the day centre? Who shall receive a community service order?

The Minister may say, "Well, ultimately this decision will be left to the local court". Of course there will be variation in practice. Nevertheless, will any guidance be issued to the courts? Will guidance be issued as regards the grounds on which a particular period at the attendance or day centre is to be determined? Will there be guidance on the particular length of a community service order that is to be imposed? Are the Government seeking to achieve a unified pattern of tariff or treatment in Northern Ireland so that offenders in different parts of the Province shall not be subjected to materially different treatment under the same order? In other words, will there be an overall strategy or haphazard development?

I understand that there will be only one attendance centre in the whole of the Province and that it will be in Belfast. Am I correct in assuming that the option of attending at an attendance centre will therefore not be available for offenders west of the Bann? If that is so, why are they to be denied the opportunity? Is it a satisfactory answer to say that offenders in this area are too small in number? Are they too small to matter? As regards day centres, are the Government satisfied that the probation board and the voluntary bodies will be adequately financed to provide a network of such centres throughout the province?

Finally, I turn to the community service orders. There is evidence that the courts in Northern Ireland and on the mainland have been giving longer community service orders when the offender is unemployed. That is worrying. Surely the fact of unemployment itself should not justify a longer community service order than would otherwise be expected. There is a risk that the community service order may be abused in such a way and it indicates the need for the continuous monitoring of how the relevant provisions of the order are being used by the courts. I should be grateful if the department can give consideration to this point.

We want this order to be effective. It will be effective if it is used by the courts as an alternative to custody and not as an alternative to fines. If in 12 months' time the statistics show that the number of juvenile and young offenders who are within the walls of prisons in Northern Ireland has been substantially reduced, that will be some evidence of its success. I wish to pay tribute to the chairman and members of the Northern Ireland Probation Board and the 300 staff employed by it. They are playing a significant part in the system of criminal justice in the Province.

We have noted with great satisfaction that the board welcomes the challenge presented by this order. That is not surprising as it is committed to a developed juvenile justice policy that provides alternatives to custody. Experience may show that the board wants additional resources, but that is not called for at the moment. I also wish to place on record our appreciation of the contribution of the many voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland who are working in enlightened partnership with the probation board. On behalf of these Benches I am pleased to give this order our full support.

Lord Fitt

My Lords, there will be no great controversy about this order. The Minister will be aware that when it was debated in another place by elected representatives from Northern Ireland there was no serious disagreement. There was total unaniminity on one aspect; namely, there was agreement that the legislation to deal with the problem of young offenders was introduced in a piecemeal way. I believe that it was stressed by the Minister in his reply that the Government were intent on introducing further legislation in the next Session of Parliament.

It was then stated that an order was a very unsatisfactory way to cope with this problem and that any further legislation should be by way of a Bill rather than by an order introduced in the late hours of a sitting in another place. I believe that there is some validity in that request in the absence of a devolved Parliament in Stormont. I bitterly regret the absence of a devolved Parliament at Stormont. I despair at ever seeing one again in Northern Ireland. I had hoped that there would be a devolved government, but by the actions and speeches of some of the foremost politicians in Northern Ireland it has been made very clear that they do not in any way intend to restructure Stormont by integrating any parliamentary institutions.

Northern Ireland is an abnormal place. The problem of young offenders in Northern Ireland is not exactly as one would find it in Finchley, though we have been told by the Prime Minister that Ulster is as British as Finchley. The problem is entirely different. It has been a crying shame over the years that young people have been so used by paramilitary organisations on both sides of the religious and political divide, particularly on the Catholic-Nationalist side. Young unemployed people have been totally used and exploited by the sinister forces of the paramilitary organisations.

Yet this morning I listened to Radio 4 and to the great news about St. Louisa's School on the Falls Road, with its very eminent headmistress, Sister Genevieve. It is the greatest school of its denomination and size anywhere in the United Kingdom with over 2,500 places. It has been nominated for an award for the good services that it has carried on doing in the heart of one of the most troubled areas of Northern Ireland. I believe that indicates that all is not lost and that there are sincere and dedicated people, even in the most trouble-torn parts of Northern Ireland, ensuring that the pupils whom they have under their control do not become involved in acts of terrorism or vandalism and so become the subject for debates in another place and in this House as well.

I believe that this House is rather remote from some of the deprived areas, particularly of North and West Belfast. It is particularly in the urban areas of Belfast where there are the real problems of juvenile delinquency, vandalism and acts of terrorism. Outside Belfast I am very happy to say that the problem is minimal compared to what it is in North and West Belfast. I believe that the Government have taken into account the unique circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland. Certainly I do not believe that they have acted in any way from a political bias in their approach to this order. Juvenile delinquency and vandalism is not the sole purview of one section of the community because it occurs in all sections of the community in Northern Ireland.

I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of the request made by the elected representatives that when legislation is being introduced to further deal with the problems of juveniles, prison sentences, prison welfare and attempts at the rehabilitation of these young people, it will be done by way of a Bill so that all the elected representatives will be able to take part and to contribute from their experience in the constituencies that they represent. That is a reasonable request that was made by the elected representatives and it should be listened to by the Government.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for the close scrutiny, great care and attention that he has given to these two orders. As your Lordships will see by a cursory and preliminary examination, they cover a very broad spectrum of the treatment of offenders and a particular aspect of Northern Ireland which, sadly, is very prevalent and very necessary. The questions and points put by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, show that as always he has considered every aspect; and we are grateful for his scrutiny, and on this occasion his advice on these facets.

As an opening reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, may I say that we see both orders as guidelines to the courts. There is a very subtle distinction between the guidelines or the advice—if one may call it that—which is given in England and Wales and that which is given in Northern Ireland. In essence, they provide the same information; it is just a slight question of how this information is presented.

But in general, and especially regarding the subject of the two orders which we are discussing this evening, your Lordships will be aware that it is entirely and essentially for the courts to decide on the disposal and treatment which is best suited to each and every offender taking all factors into account, including any previous history of offences. Among other things, the treatment of offenders order will extend the range of non-custodial options available to the courts, and that covers a large amount of the ground that was presented by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in his opening remarks. We hope to reduce the number of persons, particularly young offenders, who have been mentioned tonight by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Fitt, who receive a custodial sentence. We want to see exactly what both noble Lords who spoke from the Opposition Benches want to see. I do not think there is any difference between us. We want to present the courts, who are the final and the best arbiters, with an up-dated and additional range of options.

I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that we intend to discuss with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor the issue of giving guidelines to the courts to advise them of the changes in their powers, together with the options that we have looked at this evening. We want to discuss the purpose of those options and the changes in the courts' powers. I hope that that covers the main and opening thrust of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.

The noble Lord made one or two specific points and he particularly mentioned the population in prison, either on remand or in custody, who are young adults between the ages of 16 and 21. We agree that it is particularly unfortunate that the prison population, including young adults, expressed as a percentage of the overall population is higher than in many European countries. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, will certainly be aware, and as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will concede, this is due to the fact that a very high proportion of the prison population has been sentenced for scheduled or terrorist type offences which, of necessity, attract fairly long sentences. But we can look at the figures to see whether there are lessons to be learnt and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that we shall do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also raised the question of community service for the young unemployed, especially if they are classified as young offenders. We do not have statistics available, but certainly we shall look into this question to see whether we can obtain any. I undertake that, if we can find any statitistics within the near future, we shall certainly let the noble Lord have them. However, we may need to have another conversation either in your Lordships' House or elsewhere before we find any helpful statistics. It may take longer than one or two months, but as soon as we have any statistics, we shall let the noble Lord have sight of them.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also wanted to look at the monitoring of the new measures that we propose in the main order. Once again we shall be gathering statistics and advice from the courts all around Northern Ireland. We shall monitor the effect of our new measures, and I have no doubt that we shall have a further opportunity of discussing the results with the noble Lord. But it is a little too early for me to say when we shall have any helpful information.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised one further question about attendance centres, and he asked whether we have plans for any additional attendance centres in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord so rightly said, there is only one centre currently operating and that is located in Belfast. Interestingly enough, there are a small number of young offenders involved. Further centres have not been considered viable outside the Belfast area, but, in the light of representations following publication of the order which is before us this evening, officials of the relevant departments are again examining the scope of further attendance centres.

I understand that in the past year only nine training school orders were made in respect of offenders in the entire north-west of the Province. They were in Londonderry. But if I say the north-west of the Province the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will understand. It is beyond the "travel to work", but this is necessarily the "travel to attend" area around Belfast. So if only nine cases have arisen in the past year, this is something that we shall look at, and officials will be undertaking further research.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also paid a glowing tribute which I wish to reiterate—though your Lordships will not wish me to extend my remarks unnecessarily—and gave his thanks, in which we join, for the support of the voluntary sector for all the young persons who, for one reason or another, find themselves within range of the courts or the attendance centres in the categories that we have been discussing this evening.

The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for whose contribution we were very grateful, referred to piecemeal legislation. Certainly we shall take note of what was said in the debate in the other place; and if there is anything that we can glean from that, or if there are any lessons that we can learn for the future, we shall certainly take them up. I want to stress once again to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that we want to give the courts powers and options which may help in the treatment, the sentence and the continual care of young offenders.

In conclusion, I should say that I too had my ear tuned to the radio this morning and heard about Sister Genevieve from St. Louisa's comprehensive school in West Belfast. I heard it said in ringing tones what she had done over many years. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, with his local knowledge of the area gave the sister an accolade and I humbly wish to add my own accolade to her. I say that because from my own personal experience she is a prime example of the good news and the marvellous dedication which all of us know exists in Northern Ireland, certainly as regards looking after her young girls and young pupils at the school. It also shows that there is a huge talent available which will assist in relation to the rehabilitation and counselling of young persons who offend.

Having said that, I wish to thank the two noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and I commend the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.