| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.56 pm
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale): This is an important Bill, notwithstanding its rather curious marriage of two distinct and unconnected areas of policy. We believe that the issues would have been dealt with better in separate Bills, but the Government chose other priorities for their legislative programme, one of which hit the buffers a day or two ago in another place. No matter--the Bill's provisions are designed to achieve worthy objectives, and we are happy to give them a broad welcome. Although we are concerned about some of the more detailed provisions, we shall not divide the House, because we believe it important that the principles that underpin the measure should have the support of the whole House. We shall endeavour to be constructive in proposing changes, and today we shall indicate the general areas of concern that we want to explore in Committee.
When discussing youth justice, it is worth reminding ourselves that the majority of young people lead law-abiding lives and their experience of crime is as victims--of theft, bullying or assault. On occasion, they are the victims of violent assault or tragedy. I know that the Home Secretary will support my saying that, today,
we remember the many young people who, 10 years ago, lost their lives at Hillsborough while attending the FA cup semi-final. On a lighter note, I ought to invite the right hon. Gentleman to say whether, as a Blackburn Rovers supporter, he is entirely satisfied with the outcome at Villa Park last night. I certainly am not, and it is a pity that his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was not able to intervene. However, that is another matter.
In respect of the provisions of the Bill, we agree that youth offender teams are an important development in youth justice policy and have a crucial role to play in supervising young offenders in the community. The previous Government first proposed the idea in its consultation paper, "Preventing Children Offending", which was published in March 1997. At that time, the concept of such teams related to juveniles of a younger age than those covered by the provisions in the Bill. However, I am sure that the Home Secretary, in the same spirit of co-operation that is obvious in my remarks, will acknowledge that the proposals for teams or panels to oversee the behaviour of young delinquents, so as to address early their propensity to commit offences, have been on the agenda for discussion for some time.
We agree that it is time to act. The proposal to require youth offender teams to establish youth offender panels, to provide tailor-made programme for individual offenders, is a natural extension of the team's role. We acknowledge that, but the panels will face a stiff challenge. They will need to address the growing problems of truancy and of drug and alcohol abuse that blight the lives of many young people and lead inexorably to crime. It is vital that the contracts drawn up with young offenders address those problems. The specific references in the Bill to those areas are welcome, although we will need to ensure that the range of measures that make up the contracts is sufficiently comprehensive.
We think that the concept of referral orders in part I is generally sound. However, it goes without saying that the execution of those ideas in practice will determine their success. The implementation of this initiative will depend largely on the quality of those appointed to the panels. We want to explore in greater detail the Government's thinking about who will be appointed to the panels and who will play a leading role.
We are concerned, too, that the resource implications have been glossed over and not thought through fully. In a recent answer, the Minister of State confirmed that, in the last year for which figures are available--I think that it is 1996--no fewer than 37,000 young offenders were found guilty for the first time in magistrates courts. The majority of them pleaded guilty. If the Government insist--the Home Secretary reminded us of his position today--that all those offenders should automatically be made the subject of referral orders, rather a lot of panels will have to be established each year, if and when the concept is extended across the country.
That is a big if. Our main criticism is that much of the Government's youth justice programme continues to be subject to extensive experimentation and piloting. We understand that, with any new policy initiative, it makes sense to see what works and adapt accordingly. We do not criticise that approach. However, the Government continue to make bold claims about their innovative approach to youth justice and how their policies are making a big difference to youth offending across the
country. The Government are entitled to make that claim, but we are equally entitled to say that, judging from the Government's achievements so far, this youth justice strategy has been--and continues to be--substantially oversold.
We have a long way to go before the real difference on the ground matches the impression of concerted action on the basis of which the Government's ideas are trumpeted. How many child curfew schemes have been established? How many parenting, child safety and anti-social behaviour orders--to which I shall turn in a moment--have been made? More to the point, how many action plan orders have been made? Our point is that it will take several years for the youth justice measures in this Bill to be piloted, adapted and extended to all parts of the country. In all circumstances, we encourage Ministers to be rather more candid about how much there is still to do before the reality matches their claims.
There are some very good ideas that, by and large, we support. Many of the more obvious successes in preventing youth offending, such as Crime Concern--the Minister and I will judge this year's Crime Concern awards shortly--resulted from initiatives taken by the previous Government. The Thames Valley experience to which the Home Secretary referred commenced under the previous Government. We are a long way from the comprehensive implementation of the Government's programme for youth justice on a national scale. Our message to Ministers is to recognise that fact. We urge them to show a great deal more commitment to delivering on the promises that they have championed to the electorate. That will be a theme of our approach to the Bill in Committee.
We encourage the Government to adopt a less rigid and more flexible approach to referral orders. As the Home Secretary acknowledged, the Bill's provisions were amended in another place to provide flexibility to magistrates in determining when a referral is or might be appropriate. We appreciate that the amendment needs refinement. I am slightly surprised that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the first two clauses are contradictory. We accept that the amendment is not perfect but we urge the right hon. Gentleman not to use the Government's huge majority to reverse it without first listening to the arguments, some of which I shall explore now and some of which we shall certainly wish to explore in Committee.
I remind the Home Secretary that, in establishing the arrangements for action plan orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Government provided flexibility and choice to the courts. That seems to be in sharp contrast to the mandatory nature of the proposed referral orders. Yet, in many respects, the nature of both orders is similar. I constantly refer to a very good brief on the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act. It states that an action plan order is a new community sentence
Would it not make better sense if action plan orders were also delivered through a youth offender panel? The key point is that the Government have failed to make out a case for why all first-time offenders pleading guilty should be referred to the youth offender team in the way that is proposed. I think that the explanation of the Government's rationale lacks credibility. It ignores the realities of the day-to-day administration of youth justice.
We certainly agree that a properly established youth offender panel referral is in principle much to be preferred to a more general community sentence such as a community service order, a supervision order or a probation order. Reference to a youth offender panel--this is the strength of what the Government are proposing--would provide an opportunity for the young offender to have significantly more contact and support and guidance from the panel than he would, under current experience, from a supervision or probation order. However, it may not be an appropriate solution in each and every case where immediate custody is not an option.
For example, we think that it is wrong to assume that a first-time offender, perhaps in early to mid teens, has a behavioural problem or a propensity to reoffend that needs to be addressed in a referral order. The majority might have such a problem or propensity but many will not. Not everyone will have received a final warning or reprimand. The majority may be in that position, but not all. The youth involved may have been led astray by slightly older boys, some of whom may be young adults over 18 years of age. However, having been caught, he could well be expected to mend his ways.
It is a fact that the majority of youngsters who are caught and challenged do not reoffend. With that in mind, a heavy fine may be more appropriate in many instances. For example, if a youngster of previous good character becomes involved in a fracas late at night, that might involve older teenagers. Let us say that there is a collective charge and the youth admits to assault. Surely a fine would be less cumbersome in such a case than automatically requiring the court to refer the youngster to the youth offender team.
Why is the use of a conditional discharge ruled out? An absolute discharge is permitted. It could mean that a court would be likely to order an absolute discharge to avoid reference to a youth offender team. The benefit of some of the conditions attached to a conditional discharge would thus be lost. We shall explore the point in Committee.
Two of the key objectives of the referral order are the opportunities for reparation and restitution, but those may not be appropriate in every case. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, restorative justice is still in its infancy--so much so that he had to explain to the House what it meant. The experience can be difficult for some victims, as the experiments carried out elsewhere show. In such cases, a court may be better advised to use a compensation order or a reparation order.
Tomorrow, when we debate the provisions of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill, the House will be asked to agree new powers for courts to make restriction orders on football hooligans. To some degree, however, the provisions of that Bill will be discretionary. There is a reference to a duty to impose a restriction order, but that is discretionary, having regard to all the reasonable circumstances. What happens if a 16 or 17-year-old youth pleads guilty to a first offence involving assault outside a football ground?
The mood of the House and the view of the Home Secretary in supporting the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) are that restriction orders should be imposed. If it is a first offence, it is not clear to us how such a restriction order will be imposed given that, under the Bill as the Government want it to be, not as it is now, there will simply be a reference to a youth offender team.
All these arguments suggest that magistrates should have rather more discretion than the Government originally thought necessary when they introduced the Bill in another place and, as the Home Secretary reminded us, as is still his preference today. The rest of the Government's youth justice reforms, such as the action plan order, provide for flexibility. That is equally essential to the success of these measures. The Home Secretary said that he was always open to suggestions. In Committee, we shall explore the most appropriate way of providing for discretion.
"specifically tailored to address the cause of a child's or young person's offending behaviour."
That is equally the purpose of the proposed referral orders. Why is there such inflexibility on referral orders? What is the real thinking behind the mandatory nature of the order? Why exclude the Crown courts from passing a referral order sentence when they can impose an action plan order? Why limit the order to first-time offenders? What is the likelihood of confusion between action plan orders and referral orders?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |