---

Mr. Boswell: The Home Secretary has explained the provision clearly. Is it not the case, however, that, because the referral is mandatory, it will be a prerequisite for the panel to meet and draw up a contract in each case, even in cases in which--as Conservative Members have tended to argue--referral is inappropriate, and the drawing up of a contract may well be not just otiose but inimical to the cause of preparation?

Mr. Straw: With great respect, I simply do not accept that.

3.45 pm

Mr. Llwyd: When I mentioned resource implications earlier, the Home Secretary shook his head vigorously. Is he now saying that clause 8 has no resource implications?

Mr. Straw: No, I am not saying that. Most measures that are presented to the House have resource consequences. May I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 211 of the explanatory notes? I do not suggest that he has them to hand, but they contain details of the Bill's financial effects. They state--of course, these are estimates--that referrals to youth offender panels will save the probation service around £5.1 million, but will impose costs of about half a million pounds, given the revenue required for fines. Clause 6 will require some

8 Jul 1999 : Column 1227

increased recruitment for training, which will be met by the comprehensive spending review settlement for pilot youth justice schemes in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Part of the purpose of the pilot scheme is to ensure not just that the scheme works, but that we have clear estimates of its total costs. I cannot say this for certain, but I believe that, if it operates efficiently it will save court costs. It ought to save on legal aid as well. Of course, there will be expenditure on the part of the youth offender panels, but I do not think that the Bill will lead to a great increase in spending overall.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I must make progress, but I will take one last intervention from the former Solicitor-General.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am extremely grateful.

May I ask the Home Secretary about his most recent answer to a question about clause 8? Is he not making the mistake of drawing a parallel with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969? Is it not the case that, according to the Home Secretary's view of the Bill, the courts cannot be trusted to make disposals? I am talking about the inflexibility that means that unless someone is locked up as a result of a custodial sentence, or receives an absolute discharge, the courts have no discretion--the discretion is handed over to the panel. Is that not a big mistake?

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. It is not a question of trusting the courts; it is a question of whether the magistrates court is the appropriate forum to determine the content of the programme under the referral order. In many cases, experienced youth justice magistrates will be members of the panels.

Mr. Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I must get on with my speech.

In Scotland, issues of guilt and innocence are dealt with by the sheriff--a paid judicial office-holder--rather than by magistrates. The Scottish system has moved away from the idea of magistrates courts dealing with issues involving not just the sentence and disposal of young offenders, but their guilt. Our proposals require people to be experienced and professional. I have a high regard for lay magistrates: I think they recognise that dealing with young offenders requires considerable professionalism and training. Indeed, it is possible that members of the proposed panels might have to be magistrates.

The Opposition asked whether other disposals should be available. First, let me deal with the issue of conditional discharge. It is my judgment--I make no apology for it--that conditional discharge is a hopeless disposal for young people, many of whom will have received a number of conditional discharges, or their equivalent, before even going to court. Unless a grave offence is involved, for which a conditional discharge is not appropriate anyway--I mean a serious offence; I do not mean a grave offence within the meaning of clause 53--the police will have already issued warnings and cautions.

8 Jul 1999 : Column 1228

When I visited youth courts, I took exception to the fact that, in some cases, half the disposals were conditional discharges. Those of us who have practised in such courts know all too well that young offenders regard conditional discharges as a case of, "I got away with it again."

In section 66 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we made it impossible for a conditional discharge to be issued by a youth court if a final warning had been issued within the previous two years. In most cases, it would not in any sense be available.

4 pm

There are currently severe problems with the collection of fines, even against adults--so much so that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are extremely concerned. In far too many courts throughout the country, far too many fines are remitted--in other words, cancelled--when defaulters wilfully refuse to pay. Except for a small minority--the older age group--the offenders with which this Bill deals will not have resources of their own, so the idea that a fine would be an appropriate penalty is not realistic.

There has been a great deal of discussion of the case of the young person who goes through a red light, so let us deal with it. Statistically, the most numerous group of young offenders who transgress the red light will be aged less than 17: they cannot have a driving licence because they are under age, so they will be literally driving while disqualified from driving. It is probable that they will also be committing many other offences as well. If they have nicked a car or are driving without a licence, it is a serious offence, not a trivial one. Therefore, even if they happen to jump a red light, it is likely that they have committed other, more serious offences.

There will be a small group of red light offenders aged 17 to 18 who have a driving licence--those who, because one has to wait a bit before getting a licence, are in the last nine months of their 17th year. Because gravity factors are already laid down for dealing with offences, most offenders from that small group who jump a light will get a police reprimand or a final warning under our scheme. They might get a fixed penalty: if they accept it, that is the end of the matter and the new arrangements are not triggered. Also, if they object to the fixed penalty, go to court and plead not guilty, the new arrangements are not triggered because they have pleaded not guilty.

The circumstances in which a young offender has jumped a light and the arrangements are then triggered will be few and far between. My judgment is that, in those circumstances, it may well be appropriate to send the youngster to the youth panel. Youngsters in the 17 to 20 age range can commit extremely reckless driving offences. We know that roughly a quarter of all driving offences are committed by those aged between 17 and 24. In many parts of the United States--a country with which we compete for the best road safety record--if youngsters offend against traffic regulations, they are made the subject of the sort of intervention that we seek, rather than being fined or having their offence treated as a trivial matter. I hope that it is recognised that, in the few circumstances in which the new arrangements are triggered, they are appropriate.

8 Jul 1999 : Column 1229

I have one final point on the issue of flexibility. I accept--although I doubt it--that the pilots might disclose that there are inflexibilities unanticipated by the House, or the prospect of which has so far been resisted by the Government. For that reason, clause 2(3) provides:

"The Secretary of State may by regulations make such amendments of this section"--

the one that lays down the triggers--

"as he considers appropriate for altering in any way the descriptions of offenders in the case of which the compulsory referral conditions or the discretionary referral conditions fall to be satisfied for purposes of section 1(2) or (3) (as the case may be)."

Therefore, that flexibility is written into the Bill. The Government have no more interest than the Opposition in ending up with a scheme that is brought into disrepute because of inflexibility at the margin, so we shall watch the pilots carefully.

My final comments relate to the provision in the Opposition new clause that would extend the conditions which have to be satisfied before there can be a referral. It contains the phrase:

"for which a custodial sentence is available".

I occupied the Opposition Front Bench for almost 17 years, and it was always irritating to me when clever-dick Ministers stood up and said that an amendment was "technically defective". None the less, although the Government resist the principle behind the new clause, that phrase itself is so seriously technically defective that, even if that were our only objection to the new clause--of course, it is not--it would be sufficient to make us reject it.

The phrase describes not an offence that is imprisonable for an adult, but an offence in which a custodial sentence is available for the offender before the court. Any imprisonable offence for adults is also an offence for which custody is available for 15, 16 and 17-year-olds; but, leaving aside grave offences, custody is available for 12, 13 and 14-year olds only if the offender has previously been convicted of at least two other similar offences and has breached a supervision order in respect of one of them.

If the new clause were accepted as drafted, we could end up with the curious situation in which, having decided that custody was not going to be used, a court could not use the transfer referral order to the panel because custody was not available for that offender, and therefore had to impose a fine or a conditional discharge. The extent to which the provision is defective and would hobble the court is obvious.

I hope that the House accepts that I have tried to answer, as fully as I can, the points raised by Opposition Members. The provisions are extremely important. If they are successfully piloted, as I believe they will be, and with the backing of the House and the other place, we shall in years to come be able to look back on this period--indeed, on today--as an occasion on which we began the most major reform since the war of the way in which we deal with young offenders.

---