Clause
6
Abolition
of certain youth orders and related
amendments
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con): I have a few
brief but, I hope, appropriate comments. My hon. and learned Friend the
Member for Harborough has already made a plea about the implementation
dates. The youth court is perhaps a victim of the criminal justice
system in being subject to a sentencing regime that covers the span of
many pieces of legislation and implementation dates that are dealt with
in a less than logical fashion.
That allows me to refer again
to the reading material from the Prison Reform Trust recommended
earlier, in which the sentencers said that they were all grappling with
the new legislation. They referred to the new provisions, not
necessarily in temperate language, as “idiotic” and the
introduction of so many complex changes as “lunatic”.
They made particular reference to the piecemeal introduction of the new
provisions. The plea with regard to the clause, when the logic is
obviously to abolish certain youth orders and related amendments, is
that the implementation of the new regime in relation to youth
rehabilitation orders and associated matters should be done in a
logical and comprehensive fashion. That should be made clear at a very
early stage to all practitioners to ensure that, at the point of
delivery, the youth court is not trying to work out what is, or is not,
implemented and can deliver justice in a consistent
manner.
Mr.
Hanson:
As the Committee will recognise, clause 6 will
abolish the five existing community sentences for young offenders and
replace them with a generic youth rehabilitation order, which
we have spent some time discussing in Committee. The question of
implementation is important and I am grateful to the hon. Member for
Enfield, Southgate for raising that today. Obviously, the Bill needs to
pass through both Houses of Parliaments before it will receive Royal
Assent. It is likely that that process will be completed by early to
mid-2008 at the earliest. My perspective is that the sooner that that
is done, the better, but obviously it will take some time. Given that,
I do not expect that we will implement the legislation until 2009 at
the
earliest.
Mr.
Garnier:
Which measures will be
implemented?
Mr.
Hanson:
The order—I refer to clause 6, and the
abolition of youth orders and their replacement by youth rehabilitation
orders. We will need to look at the important issues of delivery and
training, which I will examine during the course of the Bill and will
consider when the legislation has passed both Houses of
Parliament.
Question put and agreed
to.
Clause 6
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
4
Youth
rehabilitation orders: consequential and related
amendments
Mr.
Hanson:
I beg to move amendment No. 36, in
schedule 4, page 131, line 22, at
end
insert—
‘Social
Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.
49)
10A
The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 has effect subject to the following
amendments.
10B
In section 86(3) (adjustments between authority providing accommodation
etc, and authority of area of residence) after “supervision
order” insert “, youth rehabilitation
order”.
10C
In section 94(1)
(interpretation)—
(a)
for the definition of “probation order”
substitute—
““probation
order”, in relation to an order imposed by a court in Northern
Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Criminal Justice (Northern
Ireland) Order
1996,”,
(b) in the
definition of “supervision order”, omit “the
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or”,
and
(c) at the end
insert—
““youth
rehabilitation order” means an order made under section 1 of the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act
2007.”’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to take the
following: Government amendments Nos. 37 to 46, 54 to 56 and 58 to
73
New clause
16—Accommodation in which persons aged under 18 may be
detained—
‘(1) No person
aged under 18 shall be detained in a young offender institution or a
secure training centre unless the Secretary of State certifies that he
can be detained safely.
(2) In
section 107(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing Act) 2000
(meaning of “youth detention
accommodation”)—
(a)
omit paragraphs (a) and (b);
and
(b) in paragraph (c) after
“by order specify” insert “but not including a
secure training centre or young offender
institution”.
(3) At the
end of section 92(1)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing)
Act 2000 (detention under sections 90 and 91: place of detention etc.)
substitute the full stop for a
comma.
(4) At the end of
section 92(1) insert “provided that such place is not a secure
training centre or young offender
institution”.
(5) Omit
sections 23(7A) and (7B) of the Children and Young Persons Act
1969.
(6) Omit section 98 of
the Crime and Disorder Act
1998.’.
Mr.
Hanson:
The Government amendments in
this group are minor, technical and consequential amendments that
repeal legislative references that will be out of date due to the new
youth rehabilitation orders. I hope that they will be acceptable to the
Committee.
Government
amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 73 concern the manner in which the Secretary
of State makes arrangements for detention of young offenders sentenced
under sections 90 or 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing)
Act 2000. They are technical amendments relating to the youth
rehabilitation orders and I commend them to the Committee. I will be
happy to comment in due course on new clause 16 if it is spoken to by
the hon. and learned Member for Harborough.
The
Chairman:
New clause 16 is in the name of the hon. and
learned Member for Harborough, but it would be appropriate first to
debate the Government amendments and then for the hon. and learned
Member to make considerable reference to new clause
16.
2.15
pm
Mr.
Garnier:
I do not know whether my contribution will be
considerable, but I hope that it will be a considered reference to new
clause 16. I do not have a quarrel with the Government amendments; they
are, as the Minister has said, necessary and partly
consequential on clause 6 and, I suspect, the other changes to the way
that youth offenders are dealt with in the criminal justice system.
Some of the later Government amendments touch, although not directly,
on what I want to say about new clause 16. Essentially, I want the
Government to have a proper understanding of the need to put the right
people in the
right places.
I
have been to Glen Parva young offenders institution, which is partly in
my constituency and partly in that of my hon. Friend the Member for
Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I have been to the YOI at Warren Hill
and Hollesley Bay, which is near Woodbridge in Suffolk. I have been to
Feltham YOI and Lancaster Farm YOI, which is in the north-west. All of
those are institutions for young men. I also went to Bullwood Hall
about a year ago, when it was being used as a YOI for young
women.
Bullwood Hall
has been re-roled at least twice since then and hit the news last week,
no doubt to the Minister’s enjoyment. It was associated with HMP
Canterbury because those two institutions are now used exclusively to
accommodate foreign national prisoners. I will not talk about that, but
I will talk about my experience of young offenders institutions. Based
on that, I urge the Minister to ensure that we send the right people to
the right sort of custodial institution, as I said at the outset of my
remarks.
Compared with
the adult prisoner estate, young offender institutions are very
troubled and troubling places. That is not just because they are full
of young people who are there because they have committed serious
crimes—some of them very serious indeed. There is a unit within
Warren Hill and Hollesley Bay where youngsters who have committed
murder—some of them quite nasty murders—are held, and
will be held for long periods. At Feltham, about 20 young men are
serving the equivalent of life sentences, and there are other young men
who have committed serious crimes in the other YOIs to which I have
referred.
We
are dealing with a difficult collection of people and nothing that I am
about to say should be taken as a criticism of the governors, the
governing staff or the prison officers who work in these difficult
institutions. We need to be very careful that we do not put into
institutions that are for over-18s younger teenagers of the age group
that is to be brought within the youth rehabilitation order and youth
custody remit. We need to be extremely careful in ensuring that there
is sufficient capacity to house those under the age of 18 securely and
safely in secure sites. If we get that wrong, those youngsters could be
badly damaged. We could face
the sort of circumstances that the hon. Member for Northampton, North
spoke about in her Adjournment debate over the death of a young
constituent of hers in a secure unit outside her constituency. It was a
story that caused a great deal of alarm. The Minister responded to that
Adjournment debate and I was on the Opposition Front Bench as he did
so. There
are a whole host of issues—easy, not so easy and plain
difficult—that we have to be aware of when talking about the
incarceration of young people. I want the Minister’s assurance
that the Ministry of Justice has the resources and the personnel to
deal with the imprisonment of youngsters, has trained those personnel
and has fully understood the difficult nature of the task. A number of
people who have spoken about the imprisonment of young people say that
we should not be sending children or young people to prison. I am not
sure that I would go that far because there will be some young
teenagers who commit crimes that society would expect to result in
custody. However, custody, whether of young people or adults, must be
humane and carried out in a way that improves the chances of their
being able to return to society in a better
state.
Harry
Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): What is the hon. and
learned Gentleman’s view of young people who have been
incarcerated in an adult prison, even if they have committed an
horrendous
offence?
Mr.
Garnier:
I do not like it. The problem that we face, which
is one of the Government’s own making, is that the custodial
estate is full to the gunnels. I might be wrong, but I do not think
that young offenders are kept in police cells or court cells overnight.
There is no more room on the custodial estate. It has more than its
official capacity. Last Friday, there were 81,533 adult prisoners. That
is about 30 prisoners over the establishment. It might be thought that
30 is not a big number, but the Committee must bear in mind that about
20,000 adult prisoners are in cells that were designed for one person
and which are now having to be shared by two or three
people.
We have an
accommodation problem. To deal with it, people are being put into cells
or accommodation with others of a different age group. I accept fully
that some people look 14, but are 20 years old, while some look 20, but
are 14 years old. We must be careful that people are put in the right
place.
Because of
overcrowding, young offenders convicted of offences or on remand in
custody in courts in the east of England, for example, are having to be
taken in a sweat box hundreds of miles overnight and brought back to
court the following day. On some occasions, they do not arrive at their
overnight accommodation until well after 9 o’clock. When I was
at Lancaster Farms, the governor and his senior colleagues said, with
huge regret, that there was not much that they could do about the fact
that young people were arriving in their care at almost midnight. That
has an effect on the child or young person as well as on the staff who,
by the time that they have gone over their shift and are waiting to go
home, are not necessarily in the best frame of mind to deal with
disoriented, difficult or plainly bad teenagers in need of
overnight accommodation.
Ms
Keeble:
Given that the hon. and learned Gentleman referred
to very disturbed young people who have committed murder, he and my
right hon. Friend the Minister might like to visit Northampton and see
the model of care that is provided by St. Andrew’s for
such people. It is different from the Home Office estate. The way in
which it deals with those young people is
stunning.
Mr.
Garnier:
I should be interested to visit St.
Andrew’s. It comes under the auspices of the Department of
Health, not the Ministry of Justice. When I visited Grendon Underwood,
a special and marvellous institution that is run by the Ministry of
Justice and the Prison Service, I asked the governor whether it was a
hospital with bars or a prison with doctors. He said, “It is a
prison with doctors, but I wish that it was a hospital with bars
because we would get more money to do what we have to do.” I
accept that we are not debating such matters this afternoon, but at
some stage we, as legislators, will have to work out the best way in
which to deal with disturbed people who end up in the criminal justice
system. I have made my point. It is important that we not only lock up
the right people for the right offences, but that we lock them up in
the right place, and that people do not come to any harm once they are
locked up.
Finally,
on a happier note, I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to
the fact that this might be the first time that Members of Parliament
have tabled a new clause that would
“substitute the full stop for a
comma”.
One can see it by
looking at the end of subsection (3) of new clause 16. It is a matter
of some considerable note.
David
Howarth:
If the hon. and learned
Gentleman looked at the Committee that considered the Companies Bill,
he would see the first instance of almost everything, even including
proposed changes to
punctuation.
Mr.
Garnier:
I knew that a former law don would have his
finger, as it were, on every piece of punctuation on every piece of
legislation that the House has dealt with over many years, but it is a
matter of some personal pride that new clause 16 would amend
legislation in the way to which I
referred.
The
Chairman:
I had spotted that particular passage.
Mr.
Heath:
Punctuation can make a difference to legislation,
and we would do well to take care over it.
I do not wish to add anything
to what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said—his
argument was extremely cogent, and I support it. I simply wish to ask
the Minister a more general question about what Government amendment
No. 44 will do regarding amendments to Scots law? Will it simply
replace terms, or will it have a real effect on the way in which Scots
courts will deal with the matter? If it will have a real effect, should
there not be an amendment to clause 127 about its
extent?
Mr.
Hanson:
I thank the hon. and learned
Member for Harborough for raising this issue because it gives
the Committee an opportunity to consider his point. Like him, I have, in
the course of my duties, had the opportunity to visit a number of youth
offender institutions and secure training centres in the past few
months. Indeed, in my previous role, I was responsible for the criminal
justice system in Northern Ireland and for secure units and youth
offender institutes. I understand the challenges of managing the young
people and of working with the staff of those institutions.
My most recent visit to such an
institution was to the Hindley youth offenders institute near Leigh in
Greater Manchester. Difficult and challenging behaviour problems need
to be addressed in those centres. I am due to visit the Oakhill secure
training centre in Milton Keynes with my right hon. Friend, the
Minister for Children, Young People and Families to examine some of the
issues arising from the way it operates and performs, and at how we can
improve it.
I agree
with the hon. and learned Gentleman that we must provide a safe and
productive environment for young people in those establishments. I say
“safe” because it is important that we protect young
people not only from self harm, but from the potential harm they might
suffer from other young people in the centres. We also need to create
an environment in which staff are protected and secured from potential
attack. We must ensure that people in the centres have a productive
regime. The whole thrust of the legislation, the Bill and Government
policy is to ensure that whatever mistakes people have made, we prevent
them from reoffending.
There are a
number of measures in place to provide broadly for the safety of people
in secure units and youth offender institutions. Under the Children Act
2004, governors and directors of young offender institutions and secure
training centres are already required to have regard to the need to
safeguard and promote the welfare of children in discharging their
functions.
What is
certainly true—the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned this in
passing—is that these establishments contain some very dangerous
young people. According to our most recent figures, which are dated 22
October, 64 young people in custody are charged with murder. Those are
very dangerous individuals and that requires not just a safety regime,
but a productive regime to try to turn around the offending behaviour.
That comes back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for
Leyton and Wanstead. We must ensure that we have proper investment in
education and skill training. Nearly every young person in that
accommodation will come out into the community at some point in the
future. They need a proper regime, a safe regime and one that invests
in them to turn their lives
around.
2.30
pm
Ms
Keeble:
On the point about funding for
education and hospitals, St. Andrew’s hospital, for example,
does not get funding for education. There needs to be some parity.
Would my right hon. Friend accept that if young people are convicted of
murder and sent to a psychiatric hospital, they should have access to
education in the same way as they would if they were sent to a young
offenders institution or a Home Office
establishment?
Mr.
Hanson:
I hope and expect that they would. I will
certainly look at that matter outside the Committee to ensure that that
is the case.
The whole thrust of our
discussion today is the prevention of reoffending. We have young
people, some very young, who need education and investment, who need to
have their offending behaviour addressed and who ultimately need to
come out of the young offender institution as better people than when
they went into it. From my visits to such institutions, both secure
training centres and young offenders institutions, I know that that
work is ongoing.
The
statistics still show that we are facing very difficult and challenging
times in working through that. There is still a high level of
reoffending by those young people when they leave secure training
centres and youth offending institutions. Our purpose has to
be—I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman—to ensure
that we have a safe and productive environment. I am not able to accept
his new clause, but I accept some of the thrust of the arguments about
having that safety and that positive regime in the centres.
The hon. and
learned Member for Harborough will know, as will my hon. Friend the
Member for Northampton, North, that one of the issues we have looked at
recently is restraint and its use in secure training centres and other
establishments. My hon. Friend has been very assiduous in pressing the
concerns of her constituents. She will know, as the Committee knows,
that there have been two serious inquests following the deaths of
individuals in custody. We need to reflect on those issues and take
them on board.
In
July, I instigated a full review across the estate of the use of
restraint in the young persons’ estates. With the Minister for
Children, Young People and Families, I recently appointed two joint
chairs to conduct the review, which is now taking evidence. I hope that
the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for
Somerton and Frome will submit their views to the joint review on
restraint. That review will report to me by 4 April 2008. My right hon.
Friend and I will be taking decisions on the use of restraint. I hope
that the regime will ultimately have an effect on disturbed behaviour
by young people, either through self-harm or against each
other.
Ms
Keeble:
I was going to write to my right hon. Friend about
a visit that I made to St. Andrew’s, where different methods of
managing young people’s behaviour are used. The whole design of
the building and the regime there have a very different impact from
those of the secure training centres. Although St. Andrew’s is a
health establishment, in his review will he consider the methods used
in such establishments as alternatives to
restraint?
Mr.
Hanson:
I will reflect on that outside the Committee and
will await the letter from my hon. Friend with some interest. We have
published the terms of reference of the review, and we have appointed
two individuals to conduct it, both of whom are strong professionals in
their field. The review will report to me. They have sent invitations
this week for evidence to be presented to them. In terms of the safety
issue, the use of restraint in secure training centres and other
establishments is being looked at in the round, because of the
challenging nature of some of the individuals.
In July, I tabled amendments on
restraint issues in the other place and this place, because self-harm,
harm against other individuals, and harm against staff can be prevented
by restraint, but we need to look at how it is used in the context also
of preventing some of the tragic events that have happened in the
past.
Mr.
Heath:
Will the review on restraint also deal with the
question of protective armaments for prison staff raised by the Prison
Officers Association—the baton
question?
Mr.
Hanson:
That is not specifically part of the
review’s terms of reference. At the prison officers’
request, we are considering a separate undertaking dealing the use of
batons, but it is not part of the formal review, the terms of which
were published in July. If hon. Members wish to consider that aspect of
the safety issues in institutions, they should refer back to those
terms of reference which were published, I think, on the last day
before the summer
recess.
Harry
Cohen:
I welcome the review announced by the Minister and
I congratulate him on it; it is very important. One of the
organisations with which I have worked in the past that is very active
in this field is Inquest. May I recommend that he meets them as part of
the review process, at a suitable
time?
The
Chairman:
I am not sure that it is entirely relevant to
the debate, but it could
be.
Mr.
Hanson:
The review will provide
important background information to our debates on how to improve
safety. My hon. Friend has mentioned Inquest. The review is, in a
sense, an arm’s length Government review. With my right hon.
Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, I have
appointed two independent chairs. They are conducting the review
independent of Government. I am sure that Inquest will submit evidence
to them. When I gave evidence in another place last week, Inquest were
present. I have no doubt that they will follow the process with
interest and play an active role in it.
Although I cannot accept his
clause, I feel that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has made
some very strong points. I take seriously the safety regime in young
offender institutions and secure training centres. In my view they are,
for the most part, very positive. In future, I want to tackle some of
the causes of offending behaviour which have brought young people into
custody in the first place with a positive education and health
regime.
We have taken
a number of important general measures such as the separation of
under-18s from over-18s, and we are developing new high-dependency
units for more vulnerable boys to help support those individuals. To
give the Committee some context, there are more than 300 places in
secure training centres; more than 2,500 in young offender
institutions; and more than 230 in secure children’s homes. They
are very cost intensive: secure training centre places cost
£170,000 a year; young offender institution places cost
£50,000 per year; and secure children’s home places cost
£190,000 per year. I want those resources to be
used effectively to prevent reoffending. It will be a failure of our
system if the young people who are sentenced to and attend those
institutions leave them and graduate to adult prisons. I want both
security and effective rehabilitation to be part of the
process. I
ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on those points. I hope
that I have offered him some satisfaction, and I ask him to not to
press his new clause. I urge the Committee to accept the Government
amendments.
Mr.
Hanson:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding
me about the position in Scotland. No amendments to extend the clause
have been requested, as it already provides that amendments made by the
Bill to existing Acts have the same extent as the Act as amended, if
that makes sense. Amendment No. 44 makes no substantive change to the
law, as it replaces references to the existing community order with
references to the new youth rehabilitation order. I hope that that
satisfies him.
Mr.
Heath
indicated assent.
Mr.
Hanson:
For the sake of the Committee, if the hon. and
learned Member for Harborough wishes to reflect on what I said and
examine it in the cold light of day, I am happy for him to do so. I
hope that that satisfies
him.
Mr.
Garnier:
If it were appropriate for me within the rules of
procedure of the Committee to ask your leave to withdraw the new
clause, Sir Nicholas, I would do so, but it is not, so I shall not. I
wish to respond briefly to the
Minister.
Although
we would not admit this on a party political occasion, I believe that
the Minister and I have much in common in our concern about what is
happening in the custodial estate. He mentioned the huge cost of young
offender institutions, secure training centres and some secure
children’s homes. He says that he wants to prevent failure and
that failure is reoffending. Well, we are already failing. The
reoffending rate for people under 21 is about 75 per cent., and some
studies suggest that it is over 80 per cent. We are already failing, so
that huge investment per young person that the Minister spoke about is
already wasted money. We are not seeing a
dividend.
Prisons,
young offender institutions, secure training centres and other places
where children are kept in custody are part of a secret world, about
which we do not know enough. I hope that this short debate has acted as
a window through which we as parliamentarians can look into the secure
estate. It is unfortunate that this occasion did not provide a window
through which those inside can look out to a world that is prepared to
welcome them back as long as they are reformed, rehabilitated and
prepared to live useful lives. It is essential that somehow or other we
create those metaphorical windows so that we can get better value for
money and far better outputs, to use a rather nasty word, from the
criminal justice system.
At present, we are wasting money
and lives, and, in some respects, destroying lives. I want all of that
stopped. I want our streets and communities to be safer, and the
reoffending rate to come down sufficiently. We will never get down to
the ideal of zero, but the rate is far too high at present, and we
seriously need to do something about
it.
I would be
interested to learn more about the joint review. I had not heard of it.
That may be my fault, but I would be pleased if the Minister sent me
details about it or let me know if it is on some Ministry of Justice
website. I shall not detain the Committee further. I hope that the
proposals will shunt things on a bit in a sensible
way.
Amendment
agreed to.
The
Chairman:
With the will and the
permission of the Committee, I would seek to put Government amendments
Nos. 37 to 48 together. They are not controversial, and therefore I
hope that the Committee will be happy with
that— [
Interruption.
] May I say to the
Government Whip that there are other Government amendments that have
been discussed—or not, as they case may be—as part of the
group that we have just debated? They will be taken in due course, and
I will ask the Minister to move them formally when we come to
them.
Amendments
made: No. 37, in schedule 4, page 131, line 25, at end
insert—
‘11A
Section 25 (transfers between England or Wales and Northern Ireland)
ceases to have effect.
11B (1)
Section 26 (transfers between England or Wales and the Channel Islands
or Isle of Man) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection
(1)(c), for the words from “supervision order” to
“2000” substitute “youth rehabilitation order
imposing a local authority residence
requirement”.
(3) In
subsection (2), for the words from “supervision order” to
“2000” substitute “youth rehabilitation order
imposing a local authority residence
requirement”.’.
No.
38, in
schedule 4, page 131, line 31, leave
out paragraphs (b) and (c) and
insert—
‘(b) for paragraph
(b)
substitute—
“(b)
from local authority
accommodation—
(i) in
which he is required to live by virtue of a youth rehabilitation order
imposing a local authority residence requirement (within the meaning of
Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007);
or
(ii) to which he has been
remanded under paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2007; or
(iii)
to which he has been remanded or committed under section 23(1) of this
Act,”.’.
No.
39, in
schedule 4, page 132, line 19, leave
out from ‘for’ to end of line 20 and insert
‘the words from “mentioned
in subsection” to “this section is in premises”
substitute “mentioned in subsection (1), (1A)(a) or (b)(i) or
(ii) or (1D) of this section is in
premises”.’.
No.
40, in
schedule 4, page 132, line 27, leave
out ‘and’ and
insert—
‘(aa) after the
definition of “local authority accommodation”
insert—
““local
authority residence requirement” has the same meaning as in Part
1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007;”,
and’.
No. 41, in
schedule 4, page 132, line 32, at
end insert—
‘13A
In section 73(4)(a) (provisions of section 32 extending to Scotland)
for “to (1C)” substitute “to
(1E)”.’.
No.
42, in
schedule 4, page 132, line 40, leave
out paragraph 16 and
insert—
‘16 In
section 7(2) (limitations on rehabilitation under Act, etc.) for
paragraph (d)
substitute—
“(d) in any
proceedings relating to the variation or discharge of a youth
rehabilitation order under Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2007, or on appeal from any such
proceedings;”.’.
No.
43, in
schedule 4, page 137, line 14, at
end insert—
‘31A
In paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 (privately fostered children) for
paragraph (a)
substitute—
“(a) a youth
rehabilitation order made under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act
2007;”.’.
No.
44, in
schedule 4, page 139, line 2, at
end
insert—
‘Criminal
Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.
46)
35A The
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 has effect subject to the
following amendments.
35B (1) Section 234
(probation orders: persons residing in England and Wales) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection (2),
at the end insert “(in any case where the offender has attained
the age of 18 years) or under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2007 (in any other
case)”.
(3) In
subsection (4)—
(a) in
paragraph (a), for “and section 207(2) of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003” substitute “, section 207(2) of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 and paragraph 20(2) of Schedule 1 to the Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act
2007”,
(b) in paragraph
(a), for “or, as the case may be, community orders under Part 12
of that Act” substitute “, community orders under Part 12
of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or, as the case may be, youth
rehabilitation orders under Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act
2007”,
(c)
in paragraph (a), for “and section 207 of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003” substitute “, section 207 of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 and paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Act
2007”,
(d) in paragraph
(b), after “2003” insert “or (as the case may be)
paragraphs 20(4) and 21(1) to (3) of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Act 2007”,
and
(e) in paragraph (b), at
the end insert “or that
paragraph”.
(4) In
subsection (4A) at the end insert “(in any case where the
offender has attained the age of 18 years) or in a youth rehabilitation
order made under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act
2007 (in any other
case)”.
(5) In
subsection (5) for the words from “subject to subsection
(6)” to the end substitute “subject to subsections (6)
and (6A)
below—
(a)
Schedule 8 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 shall apply as if it were a
community order made by a magistrates’ court under section 177
of that Act and imposing the requirements specified under subsection
(4A) above (in any case where the offender has attained the age of 18
years);
and
(b)
Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007 shall apply
as if it were a youth rehabilitation order made by a
magistrates’ court under section 1 of that Act and imposing the
requirements specified under that subsection (in any other
case).”
(6) After subsection (6)
insert—
“(6A) In
its application to a probation order made or amended under this
section, Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007
has effect subject to the following
modifications—
(a)
any reference to the responsible officer has effect as a reference to
the person appointed or assigned under subsection (1)(a)
above,
(b) in paragraph 6,
sub-paragraph (2)(c) is omitted and, in sub-paragraph (16), the
reference to the Crown Court has effect as a reference to a court in
Scotland, and
(c) Parts 3 and 5
are omitted.”
35C (1)
Section 242 (community service orders: persons residing in England and
Wales) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection
(1)(a)—
(a)
in sub-paragraph (ii), after “Part 12 of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003)” insert “, in any case where the offender has
attained the age of 18 years, or an unpaid work requirement imposed by
a youth rehabilitation order (within the meaning of Part 1 of the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007), in any other case”,
and
(b) in
sub-paragraph (iii), after “section 177 of the Criminal Justice
Act 2003” insert “or, as the case may be, imposed by
youth rehabilitation orders made under section 1 of the Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act
2007”.
(3) In subsection
(2)(b)—
(a) after
“that court” insert “, in any case where the
offender has attained the age of 18 years,”
and
(b) after
“2003” insert “or it appears to that court, in any
other case, that provision can be made for the offender to perform work
under the order under the arrangements which exist in that area for
persons to perform work under unpaid work requirements imposed by youth
rehabilitation orders made under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act
2007”.
(4) In subsection
(3)(b) at the end insert “or, as the case may be, conferred on
responsible officers by Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration
Act 2007 in respect of unpaid work requirements imposed by youth
rehabilitation orders (within the meaning of that
Part)”.
35D (1) Section
244 (community service orders: general provisions relating to persons
residing in England and Wales or Northern Ireland) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection
(3)(a)—
(a) after
“2003)” insert “or, as the case may be, a youth
rehabilitation order (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act 2007)”,
and
(b) after “such
community orders” insert “or youth rehabilitation
orders”.
(3) In
subsection (4)(a)—
(a)
for “or, as the case may be, community orders” substitute
“, community orders”,
and
(b) after
“2003)” insert “or, as the case may be, youth
rehabilitation orders (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act
2007)”.
(4) In
subsection (5)—
(a) for
“or, as the case may be, a community order” substitute
“, a community order”,
and
(b) after
“2003)” insert “or, as the case may be, a youth
rehabilitation order (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act
2007)”.
(5) In
subsection (6)—
(a) for
“or, as the case may be, community orders” substitute
“, community
orders”,
(b) after
“within the meaning of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act
2003)” insert “or, as the case may be, youth
rehabilitation orders (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act 2007)”,
and
(c) after “the responsible officer under Part
12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003” insert “or, as the
case may be, under Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act
2007”.’.
No.
45, in
schedule 4, page 141, line 30, at
end
insert—
‘Child
Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 (c.
19)
53A The Child
Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 has effect subject to
the following amendments.
53B (1) Section
62 (loss of benefit for breach of community order) is amended as
follows.
(2) In the definition
of “relevant community order” in subsection
(8)—
(a) after
“2003;” in paragraph (a)
insert—
“(aa) a
youth rehabilitation order made under section 1 of the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Act 2007;”,
and
(b) in paragraph (b) for
“such an order” substitute “an order specified in
paragraph (a) or
(aa)”.
(3) In subsection
(11)(c)(ii) for “and (b)” substitute “to
(b)”.
53C (1) Section 64
(information provision) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection
(6)(a) after “2003)” insert “, youth
rehabilitation orders (as defined by section 1 of the Criminal Justice
and Immigration Act
2007)”.
(3) In
subsection (7) after paragraph (b)
insert—
“(ba) a
responsible officer within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act
2007;”.’.
No.
46, in
schedule 4, page 145, line 39, leave
out ‘in paragraph (b)(ii),’ and insert
‘in paragraph (b) (as substituted
by paragraph 12(2)(b) of this Schedule), in sub-paragraph
(ii),’.
No. 47,
in
schedule 4, page 147, line 28, at
end insert—
(7A) If a local
authority has parental responsibility for an offender who is in its
care or provided with accommodation by it in the exercise of any social
services functions, the reference in sub-paragraph (7)(b) to a parent
or guardian of the offender is to be read as a reference to that
authority.
(7B) In
sub-paragraph
(7A)—
“local
authority” has the same meaning as it has in Part 1 of the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007 by virtue of section 7 of
that Act,
“parental
responsibility” has the same meaning as it has in the Children
Act 1989 by virtue of section 3 of that Act,
and
“social services
functions” has the same meaning as it has in the Local Authority
Social Services Act 1970 by virtue of section 1A of that
Act.’.
No.
48, in
schedule 4, page 149, line 4, at
end insert—
(5A) If a local
authority has parental responsibility for an offender who is in its
care or provided with accommodation by it in the exercise of any social
services functions, the reference in sub-paragraph (5)(b) to a parent
or guardian of the offender is to be read as a reference to that
authority.
(5B) In
sub-paragraph
(5A)—
“local
authority” has the same meaning as it has in Part 1 of the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007 by virtue of section 7 of
that Act,
“parental
responsibility” has the same meaning as it has in the Children
Act 1989 by virtue of section 3 of that Act,
and
“social services
functions” has the same meaning as it has in the Local Authority
Social Services Act 1970 by virtue of section 1A of that
Act.’.—[Mr.
Hanson.]
Schedule
4
, as amended,
agreed to.
| 
