| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
- House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past nine o'clock.
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
Tuesday, 18th June 2002.
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 Greetland moved Amendment No. 180:
- Page 30, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
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.
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 and 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,
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.
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:
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.
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.
"( ) 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 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.
"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.
"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.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page