---

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I would say, in answer to that last observation, that restorative justice has not yet had its opportunity. I take what the noble Lord says with great seriousness. He said earlier, with typical generosity, that there might be some who have served lengthy prison sentences but who might have become truly remorseful—the adverb is important, I agree—and have demonstrated their ability to contribute, perhaps even realising the dreadful wrongs they have done to their fellow citizens.

That is of course true of all organisations. It is true in some circumstances in the probation service or in social work and one has to be extremely careful and cautious, perhaps overly cautious, before employing anyone who has been in trouble with the law in the past. But I repeat that what is suggested here is that the

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH135

Secretary of State should have the opportunity of designating bodies which may be called on by the court before it makes such a reparation order.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: I thank all those Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of the amendment and I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the patient way in which he has dealt with a number of the issues. However, I am in no doubt that we shall wish to return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 190:

Page 31, leave out line 38.

The noble Lord said: The amendment would strike out the restriction on making a reparation order in respect of an offender if it proposes to pass a custodial sentence on him or her. I am interested to know why this article has been introduced. I do not understand the thinking behind it. Essentially this is a probing amendment to find out, given that I am not very literate in judicial matters.

However, one can see that there is a degree of overlap between community service orders and reparation orders. Why are reparation orders to be restricted to those who are not to be given any other sentence or order, even though a court might believe that a reparation order would be beneficial in a particular case? I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall explain the thinking behind the article in response to the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Reparation orders are intended essentially for those children whose offending is at the lower end of the scale; that is, relatively minor. It is intended therefore to be a low-level disposal, one particularly suited to those who have not progressed to more serious offending. Custody, in particular for children, is well known to be—and ought to be—the last resort reserved for serious offenders. If a child is a sufficiently serious offender to warrant custody, then plainly it would not be appropriate to pass a reparation order. That is the thinking behind this provision and I believe that it is correct.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 191:

Page 32, line 24, leave out "24" and insert "160"

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments is aimed at increasing the duration of reparation orders in relation to sentencing and providing an opportunity to separate the provisions for reparation order-making and sentencing for 16 and 17 year-olds and for those aged under 16.

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH136

We are concerned that the Bill will not provide the courts with sufficient flexibility. The number of hours that I have proposed in the amendment are not intended to be specific; they are purely for the purposes of debating the lack of flexibility offered to the courts. I am concerned that the courts will not have made available to them sufficient discretion to deal effectively with all age groups and with offences of varying degrees of seriousness. Thus I admit that the figures in the amendment are arbitrary.

I seek to draw attention to the fact that the courts will be prohibited from imposing a longer reparation order even if they thought that this might give an offender a better chance of understanding the distress and inconvenience that his actions had caused, thus enabling the victim more easily to come to terms with the offence. We do not see why that should not be the case. I am aware that Section 74(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 states:

"A reparation order shall not require the offender to work for more than 24 hours in aggregate".

That is a provision for England and Wales. I do not feel that it necessarily defeats my argument. We are bringing in a new system. It is a new criminal justice system and a new system for youth justice, and I see no reason why we should be tied rigidly in such matters to what has been passed for England and Wales. The Northern Ireland judiciary and the Northern Ireland judicial system are, after devolution, essentially different, and there is every reason to debate whether the Bill has the matter right or wrong.

Amendment No. 230 makes separate provision for those aged 16 and 17. The inclusion of that age group will bring into the youth justice system more offences such as violent crime and motoring offences, albeit that there are plenty of motoring offences being committed in Belfast involving pilots of about 12 or 13. That is a separate problem now, but it will not remain a separate problem once the Bill is passed. We must take that into account.

I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the courts will be permitted to use their discretion and will have appropriate penalties at their disposal to deal with serious offences committed by 17 and 18 year-olds, as opposed to 12, 13 or 14 year-olds. I beg to move.

Lord Laird: We support the amendment keenly.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 would, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, increase the maximum duration from 24 hours to 160 and 240 hours respectively. He is right in saying that 24 hours is the maximum in England and Wales. He is also right to say that what happens in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland does not always go hand-in-hand with what happens in England and Wales. It is important, however, that the success in England and Wales has been significant.

I repeat my point about Amendment No. 190. That is intended to be low-level intervention for low-level crime. In the life of someone in that category, 24 hours

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH137

is a significant period and should not be under-estimated. For the older person to whom the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred, there are, of course, appropriate penalties, as he described them. I shall give him the reassurance that he wanted. There are other disposals, including, for instance, a probation order or, for the 16-plus age group—to which the noble Lord particularly referred—a community service order of up to 240 hours. So, there is a more serious penalty available in the case of a more serious offender, aged over 16.

The provision in Schedule 10 is taken directly from the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. It relates to the imposition of a community service order for the breach of an order as defined in the 1996 order. It is not relevant to children under 16, who cannot be made subject to a community service order. For those who are aged 16 and over, the court already has the power under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to impose an additional penalty of up to 60 hours' community service for the breach of an order. It is limited for that reason.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 192 to 194 not moved.]

On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise for asking this question, which arises out of the review on criminal justice. I do not know where else I would ask it. I would quite understand if the Minister felt more inclined to give me a written answer, rather than answering today. Paragraph 10.89 of the review says:

"In respect of juveniles, we recommend that the Government should commission independent research into the effects of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 on juvenile defendants as a matter of urgency, and that the findings of that research should be published".

Have there been any developments in that regard since the review was published?

5.15 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: In response to the noble Lord's question, I have to exercise my right of silence, because I do not know the answer—oh, I do now. I understand that that research has been commissioned, but not published.

Clause 53 agreed to.

Clause 54 [Community responsibility orders]:

Lord Shutt of Greetland moved Amendment No. 195:

Page 34, line 18, leave out "instruction" and insert "teaching"

The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 196. We have been too economical with these amendments. The word "instruction" appears four times between lines 15 and 20, two of which are covered by these amendments. Our view is that the word should be changed on all four occasions,

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH138

but this is a technical matter that could be tidied up on another occasion. It would be more appropriate to speak to the principle of whether the word is appropriate and to hear the Government's response. The words "teaching" and "learning" have two sides. I am not convinced that the recipient of "instruction" would be as enthusiastic about the matter.

If we think of Santa Claus coming and bringing us a little box at Christmas, when we open the box and find all sorts of little bits we look for the instructions. We are willing participants, trying to puzzle it together. It could be said that someone will have to undertake the giving of instruction. It could be said that all one needs to do is to give the sheet and ask the person to read it and then, when they have read it, ask them to read it again—and again, and again.

This should be about teaching and learning. The word "instruction" would be best banished from this provision and replaced with something friendlier and more likely to achieve a response from the person whom it is suggested should receive that instruction. I beg to move.

---