| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is. The reason is to allow flexibility: if it was more appropriate that the notice be served—this concerns only the question of serving a notice—by another person, that flexibility should be available. It is only a notice-serving power.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 56 [Youth conferences and youth conference plans]:
[Amendment No. 215 not moved.]
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 215A:
- Page 43, line 14, at end insert—
The noble Lord said: The amendment is straightforward. It would add a representative of the prosecution to the list. It seems to me that the circle should be complete, or thereabouts. We are talking about a serious matter. Even if the representative of the prosecution did not take any part, at least so far as
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I advise Members of the Committee not to agree to the amendment. The amendment would add to Article 3A(2) on page 43 new paragraph (e), which would refer to a prosecutor. It would mean that if a heavily stretched prosecution service did not provide a prosecutor, the meeting could not constitute itself or be lawfully continued. There is no part for the prosecutor to play at this stage because a referral to a diversionary conference can be made only after an admission of guilt, and to a court-ordered conference after a finding of guilt. That is not a forum for questioning again the facts of the offence and it is not intended to be adversarial. The legal representative of the child is not there to re-defend him, and no one at the conference is there to re-prosecute.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that the prosecutor might just be there. The interests of the public at large—in which, of course, I include all those who have been hurt and harmed by the crime—are reasonably served by the presence of the police officer. It seems, first, that the prosecutor would have no role to play. Secondly, it would waste resources and, thirdly, it is capable of confusing those conference occasions with either the admission of guilt stage or the finding of guilt stage. That would not be desirable.
Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 216:
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 216 seeks to include the Probation Board of Northern Ireland as youth conference co-ordinators. The Probation Board of Northern Ireland has extensive and direct experience in dealing with matters of youth justice in Northern Ireland. As such, it seems sensible that the probation board appears alongside the Civil Service as an organisation that supplies youth conference co-ordinators. It is an expert group, as I have said, and it is at the front line of the justice system. It seems to me and, perhaps more importantly, to it that it would be appropriate for it to be included in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I agree with the noble Lord that those who work in the probation service for Northern Ireland are, first, experienced and, secondly, of very high quality. I want to stress that existing probation officers who meet the required criteria for
This was the recommendation of the review; namely, that the youth conferencing service should be housed within a separate agency. The problem with regard to including the probation board is that it would be foolish for conference co-ordinators to be managed by two completely different employing bodies. It would be wiser to work from a single agency, but I stress that anyone from the probation service of Northern Ireland is more than welcome. We would warmly welcome their applications if they have the appropriate qualifications and experience. Such applicants would be well regarded as employees of the single agency.
Lord Glentoran: How would they know about it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Appropriate advertisements will be placed in the usual way. I know that our proceedings here—I do not think that I am being presumptuous in saying this—are quite carefully scrutinised in Northern Ireland. They will be more than welcome to apply.
Baroness O'Cathain: I rise to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal to clarify one point. I believe that the noble and learned Lord has made it clear that civil servants from other parts of the United Kingdom as well as from Northern Ireland would form the agency; namely representatives of the Civil Service of the United Kingdom and the Civil Service of Northern Ireland In effect, those are two different organisations. I cannot see why it should be a problem to involve the probation service of Northern Ireland as well.
The noble and learned Lord stated very generously that if probation officers wished to apply, they could do so. However, we should put ourselves in the mind of a person working in the probation service in Northern Ireland. He or she might make it known that they want to get involved in the new service. They apply, but they do not get the job. They might have great difficulty moving back into the probation service in Northern Ireland.
Will their pension rights and so forth be transferred? It seems easy, given the skills and expertise of the probation officers, just to put on to the face of the Bill a provision that would allow them take part in this, but to remain members of the probation service of Northern Ireland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I take the point made by the noble Baroness. However, if we are setting up a youth justice agency then it is wiser that all of those who are subject to its directions should be employed by it. The staffing arrangements for the youth co-ordinators replicates the existing order settling arrangements for the staffing of the Northern Ireland
I can only repeat what I have said: they will be welcome to apply. If they do not apply, of course, that is the same with all organisations. A police officer may want to become a probation officer; if he or she does not succeed, then he or she can carry on as a police officer and vice versa. That is quite commonplace.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 217 and 217A not moved.]
Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 218:
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 218 returns to my theme—perhaps it is now a little worn—of keeping the mechanisms of youth conferences and so forth cleaner than clean.
Amendment 218 would change the Bill to read:
I have spoken to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and to the superintendent concerned with the trials of the system going on in Belfast. They support the system, as do we. However, they are also fearful, as we are, of the situation in west Belfast and in parts of north Belfast, where a similar or parallel scheme is being carried out by the paramilitaries. If youth conferencing is to work, it must take place within the criminal justice system, which means that the participants must sign up to the criminal justice system.
We know that communities in certain parts of the Province—fortunately, not many—will not sign up to supporting either the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the British judicial system. On that front, we must be extremely careful that we clearly define the line between legal youth conferences and those taking place on the black market. The situation in parts of the Protestant community is not dissimilar, but I am told that they are more inclined to accept the judicial system; they are certainly more inclined to accept the authority of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
I stress that Amendments Nos. 218, 219 and 220 are necessary to ensure that youth conferencing, as described in the Bill, is not in any way contaminated or—worse—hijacked by those whom we would prefer not to be involved in it. I beg to move.
"( ) a representative of the prosecution"
"A meeting does not constitute, or form part of, a youth conference unless the following persons participate in it".
It is important, as I said, that the circle should be complete and that the prosecution should be there, albeit, if necessary, in some observational role. I beg to move.
Page 43, line 17, at end insert "; or
( ) the probation Board of Northern Ireland"
Page 44, line 13, after "may" insert ", subject to the agreement of the police officer participating in the youth conference,"
"A youth conference co-ordinator may, subject to the agreement of the police officer participating in the youth conference, allow other persons to participate".
That keeps the police officer on board for the purposes of Amendment No. 220, which would ensure that we do not have people involved in youth conferences whom all of us in Grand Committee would prefer not to be. Again, I am trying to protect the concept of youth conferencing and this part of the Bill in general, which—in Northern Ireland more than anywhere—will be put seriously at risk otherwise.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page