---

Baroness O'Cathain: Can I see whether there is a way out of this? With due deference to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, I must say that there is a great concern here. The situation in Northern Ireland is unlike anything that most of us have experienced. We could consider using a phrase such as "in consultation with a police officer"? If youth conference co-ordinators could consult police officers who knew the history of particular individuals, it would be of great help to them.

Lord Hylton: I agree with the Government that the amendments, although they bear on different aspects of the process, are all too sweeping. I wonder whether there may not be a way out, as has been suggested, by making sure—not in the Bill, but administratively—that youth conference co-ordinators are fully briefed on the kind of local characters that they may come up against in particular cases.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not want to be discourteous, but I want to do full justice to such deeply held views. A youth conference co-ordinator is likely to take those steps in any event. He will want to satisfy himself that someone's participation, in whole or in part, or attendance, in whole or in part, will be of value. The prudent co-ordinator will make appropriate inquiries.

Lord Glentoran: I would like to look for a compromise solution. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain has suggested one. There are several issues. Perhaps, there could be a code of practice for organisers of youth conferences in which the matters that we are concerned about would be covered. I also wonder whether anybody is in a position to object to participation by a particular person in a youth conference. If the youth conference co-ordinator brings X, Y, Z and two or three others to the conference and says, "This is my conference team", is anybody in the whole process in a position to object to any of those people? I am not sure. It certainly does not come through to me in the Bill.

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH153

There are two areas on which I would like clarification. First, the compromise suggestion, and secondly, what I have just said.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My name appears as one of the proposers of the amendment. I am not attempting to move another amendment in response to what my noble friend Lord Glentoran said. He has made a good job of guiding us through this along with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. It would be a rather more negative approach, perhaps, than our amendment, but we could consider adding the following condition:

"if the officer considers that the presence of a particular person could be damaging".

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked whether someone can object. Anyone can make their views known, but, to revert to the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, no one in those circumstances would have a veto.

On the guidelines, I am trying to be as helpful as possible. The co-ordinators will have guidelines and rules of procedure to deal with the sort of issue that has been raised by a number of your Lordships. They have not been produced yet, but we do not see any reason why they should not be published in due course.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate and I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 219 to 221 not moved.]

Clause 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 [Diversionary youth conferences]:

6.15 p.m.

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 222:

Page 48, line 12, leave out "not" and insert "only"

The noble Lord said: The aim of Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 is, rather cheekily, to clarify the drafting. I do not think that they would change anything. In my opinion they would make the Bill much clearer—and, probably, stronger—on the consequences. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not for the first time I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord Lord Glentoran. I do not think that the amendments make any difference. Being of extremely modest intellect, I could not understand the point of the amendment. I think that it comes to the same thing.

Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 224:

Page 48, line 28, at end insert "which must be delivered within ten working days of the end of the diversionary youth conference"

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH154

The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is straightforward. Not for the first time in the Bill, I want to make sure that, after certain decisions have been taken or reports written, the process continues. The Bill talks about youth conference co-ordinators' reports, but it does not say within what timescale they should be delivered. That seems seriously inappropriate, particularly in a situation dealing with young people. If a report has been written and made, they will be anxious to know what it is all about. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not for the first time, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, because I entirely agree with the purpose behind his amendment. By virtue of new Article 3B, the Secretary of State can make rules, about the procedure of youth conferences, including,

"the period within which youth conferences must be completed and the functions of youth conference co-ordinators must be performed".

We expect that the rules will be such as to set limits for each of the stages of the conference, including the period between the conclusion of the conference and the report to the director, to which the noble Lord referred. There is the ability to make the rules and the intention to make them to deal with the noble Lord's point.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for the comfort in that statement, which I find quite satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]

Clause 57 agreed to.

Clause 58 [Court-ordered youth conferences]:

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 226:

Page 49, line 38, leave out "must" and insert "may"

The noble Lord said: Once again, I am looking to change the Bill because it seems to me to be rather too prescriptive.

Articles 33B and 33C provide a court must refer the case of a child who has been found guilty of an offence by or before the court to a youth conference co-ordinator. This is a new system. I have made the point before in our debates. It is a new system on trial in what is perhaps not the most suitable place for seeking to trial a system of this nature; that is, in a very challenging environment. There are certain points in the Bill where I believe that we should not be too prescriptive and that we should allow the courts more scope.

Instead of insisting that the courts "must" refer the case of a child who has been found guilty of an offence to a youth conference co-ordinator, they should be given the option of deciding whether they believe it appropriate or inappropriate. The insertion of the word "may" instead of "must" would achieve that. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Again, I hope that I can meet the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.

18 Jun 2002 : Column CWH155

The review originally recommended that the courts should be required to refer all cases to a youth conference other than those triable only on indictment. We have varied that recommendation so that now there is a good deal more discretion than was envisaged by the review. Offences of murder may not be referred to a conference, obviously. A child who is to be discharged, conditionally or unconditionally, may not be referred to a conference. Scheduled offences may be referred to a conference only at the discretion of the court. Summary offences, charged together with either indictable-only or scheduled offences, will attract discretionary referrals.

In certain circumstances a court does not have to make a referral to a conference, such as when a diversionary conference has already been held in respect of the same offence and the court does have discretion to consider an application from a youth conference co-ordinator not to refer to a child to a conference. Thus, there is a certain amount of discretion.

I hope that this meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. We shall not roll out the provisions until we are satisfied, by virtue of a pilot study, that the scheme will work. In the light of the evaluation of that pilot, we may use the power of new Article 33A(10) to amend the legislation. I take the point made by the noble Lord: by and large we are moving in uncharted waters. I hope that my remarks will meet his concerns.

Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation and I am very encouraged by it. It seems an eminently sensible way to progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 227:

Page 51, line 41, at end insert—

"( ) The court may not order a diversionary youth conference in respect of a child who has completed two previous diversionary youth conferences in connection with previous offences."

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks quite simply to prevent the situation where a continual truant can ride on the merry-go-round again and again with no apparent structure in the system to prevent it. Once a youngster has twice been around the youth conferencing system, then the youth conferencers—if I may refer to them as such—have had two bites of the cherry. I should have thought that that should be enough. This amendment seeks to prevent the continuous process of youth conference/re-offend/youth conference/re-offend and so on. I beg to move.

---