| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Brookeborough: I support this amendment. When some noble Lords visited the North London centre, it was absolutely clear that, although the victim and the perpetrator of a crime are very important, it is vastly expensive to set up a conferencing system as a whole organisation, taking into account the training, the support needs and so forth. Although those two parties are important, in the longer term the most
important function is to reduce future crime levels. If an offender is a repeat offender, then clearly in that case we would be spending the money on the wrong person. That would set an incredibly bad example and would defeat our intention to create a good example; namely, that of a young offender being reformed and going back into the community. He should then influence others. If we have repeat offenders, we shall not achieve that aim.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are not too far apart in our approach. That approach would involve a mandatory limitation on the number of conferences. My suggestion to the Committee is that that would probably be a mistake. I understand the points that were made by both noble Lords. If one simply allowed persistent offenders to carry on going to conference after conference, that would be, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, a joke. It would also be a deeply offensive joke, not simply for reasons of expense but also because someone would be manipulating the system—in the same way as people are, in our view, constantly given bail when they should not have it because they make an extremely offensive gesture to the whole concept that the justice system seeks to obtain.
That is not the only answer. We have to bear in mind the fact that conferences may fail through no fault of the child. Let us assume that a conference fails through no fault of the child. It surely would not be right to penalise the child and to deprive society of the opportunity of rehabilitation through reparation in those circumstances. It may well be that more than two conferences should be allowed.
Let me take another illustration that arises from the experiences of the noble Viscount. It may be that the victim of a fourth or fifth offence is keen to participate in a conference and wishes to confront the child. Should the opportunity of that victim be taken away because the child has already been to two conferences? I would suggest not. I agree that there must be some mechanism to ensure that there are not multiple redundant conferences—that is what is offensive. If the conference is worth having, it is not offensive but, if it is redundant, it is.
We have included a provision later in the clause—in paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 33D—to allow the court to consider an application from a conference co-ordinator that a conference should not be held. That is the in-built mechanism to protect us all against inappropriate multiple conferences. There will be rules for co-ordinators to ensure that there is clarity about when such a recommendation is made. I hope I have been able to assuage some of the concerns of Members of the Committee.
Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation, which has helped me to feel a little more comfortable about the whole process and that my worries are understood within the process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 [Youth conference orders]:
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Legal aid for youth conferences]:
[Amendment No. 229 not moved.]
Schedule 10 [Youth justice orders: enforcement etc.]:
[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This may be a convenient moment for us to adjourn before we re-congregate tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday 19th June at 3.30 p.m.
- The Committee adjourned at half-past six o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |