Further written evidence to be reported to the House
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
10:30 am
David Heath (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice & Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
He says that he could not resist, but it is a fairly well worn track for Opposition amendments to offer a range of options so that the Government can argue for or against each one, so I do not think that that method of questioning can be seen exclusively as a Liberal Democrat attribute.
I would find it very difficult to accept that what is essentially a criminal law sanction should be used for a child under the age of 10. We have very well founded systems within our social services for dealing with children who misbehave at that age. Although I do not dispute for one moment that there are processes—sanctions is perhaps the wrong word—which a child who misbehaves at a young age ought to undergo in order that they might be taught a better standard of behaviour, I am not sure that this is the process by which that should be done. I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman. There is nothing on the face of the Bill to indicate any lower age limit and that is why I thought that it would be useful for the Minister to have the opportunity to say what he thinks.
Amendment No. 163 deals with the slightly different matter of the length of currency of such an order. The amendment suggests that the words
“for a maximum of 3 years”
be inserted into the clause relating to the making of the orders. Again, we find that schedule 1 gives an intimation of the Government’s thinking, but no more than that. Schedule 1, part 4, deals with provisions applying where the court makes youth rehabilitation orders. Paragraph 31(1) states:
“A youth rehabilitation order must specify a date, not more than 3 years after the date on which the order takes effect, by which all the requirements in it must have been complied with.”
That suggests that the Government intend a currency of three years as a maximum for an order.
The difficulty that I have with that wording—the Minister might like to comment on this—is that it is not clear to whom the words
“must have been complied with”
are addressed. Does that apply to the authorities or to the individual who is subject to the order? It is not clear to which of the two those words apply. What is to happen if the authorities are in breach, as opposed to the individual? Are the authorities to be brought back to the court to show why they have not complied with the order within three years—presumably in that instance with regard to provision that should have been made within that time—or is the provision really intended to ensure that the currency of the order is no more than three years? If that is the case, I suggest to the Minister that the amendment would make the Bill more explicit, would state the case better and would be a valuable addition to the Bill. If that is not the Government’s intention, the Minister can explain exactly what is intended and why paragraph 31(1) gives that slightly ambiguous statement.
Those are the four amendments that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. I do not intend to divide the Committee on three of them, but, if I have divined correctly what the Minister intends by the current drafting, the fourth is a serious suggestion for making the Bill more explicit. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough may now wish to expand upon the remaining amendment in the group, amendment No. 1.