Clause 66 - Breach of detention and training order

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 5:30 pm on 15 September 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Elfyn Llwyd Elfyn Llwyd Shadow PC Spokesperson (Wales), Plaid Cymru Westminster Leader, Shadow PC Spokesperson (Constitution), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Foreign Affairs), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Home Affairs), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Justice), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Defence), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) 5:30, 15 September 2011

I beg to move amendment 273, in clause 66, page 49, line 31, leave out from ‘(5)’ to ‘House’ in line 32 and insert

‘may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each’.

The amendment, which is straightforward and self-evident, would require a draft instrument to be laid before, and passed by, both Houses of Parliament. It concerns the regulation-making power in relation to the interaction of periods of detention imposed for the breach of a detention and training order with other sentences. The Bill provides for such regulations to be made by statutory instruments thorough the negative resolution procedure. I believe that statutory instruments affecting the right to liberty should be scrutinised by Parliament, and therefore that the affirmative resolution procedure should be employed.

Photo of Andrew Slaughter Andrew Slaughter Shadow Minister (Justice)

I do not have much to say on the amendment, which I support. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will press it to a vote, but I have a general comment. We do not intend to oppose the clause for similar reasons to those that I gave for the previous one, although I have more reservations about it. The clause will introduce flexibility, but it does so in a complicated way, which I fear will mean that, in practice, the changes might attack the finality that is always appropriate in any sentencing options, although particularly so in dealing with young people, and the clarity that we want to have in sentencing. The clause will allow for further extensions and amendments in relation to detention and training orders, but let us give it the benefit of the doubt and say that it will make another option available to sentencers.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman spoke to the amendment; he spoke about the clause. That will help us by saving us from having a clause stand part debate, for which the Committee will be grateful.

As the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd made clear, the amendment seeks to amend the process for approving regulations under the clause from the negative to the affirmative procedure. That is unnecessary because the regulation-making power in proposed new section 104B of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing)  Act 2000, which will be inserted by the clause, relates to the interaction of the new breach of detention and training order with other custodial sentences, and it will therefore be technical in nature. It will cover circumstances in which, for example, young offenders who breach a detention and training order are dealt with in parallel for another offence for which they receive a custodial sentence, having reached the age of 18.

The regulations will set out how a further period of detention for a DTO breach would apply with such a custodial sentence or in any other potential circumstances where the young offender is serving a custodial sentence, having reached the age of 18, but then receives a detention period for having failed to comply with the DTO before reaching the age of 18. Although some of those circumstances are likely to be rare and unusual, we must make provision for them.

In the Government’s view, the affirmative parliamentary procedure should be reserved for delegated legislation that justifies more intense parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. We consider that the matters to be dealt with in these regulations do not require that, as they will be largely technical in nature.

Photo of Elfyn Llwyd Elfyn Llwyd Shadow PC Spokesperson (Wales), Plaid Cymru Westminster Leader, Shadow PC Spokesperson (Constitution), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Foreign Affairs), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Home Affairs), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Justice), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Defence), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

I accept what the Minister says, but I wonder whether it is possible to have a draft of these regulations at some point in the not-too-distant future, because they are quite important, as the Minister himself says, and given their importance, the Committee should have some idea of them.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course, these regulations will be available in due course. As to the time scale, I hesitate to give a commitment without receiving advice because they are technical and complicated regulations, and it will require proper work to get them right. Indeed, this whole order is trying to address a lacuna under the last construction, whereby people could get away with a breach of an order if they were being sentenced after the end of the order. That is part of what we are trying to address here. Obviously, therefore, there will be technical complications. If we can provide the regulations, I will ask my officials to do so.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

I am again grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course we will use our best endeavours, but I qualify that statement by pointing out all the other work that those people who are likely to be drafting these regulations are doing on other aspects of the Bill that we are considering at present. So, if it is not possible to produce the regulations, I hope that he will be generous in understanding why. Having given that explanation and that assurance, I think that it is time for me to finish speaking now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 252, in clause 66, page 49, line 37, at end insert—

‘( ) In section 213 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (application of provisions relating to civilian detention and training orders to orders under section 211 of that Act)—

(a) in subsection (2), after “(13)” insert “, 104B(1)”,

(b) after subsection (3) insert—

(4) Subsection (5) applies where an order under section 104(3) (further period of detention or supervision) of the Sentencing Act is made against an offender for breach of supervision requirements—

(a) during a period of supervision under an order under section 211 of this Act,

(b) during a further period of supervision imposed for breach of supervision requirements during a period within paragraph (a), or

(c) during one of a series of further periods of supervision—

(i) each of which apart from the first was imposed for breach of supervision requirements during the previous further period of supervision, and

(ii) the first of which was imposed for breach of supervision requirements during a period within paragraph (a).

(5) In the application of sections 104A and 104B of the Sentencing Act in relation to the offender, references to section 105 of that Act include section 214 of this Act.

(6) In subsection (4)—

“further period of supervision” means a period of supervision imposed under section 104(3)(aa) of the Sentencing Act;

“supervision requirements” means requirements under section 103(6)(b) of that Act.

(7) In section 104B of the Sentencing Act, references to a custodial sentence within the meaning of that Act include a custodial sentence within the meaning of this Act.”

( ) In Schedule 3 to the Armed Forces Act 2011 (minor amendments of service legislation), in paragraph 18(b) (amendment to section 213(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006) for “after “(13)”” substitute “before “and 106A””.’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Clause 66, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.