Clause 54 - Reparation orders

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 11:15 am on 12 February 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle 11:15, 12 February 2002

I beg to move amendment No. 225, in page 31, line 22, after 'otherwise', insert 'directly'.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

With this we may discuss amendment No. 226, in page 31, line 22, at end insert

'by virtue of presence at the scene of the crime or by close familial connection with the victim, i.e. mother, father, brother, sister, child.'.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I have had a conversation with the Minister, and these amendments may not be necessary.

I am not a legal expert, but I sought to limit the number of people who could be considered as victims. My first reading of the Bill suggested that someone who had been traumatised by watching television could claim to be a victim and that the child might have to apologise to them. I understand, however, that there may be a legal definition of the word ''victim'', which the Minister will no doubt share with us.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

Amendment No. 225 adds nothing to the provision in the clause. Amendment No. 226 seeks to achieve the hon. Lady's objective.

There are definitions of victims in other legislation, where other circumstances may or may not apply. Hon. Members who represent the people of Northern Ireland will know that there is a great debate about who should be described as a victim. In another context, the Government's position was to say that they would not prescribe who should be described as a victim and that it was a matter for the person concerned.

The hon. Lady may have been misled in private conversations with someone into believing that there was a legal definition of a victim in this case, but there is not. The Government's position on the amendment is that it should be left to the good sense and direction of the court to determine who should benefit from reparations and that we should not seek to provide an exhaustive list. Applying good sense and discretion to the circumstances of any offence should make it clear who the victims are and to whom the provisions should apply.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I am somewhat reassured. I have been engaged for many years in looking at matters from a child's perspective. The Minister will appreciate that on reading this part of the Bill from such a perspective, I thought of the matter in terms of hundreds of people who might regard themselves as victims and expect reparation. The Minister assures me that such a situation would not arise, and I am happy with that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 31, line 25, at end insert—

'(aa) a person professionally responsible for the child's education'.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 228, in page 31, line 32, at end insert—

'(c) details of the child's educational provision.'.

No. 286, in page 31, line 32, at end insert—

'(c) the educational, psychological and other needs of the offender'.

No. 230, in page 32, line 31, leave out 'if any'.

No. 231, in page 33, line 22, at end insert—

'(d) a person professionally responsible for the child's education.'.

No. 232, in page 33, line 35, after 'case', insert 'including educational information.'.

No. 236, in clause 55, page 36, line 5, leave out 'if any'.

No. 239, in page 37, line 1, at end insert—

'(d) the person professionally responsible for the child's education.'.

No. 251, in clause 57, page 43, line 2, at end insert—

'(e) a person professionally responsible for the child's education where the child is in receipt of education'.

No. 255, in page 45, line 19, at end insert—

'(8) A youth conference plan must contain details of provision for the child's education where the child is in receipt of education'.

No. 256, in clause 58, page 49, line 6, at end insert—

'(c) a report on the child's educational progress, including attendance and Key Stage test results where the child is in receipt of education.'.

No. 257, in clause 60, page 55, line 5, at end insert—

'(d) a person professionally responsible for the child's education, where the child is in receipt of education.'.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

Again, these amendments are all of a theme. The education of children, wherever they are, is not just important, but of paramount importance in ensuring that they grow up to be useful members of society. In my previous work as a chair of a local authority social services committee, it became clear, via Government guidelines, that a child's education was to be considered very important and that in many ways that education and its continuance should be considered more important than placing the child in accommodation.

I have been reading the performance indicators that form part of the quality protects management action plan for Stockport. The Government now regard it as important that a child is kept as close as possible to their home local authority. That applies right across the country. Figures are now provided for how far a child is being taken away from their home local authority. The child is kept close to their home local authority so that they can maintain contact not only with their parents, but as far as possible with their original school. We must examine carefully the crossover in the Bill between the social care system and the youth custody system and ensure that it is seamless, because if we are not careful, children in secure accommodation who have come from the youth justice system will be treated differently from those who, for whatever reason, have ended up in care.

Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 are designed to ensure that the education of children is given sufficient prominence in the justice system. I believe that unless it is mentioned at regular intervals in this part of the Bill, its importance will be forgotten and children's education neglected.

Amendments Nos. 230 and 236 remove the phrase ''if any''. I recognise that those amendments are unlikely to be accepted, but it is important that there is a presumption that the child will be engaged in education or employment. That ''if any'' provides a loophole for anybody who feels that it is okay for the child not to go to school.

I have been engaged with social care and I have visited social care institutions of one sort or another. One of the questions asked by visitors to social care institutions is, ''Where does the child go to school?'' I am not talking about children in secure accommodation, but those who one would expect to be attending school and doing all the things that are expected of children. Too often, the answer is, ''The child does not go to school.'' That is not good enough.

There must be a mindset in which children either go to school or receive an education in some other way. I shall be happy not to press for the removal of ''if any'' if the Minister will assure me that the clause will include a presumption that the child will be educated. I am concerned that the words ''if any'' suggest that the child might not be educated.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

When I read that, I interpreted ''if any'' as reflecting the situation of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds who are not necessarily in a place of education or in work. If we take ''if any'' out, it will imply that the reparation order will force them to attend school or another educational establishment or work. That brings many other considerations into play. I shall be grateful for the hon. Lady's comments on that, particularly in light of the fact that the legislation brings 17-year-olds within its ambit.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is right. I understand that the words ''if any'' are there to ensure that the clause covers young people who are no longer in the education system and who are not in employment. However, in my experience, that phrase will provide a loophole for people who believe that it is not that important for a child to be educated. That happens, and we must recognise it. It might happen less often than it used to, but I am concerned.

Photo of Andrew Turner Andrew Turner Conservative, Isle of Wight

In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), the hon. Lady has repeated the assertion that the words provide a loophole. Will she accept that many 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are not educated? She seems to assume that the world is as she would like it to be.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

Yes, I agree. The words ''if any'' are probably legally necessary in this case. However, they will give some people the impression that a child's education is not important. Am I seeing the world as I should like it to be? Absolutely. That is how I intend to continue; I have a much better view from where I stand than, perhaps, some others do.

Photo of Mark Francois Mark Francois Conservative, Rayleigh

The hon. Lady has made the point. However, a number of Committee members have tried to explain that the amendment will not achieve what she wants to do. Perhaps it would be easier if we moved on.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me further advice. I shall move on. Amendment No. 231 would extend the definition of ''responsible officer'' to a person professionally responsible for the child's education. There might be circumstances in which an educator could be acceptable in that role.

The intention of amendment No. 232 is much the same as that for amendments Nos. 227 and 228. That is to ensure that the education of children involved in the justice system is given sufficient prominence. Unless that is mentioned at regular intervals throughout this part of the Bill, its importance could be forgotten and the child's education neglected. Educational experience has a vital part to play in the development of a child, and there must be a presumption that a child will receive an education while still of school age.

We have covered amendment No. 236. My argument in support of amendment No. 239 is the same as that for amendments Nos. 227, 228, 231 and 232. Amendment No. 251 continues the theme that a child's education is of paramount importance and should be continually supported by the presence of an educator.

I will press amendment No. 255 to a separate vote, because it ensures that the child's education is provided for in any plan from a youth conference, and unless it is specifically mentioned, the child's education could be overlooked.

Amendments Nos. 256 and 257 are, in a sense, related to amendment No. 255. They would ensure that the child's educational progress was monitored by key stage test results and that the person responsible for the child's education was informed about the youth conference order.

We can regard the child's education as being separate from the aims of the Bill, but in my experience, a child's education is fundamental to what we are trying to achieve. If it receives only a passing reference at the beginning of this part of the Bill, it might be forgotten and the care that should be taken to ensure that the child's education is as complete as possible may not be taken. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh 11:30, 12 February 2002

I wish to speak to amendment No. 286, which requires that the report provided for in article 36A should indicate

''the educational, psychological and other needs of the offender.''

The amendment is relevant to my previous point about need. This is a perfect example of how welfare might be fulfilled but need overlooked. I believe that paragraph (5) of article 36A is flawed because, although it specifies that the report must indicate

''the type of requirements that it would be appropriate to impose on the offender''

that is, the sentence, and

''the attitude of the victim or victims''

that is, it recognises the rights and role of victims, it leaves out the third part of the equation: the offender. In these cases, the offenders will be children, so we must complete the circle. I have great respect for the probation service and for people involved in social work, but they may not always be able to make the type of assessment that is required, because the offender may have other needs that require more expert involvement. In many cases, the experienced social worker or probation officer will be able to identify educational and, perhaps, psychological needs, but in certain circumstances the assessment may have to go further than that, and the amendment would make the necessary provision. Although the onus of responsibility will, in most instances, be carried by the probation service and social workers, there may be circumstances that require the assessment of other needs that are not provided for in the Bill.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

Order. Before any other hon. Members speak, I should inform the hon. Member for Cheadle, as she has been helpful enough to tell us that she wants a Division on amendment No. 255, that we shall take that Division when we debate clause 57. Because of the way in which the timetabling motion works, I may put all the votes at one o'clock.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

My general approach to the amendments is that they are well intentioned. Naturally, as there is a requirement on all those involved that the best interests of the child offender are protected, children should continue to receive education if they are already receiving it. However, with respect to reparation orders as they are described in the Bill—an amendment that I have tabled would change that—the maximum reparation is for 24 hours. The orders are already limited, therefore.

The amendments would place an additional bureaucratic burden on the order process, especially amendment No. 286 tabled by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, which requires the production of yet another report. The clause represents a new departure. When we draft such legislation we should try to be prescriptive as little as possible to ensure that the system gets up and running and is not destroyed under a huge weight of bureaucracy.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

In case there is any misunderstanding, amendment No. 286 does not propose a report, but adds to the requirements for the one report that is prescribed in new article 36A(5).

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I understand that, but we should consider how the legislation would be used by the practitioners. The requirements prescribed in proposed new subsection (5) are general. The Bill states:

''The report must indicate—

(a) the type of requirements that it would be appropriate to impose on the offender; and

(b) the attitude of the victim or victims of the offence to the requirements proposed to be included in the order.''

If the hon. Gentleman's amendment were included in the Bill, the practitioners would be faced with a checklist of

''the educational, psychological and other needs of the offender''.

Those ''other needs'' might produce another lengthy checklist. For example, the hon. Member for Cheadle would like to include educational requirements on a checklist.

The instrument of the reparation order will emerge only after the individual has been through a youth conference process, and that individual will have to consent under the order, as he has to consent under the whole youth conference process. The amendments may be well intentioned, but they would strangle the effectiveness of the system that we are putting in place.

Reparation orders will represent a less formal part of the youth justice process in an effort to persuade the offender to face up to his responsibilities to the victim. To achieve that aim, there must be flexibility in the structure. Although the amendments are fine in their intention, when translated into practice they could have the unintended effect of making the system more difficult to administer. At this stage, we can only guess

at the bureaucratic burden that will come from the new departure in youth justice that is being planned.

We must be concerned about the possibility that an enormous burden will fall on those trying to administer the process, particularly in the initial stages. Reparation orders involve a series of additional responsibilities and cannot come into effect until the Secretary of State has made certain other provisions. Our instinctive, underlying approach should be to keep matters as simple as possible. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh will not press the amendment. The Committee has heard what he and the hon. Member for Cheadle have said, but while the issues to be tackled are important, we should try not to burden those who will administer the system in a way that could lead to unbalanced outcomes, particularly with respect to reparations.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

The hon. Member for Reigate makes important points about reparation orders, and about the community responsibility orders to be dealt with under clause 55. However, the response from the hon. Member for Cheadle could include the point that some of her amendments go further, and would entail conferencing orders, which could apply to offences of greater seriousness than those for which reparation orders would be appropriate.

This extensive group of amendments—with the exception of amendment No. 286, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh—effectively deals not with several issues but with just one issue in several different ways. Following the order, or at least the approach, taken by the hon. Member for Cheadle, I shall attempt to deal with the amendments as briefly as possible. I shall try to take them in the order in which they appear on the selection sheet.

On amendment No. 227, the education of a young person is important, and care must be taken to avoid conflict between that and the requirements of a reparation order. However, it is not necessary or appropriate to require that a person professionally responsible for the child's education should report to the court on the appropriateness of the reparation and the attitude of the victim, which would be the amendment's effect. Generally, teachers have no obvious qualifications to make such judgments, particularly in relation to a victim. I can see how teachers would have a contribution to make with respect to a child who could be in their care for part of the day, and for whose education they were partly responsible, but I do not see that they would have skills to contribute to a report on the appropriateness of the reparation and the victim's attitude. Under the Bill the Secretary of State would already have powers to designate a person to perform the relevant function, in circumstances where that would make sense.

Amendment No. 251 would similarly require an education professional to attend every youth conference. I wonder if teachers would really welcome that duty in addition to all those that they now have. I urge the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a vote. I do not know if it is her intention that a teacher should be required to attend

every youth conference, or merely to make it possible for teachers to attend, but the effect of the amendment would be to require it.

On amendment No. 228, I accept that details of the child's educational provision are important and should be reflected in the court report to avoid unnecessary interference between those arrangements and the reparation requirements. However, other aspects of the child's life, such as religion or work, should also be taken into account in determining the appropriateness of the requirements of a reparation order. We do not want to be drawn into ranking them in importance. We should include all or none of them. As I explained when I was urged to include some of the considerations, the appropriate list will be inferred from the provision, and the application of common sense by the courts and others will identify what aspects of a child's life we should report on. We should not try to be prescriptive.

I fully accept that the factors set out in amendment No. 286 are typical of those that must be taken into account when determining the requirements of a reparation order. I would, however, expect those factors and others, such as the child's age, to inform the court's decision about what requirements are appropriate in each case. I am, therefore, content to leave it to the courts and to those professionals who prepare the reports to reach sensible judgments on such matters. The courts would have to take such factors into account when deciding what was appropriate, and I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh to new article 36A(5)(a). They are also bound to have regard to the child's welfare under clause 53(3).

On amendment No. 230, there will be circumstances in which a child who is subject to a reparation order may be beyond compulsory school age, not in full-time education and unemployed, and similar considerations apply to amendment No. 236. For all the reasons that have been given, I would ask the hon. Member for Cheadle not to press those amendments.

Amendment No. 231 would add to the categories of people who can be nominated as responsible officers. That extremely unusual power would be unwelcome with most teachers and educational professionals. Placing someone with responsibility for a child's education in a position of having to enforce a court order could have a detrimental effect on the child's attitude to education if, for example, breach proceedings were necessary.

The provisions at which amendment No. 232 is aimed transfer the authority for a reparation order from the court that imposed it to the court in the petty sessions district in which the child lives, if that is different. That technical provision will enable the court that acts for the receiving area to deal with matters such as breach, revocation and amendment. In any event, a court that had such information or any other relevant information would forward it to the other court as a matter of course. Therefore, there is no particular point to the amendment.

On amendment No. 239, copies of a community responsibility order must be given immediately to the child who is subject to the order, to his parent or guardian and to the officer responsible for supervising the order. That is for the information of all concerned and the proper discharge of the order. Although it will be important to ensure, as far as is practicable, that the order does not interfere with, among other things, the child's education—contact between the responsible officer and, say, a teacher may be necessary for that purpose—I see no reason why the person who is professionally responsible for the child's education must also receive a copy of the order. In any event, I cannot think what purpose they would put it to.

Amendment No. 255 requires the conference plan, in all cases that involve children who are still in receipt of education, to contain details of provisions for the child's education. The conference already has the power to include educational elements in the plan, and the child can be required to participate in

''activities . . . offering education or training''.

It does not, however, follow that, just because a child is in education, all offending behaviour must be tackled through the provision of education. Nor does it follow that the plan will cut across the child's education; in fact, the reverse will be true, because the co-ordinator will ensure that the plan's requirements do not interfere with the child's schooling.

Amendment No. 256 would require that, when the director is informed of the extent to which the child has complied with the youth conference plan, he also receives a report on the child's attendance and performance at school in every case that involves a child who is still in receipt of education. New article 10D provides that a report must go to the director at the end of the period that is specified in the youth conference plan to inform him of the extent to which the child has complied with the plan. That information will enable him to decide whether to instigate proceedings in respect of the child. Education may not be a relevant consideration here, and it is inappropriate to insist that it would be in every case.

Amendment No. 257 would require a copy of the youth conference order to be given to a professional responsible for the child's education in all cases where the child is still in receipt of education. It will be necessary for the child's school to know when the plan includes requirements relating to the child's attendance or performance at school, to ensure that compliance is monitored. If the plan includes no such requirements, I do not agree that the school should, as a matter of course, be informed about that order. For all those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Cheadle not to press the amendment. I make a similar request of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh.

Photo of Mr Tony McWalter Mr Tony McWalter Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead 11:45, 12 February 2002

Will the Minister enlighten me? I am confused about the references to schedule 1A in the clause. I had expected to find the details of schedule 1A on page 119, where amendments to the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 are

detailed, but it is not there. The schedule relates to the precise way in which the orders work. I would not wish the Committee to move on from consideration of the clause without having debated whether schedule 1A is to be implemented by statutory instrument.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If any other hon. Members are looking for schedule 1A, they will find it in schedule 10.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I have listened with interest to the Minister. I am still unhappy that the report, which, for the young person, would be very important, is incomplete. It is so in the sense that there is no reference to the needs, be they educational, psychological or of some other kind, of the young person. That incompleteness would have been remedied had the previous reference to ''needs'' been successfully adopted and included in the Bill.

Again, the absence of any reference to the young person reflects the Bill's miserly approach to the needs of the young person. I take the Minister's point on new clause 3. I also take the point about probation officers and social workers. However, I still believe that there are cases where it would be right to ensure that other needs that often prevail in this type of case are provided for, in terms beyond those specified in the Bill.

I know the probation and social services and I respect them, so I shall not press the amendment. I shall, in an act of faith, accept that the element of the new clause to which the Minister referred is adequate. I hope that, for once in my life, an act of faith will prove well-founded.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I am somewhat disappointed that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh will not press amendment No. 286 to a vote. In my view, it is better than amendment No. 228. It covers more ground and so should be included in the Bill. However, if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that the new clause to which the Minister referred will cover the provisions that he seeks to add, I shall indulge in a similar act of faith.

The Minister said that education would be regarded as important and taken into account. In the light of that, I am prepared to withdraw amendment No. 227 and not press any others, apart from amendment No. 255, which ensures that the child's education will be provided for in any plan from a youth conference. It may need tidying up so that it fits all the legal niceties, but a youth plan should recognise the importance of education as it is usually regarded by most of us in this country.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Conway. I am delighted to see you.

I want to explain to the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh and for Cheadle that, under the Human Rights Act 1998, every child in the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland already has the right to an education, in accordance with their parents' religious beliefs or philosophical convictions. That right will extend to the children who will be subject to the orders.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and assistance. I am more than willing to accept that there may already be legal provision for every child in Northern Ireland. However, my experience has shown over many years that even legal provision on the subject does not always work. As people who are putting legislation together now, we should remind those who will come after us that we regard education as of paramount importance in a child's life.

Photo of Mark Francois Mark Francois Conservative, Rayleigh

I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make. Is her argument that legislative provision has not necessarily achieved its aim? If so, what is the point of making further legislative provision?

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

Therein lies the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal Democrat. Conservatives tend to be less optimistic on the whole than Liberal Democrats. I have been a teacher and a chair of social services, and I know what the Government guidelines are for children in care. I know what the Government say about children in care in other places. Many of the relevant children will effectively be in care, and they will be treated slightly differently from those who are not. Their education should be important.

I have said all that already, and there is little point in saying more. Amendment No. 255 should be voted on, but I shall not press any others in the group. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

I remind the Committee that in the next hour, we need to dispose of, by whatever means, 11 clauses and schedules. That may help hon. Members with the length of their speeches.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I beg to move amendment No. 229, in page 31, line 35, after 'consents', insert

', having been previously informed of the potential outcomes of consent.'.

I shall do my best to keep my speech short. The amendment introduces the concept of informed consent appropriate to the child's age.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland) 12:00, 12 February 2002

On a point of order, Mr. Conway. I apologise to the hon. Lady for interrupting her, but I have been reflecting on your remarks and seek your guidance. It is plain that we do not have enough time to consider the rest of part 4. Your injunction to make our speeches short should be permanent, in the sense that hon. Members should keep to the point in debate. However, we will not be able to give part 4 proper consideration. Do we then ignore amendments that are important and issues that need to be discussed, or foreshorten our debates? The Government have got us into this mess, so why should there be a duty on us not to give proper consideration to the issues?

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. My injunction was not for brevity. As long as hon. Members stay in order, I shall allow them to speak, but I wanted to ensure that the Committee was aware of the small writing at the end of the first column on the selection list, which points out that debates up to those on new clauses and new schedules

relating to part 4 must be concluded under the programming motion by one o'clock. It is not in my gift to change the programming motion; that is for those who decide such matters and for the instructions of the House.

As long as hon. Members stay in order, they can speak for as long as they want, but the length of their speeches will affect whether they reach all the matters that they want to reach.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I had virtually said all that I was going to say. We should consider the important concept of informed consent appropriate to the child's age. I again draw the Committee's attention to the need for appropriate legal advice. In many submissions made to the review, concern was expressed that children should understand what they were agreeing to when they were asked to consent to various procedures. That is what the amendment seeks to ensure.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

The hon. Lady is right to point out that a reparation order cannot be made unless the child consents. She seeks to qualify that requirement. By definition, consent can be sought only when the requirements of the order are determined. Given that the child will previously have been informed of the possible outcomes of consent, I see no need for the amendment.

The hon. Lady may seek to avoid circumstances in which a child might agree to something while being unaware of the consequences of the order in terms of, for example, criminal record. If so, I should say that we expect that the child will have the advice of a legal representative to ensure that he or she knows the exact consequences. In part, I return to an answer that I gave to the hon. Lady some time previously. There is a significant choice in terms of representation and advice. A child has a right to that, as does an adult, and the Government cannot interfere with it.

Photo of Patsy Calton Patsy Calton Liberal Democrat, Cheadle

I thank the Minister for that answer. The same arguments apply as applied to the guardian ad litem. We must be certain that the child will receive appropriate advice, as would come from properly trained people. The Minister has given assurances about that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I beg to move amendment No. 262, in page 31, leave out line 38.

I was surprised to read in new article 36B(2) that

''The court must not make a reparation order in respect of the offender if it proposes—

(a) to pass on him a custodial sentence; or

(b) to make in respect of him a community service order, a community responsibility order or a combination order.''

The amendment would strike out the restriction on passing a custodial sentence. One can see that there is a degree of overlap between community service orders and reparation orders, but the principle surely applies across the piece. The amendment also serves as a vehicle for a debate on reparation orders as described in the Bill.

Paragraph 10.75 of the review recommends the introduction of reparation orders in Northern Ireland, after which it states:

''We believe that the introduction of reparation orders and the new form of community service for those under 16 years of age will provide useful additions to youth conference co-ordinators and sentencers in creating imaginative, appropriate and proportionate youth conference plans.''

Reparation orders should not be a stand-alone punishment that cannot be taken in conjunction with other forms of punishment that might be awarded by the courts.

The principle behind the orders is that the offender consents to both the youth conference and reparation orders. If we want to create as flexible a system as possible, we should allow a youth conference to conclude that a variety of different types of order may be appropriate. I do not understand why an element of reparation should not sit alongside a custodial sentence. If the offender agrees to the order, as is required, it may be appropriate to have a combination for a serious offence, such as mobile phone theft, for which the Lord Chief Justice has said there should be exemplary penalties. If negotiation with the offender, which must happen if his consent is to be achieved, enabled him to make reparation in combination with a sentence, and if his reparation were thought to be genuine and were carried out under the system proposed in the Bill, a shorter sentence might be passed because the youth conference could be confident that a reparation order had been made and had linked the offender and the victim.

Reparation orders are a positive vehicle, as they provide the opportunity for direct reparation between victim and offender, and the new article limits them unnecessarily. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter and ensure that reparation orders can be used in a more flexible framework. That could mean their not only accepting amendment No. 262 but returning on Report to remove new article 36B(2) altogether. If the Government do not agree to the amendment, I may seek to remove the paragraph myself on Report to allow reparation orders to be used as flexibly as possible in order to give them maximum effect.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

In raising an issue that it is appropriate to raise at this point in the Bill, the hon. Member for Reigate gives me an opportunity to clarify some basic points about reparation orders.

Significant thought was given to the subject of his amendment, which is the combination of custody and reparation. To understand our decision, one must understand the consistent approach taken in relation to custody for young offenders. We intend reparation orders to be available for children whose offence is relatively minor, or for first-time offenders. Custody, on the other hand, is traditionally and appropriately a last resort for serious offenders, so the two things cannot be combined as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If custody is appropriate, we are dealing with a far more serious offence than the ones to which it is expected or intended that reparation orders will apply.

The restriction in relation to custody orders is therefore necessary, in our view.

The hon. Gentleman asks why a reparation order cannot be combined with the orders mentioned in new article 36B(2)(b), but those orders incorporate an element of reparation or work in the community, so it would seem inappropriate and, arguably, disproportionate, to add a reparation order on top of them. The element of reparation can be incorporated into the orders when appropriate, so there is no need to create double reparation by adding another distinct provision on top.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I want to clarify one point about community service orders. Am I correct in saying that orders to make reparation to the victim can be part of

''a community service order, a community responsibility order or a combination order''?

While he considers that point, I must say that I do not find his arguments about the inappropriateness of combining reparation orders with serious offences that require custodial sentences wholly convincing. A first-time offender may be guilty of an offence such as street robbery, as is perfectly possible in an age of rising street robbery and when the Lord Chief Justice is giving instructions in favour of exemplary sentences for mobile phone theft. Given its serious nature, such a first offence may require a custodial sentence, but we may want to have the flexibility to bring the offender face to face with his victim in the way envisaged under reparation orders. Such a restriction on reparation orders in relation to custodial sentences creates an unnecessary limitation.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

Without going into debates that we may have under other parts of the Bill, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should consider the whole suite of provisions, including community responsibility orders, community service orders and youth conferencing. To concentrate all the reparative aspects of justice on one order is to fail to understand how the orders interact and where they can substitute for one another. We do not intend that each person who appears before the court can be made subject to every order.

In respect of community service orders, the element of reparation may be not to the victim but to the community. Of course, the reparative aspect of a community service order and other orders can be recognised.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland) 12:15, 12 February 2002

That makes my point precisely, because the role of victims in reparative justice is important. It would be healthy for reparation to be seen to be made directly to victims, although the Bill would plainly have to require the offender to consent to reparation being made in that way. Such an approach would, however, tackle victims' concerns that reparation should be made to them and deal with the offender.

It misses the point simply to say that a community service order makes reparation to the whole community. As we shall debate later, victims are part of the youth conference system, but if offenders are

sent to prison because of the seriousness of their offence, it will become impossible for victims to receive direct reparation through a reparation order—even when everyone agrees that direct reparation is the desired outcome. That is an unnecessary restriction.

It is important that victims see reparations made directly to them, rather than indirectly to the community. I suspect that most victims do not have confidence that community service orders always result in indirect reparation to them. The amendment would go to the heart of the issue by giving victims a proper role in the process, which is clearly what is desired—at a philosophical level, at least—in the Bill. I shall therefore press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 17.

Division number 19 Adults Abused in Childhood — Clause 54 - Reparation orders

Aye: 3 MPs

No: 17 MPs

Aye: A-Z by last name

No: A-Z by last name

Question accordingly negatived.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 32, line 24, leave out '24' and insert '160'.

When I first read that a reparation order could not require the offender to make reparation for more than 24 hours, I wondered whether there was a typo, because 24 hours does not sound like a great deal of time. I know from discussions on the Bill that reparation orders are—in the minds of the draftsmen, as I am sure the Minister will explain—at the bottom of the list of punishments available to the courts. None the less, the clause would wholly limit their effectiveness.

We should bear it in mind that the Bill brings within its ambit 17-year-olds who can be sentenced to 240 hours' community service. I see a parallel between reparation orders that benefit the victim and those that help the community. Whether reparation is made to the community or directly to the victim should be a matter of judgment.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

May I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the equivalent number of hours that would be regarded as appropriate in England and Wales? Section 74(1)(a) of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 states that

''A reparation order shall not require the offender to work for more than 24 hours in aggregate''.

Can he explain why young people in Northern Ireland should be subject to a reparation order that would increase those hours to 160?

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

First, because the legislation will bring 17-year-olds within its ambit. I believe that the victim should stand at the centre of reparative justice and that

it should be a matter of judgment as to whether reparation is made to the victim or to the community. If it is appropriate to make community service orders—benefiting the community—of 240 hours, it is unnecessarily limiting to say that only 10 per cent. of the reparation should be given in instances in which the victim might gain from it.

Photo of Lembit Öpik Lembit Öpik Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire

What does the hon. Gentleman regard as the primary objective of the reparation order, and does he think that there is any element of rehabilitation involved in it?

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

Yes, I do. That is why I do not think that it should be limited to 24 hours, particularly for 16 and 17-year-olds who are no longer in full-time education. I would envisage that serving a lengthy period of reparation would achieve a relationship between offender and victim. That could be set up only if both agreed. If it were possible for that relationship to be established over a period, it would be a direct way in which the offender could begin to be reintegrated into society. It would not be a punishment being administered by representatives of the state—of course, it would be overseen by them—but would be a direct way of allowing the offender to create a relationship with the victim. Presumably, that is the intention of reparation orders, even those limited to 24 hours' work.

I can see that 240 hours is equivalent to a community service order, and that the amendment says 160 hours. The right duration is a matter of judgment—the court should be able to judge, in the light of the nature of the victim and of the offender, which sort of order would be appropriate and what the duration should be. My preference is for reparation to be made directly to the victim rather than to the community, so 24 hours is too limiting, especially as we are considering offenders up to the age of 18.

Photo of Lembit Öpik Lembit Öpik Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire

There is an interesting debate to be had about the question of reparation and rehabilitation. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, even if his argument were to hold water, the amendment would create a different set of circumstances for those who are under 17, as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has pointed out? We would need a more sophisticated amendment if we were to maintain parity with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's point: we would, if we were going to be as sophisticated as the review intended. At paragraph 10.74, the review states:

''We recommend that a form of community service should be developed for those under 16 years of age, with a maximum period of service of 40 hours.''

Again, that would be different from what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Bill will bring about differences, not only with reparation orders but in other areas, because it introduces an experimental system of criminal justice for youth. Northern Ireland's experience in the wake of these proposals will clearly hold important lessons for the rest of the UK. It would be a pity to limit reparation orders to 24 hours because of the

relationship between offender and victim, which is intended to aid rehabilitation, especially as they will involve 16 and 17-year-olds.

I hope that the Government will be flexible in considering the amendment. I shall not press it to a Division. Deciding what the number should be is a matter of judgment. Perhaps the amendment should be more sophisticated, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire suggests. I should be grateful if the Government would keep an open mind.

Photo of Mark Francois Mark Francois Conservative, Rayleigh

Mindful of your earlier remarks, Mr. Conway, I shall be brief. The amendment seeks merely to give courts greater flexibility in deciding for how long reparation orders should be in force. It would not dictate that a court should impose 160 hours. It would give the courts greater flexibility in exercising their judgment and allow them to impose a slightly longer order if it was thought that it might help with rehabilitation. It is a facilitating amendment, and I ask the Government to consider it from that point of view.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

The clause provides the courts with a new community-based disposal. As the hon. Member for North Down helpfully pointed out, it broadly replicates the provisions that apply in England and Wales. The hon. Member for Reigate said that we are seeking to do a number of things differently from England and Wales. He is right, but when we seek to enact provisions broadly similar to those that apply in England and Wales, it behoves us to be consistent about the penalties that apply there and in Northern Ireland. Those penalties must also be proportionate.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

When the Minister speaks of penalties being imposed, are those penalties that are consented to?

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

Yes, but they are still imposed. One may consent to the imposition of them, but they are still imposed by the courts. That does not differentiate the penalties as between Northern Ireland and England and Wales, nor does it detract from the argument put by the hon. Member for North Down—which, with respect, the hon. Member for Reigate did not properly answer.

The hon. Gentleman's reference to the extension of reparation orders to 17-year-olds does not answer the point for the following reason: it is the Government's intention that reparation orders will be a low-level disposal and, as the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) rightly pointed out, it is particularly suited to younger offenders and to those who have not progressed to more serious offences. That is why they are restricted to 24 hours, and the courts will use them only in that respect. One should not underestimate the impact of 24 hour's intervention in a young person's life in such circumstances. I would also argue that the reparative nature of the order might be lost if its duration was seen as punitive in relation to the offences for which it was likely to be used. That is the important argument about proportionality.

The orders have their genesis in English legislation. Home Office research published in 2001, which

evaluated the effectiveness of youth offending teams under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, reflects the broadly positive experience of the same order in England and Wales. For example, more than 80 per cent. of the orders were found to be completely satisfactory. That is a high level of satisfaction with the court orders imposed.

As the hon. Member for Reigate said, for more serious offences or offenders, other community orders, for example a probation order, or a community service order for those aged over 16, are available. These orders are not intended to be substitutes for others; they should be seen as part of a progression of orders that are being enacted in relation to the Bill. This order is intended to apply at the lowest level to first offenders and very young offenders.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland) 12:30, 12 February 2002

I have listened to the Minister and I am disappointed that the Government's position is not more flexible. I want to take up one point about whether the orders will provide proportionate reparation. The maximum order that can be imposed is 24 hours, and 24 hours at the minimum wage amounts to about £100 worth of labour. Only in the minority of cases will the victim have suffered £100 worth of harm and will such an order bring the offender to justice. Any amount of vandalism or theft is extremely likely to involve loss equivalent to more than £100.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

I would not like the Committee to suppose that this way of thinking, which reduces everything to pounds and pence, is the Government's way of thinking. It may be the Opposition's thinking that the effectiveness of orders and disposals by the court should be reflected in monetary terms.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

No, the Opposition are thinking about the victims, who will be told that the maximum reparation that they can receive towards the hurt that they have endured is an order worth 24 hours of work by a young person. The victim may think that that is insulting given the hurt and damage that he or she may have suffered. By setting such a restriction on the number of hours, part of the clause's purpose—enabling the victim to feel that he or she is part of the process and can gain proper reparation—would be lost.

Photo of Andrew Turner Andrew Turner Conservative, Isle of Wight

Does my hon. Friend accept that when an adult commits a crime, there are other means by which he or she can be required to pay compensation, but when a young person commits a crime, it is unlikely that they will have any assets on which to draw to pay compensation to the victim? In such circumstances, it is not at all unfair to reduce the matter to pounds, shillings and pence.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I agree with my hon. Friend, who puts the point well.

I do not want to detain the Committee further on this point. I regret that there is no flexibility in the Government's thinking. We shall consider how best to draft amendments that will meet our concerns about the age-related nature of the issue and ensure consistency throughout the system, and we shall

return to the subject on Report with the victim firmly in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

With this we may also consider amendment No. 266, in clause 55, page 34, leave out line 29.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

If Committee members turn to paragraph (4) of article 36A, they will see that,

''Before making a reparation order, the court must obtain''—

it has a duty to obtain—

''and consider a written report by—

(a) a probation officer;

(b) a social worker of the appropriate authority; or

(c) such other person as the Secretary of State may designate.''

That gives the Secretary of State wide discretion. I have no idea who might be in that grouping.

Likewise, the new article 36D(2) that the clause would insert into the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, states:

''In this Order 'responsible officer', in relation to an offender subject to a reparation order, means one of the following who is specified in the order—

''(a) a probation officer;

(b) a social worker of the appropriate authority''

and, again, the open-ended category of

''(c) such other person as the Secretary of State may designate.''

Amendments Nos. 265 and 266 would remove the references to that category. However, I have in mind the comment last week by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) that he represented

''a community that has often been overlooked in appointments to non-departmental public bodies''

and his assertion that his

''community sees itself as unrepresented on a variety of bodies,''—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 7 February 2002; c. 274.]

I hesitate about damaging his community's chance of being represented. Perhaps it would be possible to enlighten me as to who is envisaged as being affected by the provision, so that I can review my amendments.

My fallback measure is to compare what is proposed for Northern Ireland with what has been arranged for the rest of the United Kingdom, which means I must return to the subject of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Under section 74(5) of that Act, in England and Wales a responsible officer is defined in limited terms, as

''(a) a probation officer;

(b) a social worker of a local authority social services department'',

or

(c) a member of a youth offending team.''

That is an exhaustive list. We know where it begins and ends, but it is proposed that in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State should be able to designate anyone. That is too open ended. Will the Minister explain the phrasing that has been used and tell the

Committee whom the Government had in mind for the function in question when the Bill was being drafted?

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

The flexibility for the Secretary of State to designate anyone as a responsible officer is necessary to ensure that schemes for reparation orders and community responsibility orders will be available in all parts of Northern Ireland, because it allows for those with a direct interest in the statutory sector, such as the juvenile justice board, and the voluntary sector, which already works closely and effectively with children who offend, to act as responsible officers and to be responsible for the supervision of the child where appropriate. Those would be the very people to be appointed to youth offending teams in Northern Ireland, if such things existed there, but since they do not, the Secretary of State requires flexibility. It is intended that only people who would have been members of youth offending teams will be appointed.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

Will the Minister undertake to tighten up the provision? He has explained whom the designation was intended to include, and perhaps a form of words could be arrived at to be included in the Bill later in its progress. Clarifying the Bill seems preferable to retaining the reference to

''such other person as the Secretary of State may designate.''

Photo of Derek Conway Derek Conway Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup

Order. The hon. Lady was inviting the Minister to intervene, and he did not. Therefore she should advise me whether she will seek leave to withdraw the amendment, the debate having concluded, or whether she wants to press it to a division.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

In light of the time and of the Minister's generous nature, for which he is famous and in which I shall place my confidence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.