Schedule 4

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 2:00 pm on 25th October 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Youth rehabilitation orders: consequential and related amendments

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

I beg to move amendment No. 36, in schedule 4, page 131, line 22, at end insert—

‘Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c. 49)

10A The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 has effect subject to the following amendments.

10B In section 86(3) (adjustments between authority providing accommodation etc, and authority of area of residence) after “supervision order” insert “, youth rehabilitation order”.

10C In section 94(1) (interpretation)—

(a) for the definition of “probation order” substitute—

““probation order”, in relation to an order imposed by a court in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996,”,

(b) in the definition of “supervision order”, omit “the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or”, and

(c) at the end insert—

““youth rehabilitation order” means an order made under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007.”’.

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton Conservative, Macclesfield

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 37 to 46, 54 to 56 and 58 to 73

New clause 16—Accommodation in which persons aged under 18 may be detained—

‘(1) No person aged under 18 shall be detained in a young offender institution or a secure training centre unless the Secretary of State certifies that he can be detained safely.

(2) In section 107(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing Act) 2000 (meaning of “youth detention accommodation”)—

(a) omit paragraphs (a) and (b); and

(b) in paragraph (c) after “by order specify” insert “but not including a secure training centre or young offender institution”.

(3) At the end of section 92(1)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (detention under sections 90 and 91: place of detention etc.) substitute the full stop for a comma.

(4) At the end of section 92(1) insert “provided that such place is not a secure training centre or young offender institution”.

(5) Omit sections 23(7A) and (7B) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

(6) Omit section 98 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.’.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

The Government amendments in this group are minor, technical and consequential amendments that repeal legislative references that will be out of date due to the new youth rehabilitation orders. I hope that they will be acceptable to the Committee.

Government amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 73 concern the manner in which the Secretary of State makes arrangements for detention of young offenders sentenced under sections 90 or 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. They are technical amendments relating to the youth rehabilitation orders and I commend them to the Committee. I will be happy to comment in due course on new clause 16 if it is spoken to by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough.

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton Conservative, Macclesfield

New clause 16 is in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, but it would be appropriate first to debate the Government amendments and then for the hon. and learned Member to make considerable reference to new clause 16.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice) 2:15 pm, 25th October 2007

I do not know whether my contribution will be considerable, but I hope that it will be a considered reference to new clause 16. I do not have a quarrel with the Government amendments; they are, as the Minister has said, necessary and partly consequential on clause 6 and, I suspect, the other changes to the way that youth offenders are dealt with in the criminal justice system. Some of the later Government amendments touch, although not directly, on what I want to say about new clause 16. Essentially, I want the Government to have a proper understanding of the need to put the right people in the right places.

I have been to Glen Parva young offenders institution, which is partly in my constituency and partly in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I have been to the YOI at Warren Hill and Hollesley Bay, which is near Woodbridge in Suffolk. I have been to Feltham YOI and Lancaster Farm YOI, which is in the north-west. All of those are institutions for young men. I also went to Bullwood Hall about a year ago, when it was being used as a YOI for young women.

Bullwood Hall has been re-roled at least twice since then and hit the news last week, no doubt to the Minister’s enjoyment. It was associated with HMP Canterbury because those two institutions are now used exclusively to accommodate foreign national prisoners. I will not talk about that, but I will talk about my experience of young offenders institutions. Based on that, I urge the Minister to ensure that we send the right people to the right sort of custodial institution, as I said at the outset of my remarks.

Compared with the adult prisoner estate, young offender institutions are very troubled and troubling places. That is not just because they are full of young people who are there because they have committed serious crimes—some of them very serious indeed. There is a unit within Warren Hill and Hollesley Bay where youngsters who have committed murder—some of them quite nasty murders—are held, and will be held for long periods. At Feltham, about 20 young men are serving the equivalent of life sentences, and there are other young men who have committed serious crimes in the other YOIs to which I have referred.

We are dealing with a difficult collection of people and nothing that I am about to say should be taken as a criticism of the governors, the governing staff or the prison officers who work in these difficult institutions. We need to be very careful that we do not put into institutions that are for over-18s younger teenagers of the age group that is to be brought within the youth rehabilitation order and youth custody remit. We need to be extremely careful in ensuring that there is sufficient capacity to house those under the age of 18 securely and safely in secure sites. If we get that wrong, those youngsters could be badly damaged. We could face  the sort of circumstances that the hon. Member for Northampton, North spoke about in her Adjournment debate over the death of a young constituent of hers in a secure unit outside her constituency. It was a story that caused a great deal of alarm. The Minister responded to that Adjournment debate and I was on the Opposition Front Bench as he did so.

There are a whole host of issues—easy, not so easy and plain difficult—that we have to be aware of when talking about the incarceration of young people. I want the Minister’s assurance that the Ministry of Justice has the resources and the personnel to deal with the imprisonment of youngsters, has trained those personnel and has fully understood the difficult nature of the task. A number of people who have spoken about the imprisonment of young people say that we should not be sending children or young people to prison. I am not sure that I would go that far because there will be some young teenagers who commit crimes that society would expect to result in custody. However, custody, whether of young people or adults, must be humane and carried out in a way that improves the chances of their being able to return to society in a better state.

Photo of Harry Cohen Harry Cohen Labour, Leyton and Wanstead

What is the hon. and learned Gentleman’s view of young people who have been incarcerated in an adult prison, even if they have committed an horrendous offence?

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice)

I do not like it. The problem that we face, which is one of the Government’s own making, is that the custodial estate is full to the gunnels. I might be wrong, but I do not think that young offenders are kept in police cells or court cells overnight. There is no more room on the custodial estate. It has more than its official capacity. Last Friday, there were 81,533 adult prisoners. That is about 30 prisoners over the establishment. It might be thought that 30 is not a big number, but the Committee must bear in mind that about 20,000 adult prisoners are in cells that were designed for one person and which are now having to be shared by two or three people.

We have an accommodation problem. To deal with it, people are being put into cells or accommodation with others of a different age group. I accept fully that some people look 14, but are 20 years old, while some look 20, but are 14 years old. We must be careful that people are put in the right place.

Because of overcrowding, young offenders convicted of offences or on remand in custody in courts in the east of England, for example, are having to be taken in a sweat box hundreds of miles overnight and brought back to court the following day. On some occasions, they do not arrive at their overnight accommodation until well after 9 o’clock. When I was at Lancaster Farms, the governor and his senior colleagues said, with huge regret, that there was not much that they could do about the fact that young people were arriving in their care at almost midnight. That has an effect on the child or young person as well as on the staff who, by the time that they have gone over their shift and are waiting to go home, are not necessarily in the best frame of mind to deal with disoriented, difficult or plainly bad teenagers in need of overnight accommodation.

Photo of Sally Keeble Sally Keeble Labour, Northampton North

Given that the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to very disturbed young people who have committed murder, he and my right hon. Friend the Minister might like to visit Northampton and see the model of care that is provided by St. Andrew’s for such people. It is different from the Home Office estate. The way in which it deals with those young people is stunning.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice)

I should be interested to visit St. Andrew’s. It comes under the auspices of the Department of Health, not the Ministry of Justice. When I visited Grendon Underwood, a special and marvellous institution that is run by the Ministry of Justice and the Prison Service, I asked the governor whether it was a hospital with bars or a prison with doctors. He said, “It is a prison with doctors, but I wish that it was a hospital with bars because we would get more money to do what we have to do.” I accept that we are not debating such matters this afternoon, but at some stage we, as legislators, will have to work out the best way in which to deal with disturbed people who end up in the criminal justice system. I have made my point. It is important that we not only lock up the right people for the right offences, but that we lock them up in the right place, and that people do not come to any harm once they are locked up.

Finally, on a happier note, I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that this might be the first time that Members of Parliament have tabled a new clause that would

“substitute the full stop for a comma”.

One can see it by looking at the end of subsection (3) of new clause 16. It is a matter of some considerable note.

Photo of David Howarth David Howarth Shadow Solicitor General, Ministry of Justice

If the hon. and learned Gentleman looked at the Committee that considered the Companies Bill, he would see the first instance of almost everything, even including proposed changes to punctuation.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice)

I knew that a former law don would have his finger, as it were, on every piece of punctuation on every piece of legislation that the House has dealt with over many years, but it is a matter of some personal pride that new clause 16 would amend legislation in the way to which I referred.

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton Conservative, Macclesfield

I had spotted that particular passage.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

Punctuation can make a difference to legislation, and we would do well to take care over it.

I do not wish to add anything to what the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said—his argument was extremely cogent, and I support it. I simply wish to ask the Minister a more general question about what Government amendment No. 44 will do regarding amendments to Scots law? Will it simply replace terms, or will it have a real effect on the way in which Scots courts will deal with the matter? If it will have a real effect, should there not be an amendment to clause 127 about its extent?

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

I thank the hon. and learned Member for Harborough for raising this issue because it gives  the Committee an opportunity to consider his point. Like him, I have, in the course of my duties, had the opportunity to visit a number of youth offender institutions and secure training centres in the past few months. Indeed, in my previous role, I was responsible for the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and for secure units and youth offender institutes. I understand the challenges of managing the young people and of working with the staff of those institutions.

My most recent visit to such an institution was to the Hindley youth offenders institute near Leigh in Greater Manchester. Difficult and challenging behaviour problems need to be addressed in those centres. I am due to visit the Oakhill secure training centre in Milton Keynes with my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Children, Young People and Families to examine some of the issues arising from the way it operates and performs, and at how we can improve it.

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that we must provide a safe and productive environment for young people in those establishments. I say “safe” because it is important that we protect young people not only from self harm, but from the potential harm they might suffer from other young people in the centres. We also need to create an environment in which staff are protected and secured from potential attack. We must ensure that people in the centres have a productive regime. The whole thrust of the legislation, the Bill and Government policy is to ensure that whatever mistakes people have made, we prevent them from reoffending.

There are a number of measures in place to provide broadly for the safety of people in secure units and youth offender institutions. Under the Children Act 2004, governors and directors of young offender institutions and secure training centres are already required to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in discharging their functions.

What is certainly true—the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned this in passing—is that these establishments contain some very dangerous young people. According to our most recent figures, which are dated 22 October, 64 young people in custody are charged with murder. Those are very dangerous individuals and that requires not just a safety regime, but a productive regime to try to turn around the offending behaviour. That comes back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead. We must ensure that we have proper investment in education and skill training. Nearly every young person in that accommodation will come out into the community at some point in the future. They need a proper regime, a safe regime and one that invests in them to turn their lives around.

Photo of Sally Keeble Sally Keeble Labour, Northampton North 2:30 pm, 25th October 2007

On the point about funding for education and hospitals, St. Andrew’s hospital, for example, does not get funding for education. There needs to be some parity. Would my right hon. Friend accept that if young people are convicted of murder and sent to a psychiatric hospital, they should have access to education in the same way as they would if they were sent to a young offenders institution or a Home Office establishment?

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

I hope and expect that they would. I will certainly look at that matter outside the Committee to ensure that that is the case.

The whole thrust of our discussion today is the prevention of reoffending. We have young people, some very young, who need education and investment, who need to have their offending behaviour addressed and who ultimately need to come out of the young offender institution as better people than when they went into it. From my visits to such institutions, both secure training centres and young offenders institutions, I know that that work is ongoing.

The statistics still show that we are facing very difficult and challenging times in working through that. There is still a high level of reoffending by those young people when they leave secure training centres and youth offending institutions. Our purpose has to be—I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman—to ensure that we have a safe and productive environment. I am not able to accept his new clause, but I accept some of the thrust of the arguments about having that safety and that positive regime in the centres.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough will know, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North, that one of the issues we have looked at recently is restraint and its use in secure training centres and other establishments. My hon. Friend has been very assiduous in pressing the concerns of her constituents. She will know, as the Committee knows, that there have been two serious inquests following the deaths of individuals in custody. We need to reflect on those issues and take them on board.

In July, I instigated a full review across the estate of the use of restraint in the young persons’ estates. With the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, I recently appointed two joint chairs to conduct the review, which is now taking evidence. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will submit their views to the joint review on restraint. That review will report to me by 4 April 2008. My right hon. Friend and I will be taking decisions on the use of restraint. I hope that the regime will ultimately have an effect on disturbed behaviour by young people, either through self-harm or against each other.

Photo of Sally Keeble Sally Keeble Labour, Northampton North

I was going to write to my right hon. Friend about a visit that I made to St. Andrew’s, where different methods of managing young people’s behaviour are used. The whole design of the building and the regime there have a very different impact from those of the secure training centres. Although St. Andrew’s is a health establishment, in his review will he consider the methods used in such establishments as alternatives to restraint?

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

I will reflect on that outside the Committee and will await the letter from my hon. Friend with some interest. We have published the terms of reference of the review, and we have appointed two individuals to conduct it, both of whom are strong professionals in their field. The review will report to me. They have sent invitations this week for evidence to be presented to them. In terms of the safety issue, the use of restraint in secure training centres and other establishments is being looked at in the round, because of the challenging nature of some of the individuals.

In July, I tabled amendments on restraint issues in the other place and this place, because self-harm, harm against other individuals, and harm against staff can be prevented by restraint, but we need to look at how it is used in the context also of preventing some of the tragic events that have happened in the past.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

Will the review on restraint also deal with the question of protective armaments for prison staff raised by the Prison Officers Association—the baton question?

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

That is not specifically part of the review’s terms of reference. At the prison officers’ request, we are considering a separate undertaking dealing the use of batons, but it is not part of the formal review, the terms of which were published in July. If hon. Members wish to consider that aspect of the safety issues in institutions, they should refer back to those terms of reference which were published, I think, on the last day before the summer recess.

Photo of Harry Cohen Harry Cohen Labour, Leyton and Wanstead

I welcome the review announced by the Minister and I congratulate him on it; it is very important. One of the organisations with which I have worked in the past that is very active in this field is Inquest. May I recommend that he meets them as part of the review process, at a suitable time?

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton Conservative, Macclesfield

I am not sure that it is entirely relevant to the debate, but it could be.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

The review will provide important background information to our debates on how to improve safety. My hon. Friend has mentioned Inquest. The review is, in a sense, an arm’s length Government review. With my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, I have appointed two independent chairs. They are conducting the review independent of Government. I am sure that Inquest will submit evidence to them. When I gave evidence in another place last week, Inquest were present. I have no doubt that they will follow the process with interest and play an active role in it.

Although I cannot accept his clause, I feel that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has made some very strong points. I take seriously the safety regime in young offender institutions and secure training centres. In my view they are, for the most part, very positive. In future, I want to tackle some of the causes of offending behaviour which have brought young people into custody in the first place with a positive education and health regime.

We have taken a number of important general measures such as the separation of under-18s from over-18s, and we are developing new high-dependency units for more vulnerable boys to help support those individuals. To give the Committee some context, there are more than 300 places in secure training centres; more than 2,500 in young offender institutions; and more than 230 in secure children’s homes. They are very cost intensive: secure training centre places cost £170,000 a year; young offender institution places cost £50,000 per year; and secure children’s home places cost £190,000 per year. I want those resources to be  used effectively to prevent reoffending. It will be a failure of our system if the young people who are sentenced to and attend those institutions leave them and graduate to adult prisons. I want both security and effective rehabilitation to be part of the process.

I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reflect on those points. I hope that I have offered him some satisfaction, and I ask him to not to press his new clause. I urge the Committee to accept the Government amendments.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me about the position in Scotland. No amendments to extend the clause have been requested, as it already provides that amendments made by the Bill to existing Acts have the same extent as the Act as amended, if that makes sense. Amendment No. 44 makes no substantive change to the law, as it replaces references to the existing community order with references to the new youth rehabilitation order. I hope that that satisfies him.

Mr. Heath indicated assent.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

For the sake of the Committee, if the hon. and learned Member for Harborough wishes to reflect on what I said and examine it in the cold light of day, I am happy for him to do so. I hope that that satisfies him.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Shadow Minister (Justice)

If it were appropriate for me within the rules of procedure of the Committee to ask your leave to withdraw the new clause, Sir Nicholas, I would do so, but it is not, so I shall not. I wish to respond briefly to the Minister.

Although we would not admit this on a party political occasion, I believe that the Minister and I have much in common in our concern about what is happening in the custodial estate. He mentioned the huge cost of young offender institutions, secure training centres and some secure children’s homes. He says that he wants to prevent failure and that failure is reoffending. Well, we are already failing. The reoffending rate for people under 21 is about 75 per cent., and some studies suggest that it is over 80 per cent. We are already failing, so that huge investment per young person that the Minister spoke about is already wasted money. We are not seeing a dividend.

Prisons, young offender institutions, secure training centres and other places where children are kept in custody are part of a secret world, about which we do not know enough. I hope that this short debate has acted as a window through which we as parliamentarians can look into the secure estate. It is unfortunate that this occasion did not provide a window through which those inside can look out to a world that is prepared to welcome them back as long as they are reformed, rehabilitated and prepared to live useful lives. It is essential that somehow or other we create those metaphorical windows so that we can get better value for money and far better outputs, to use a rather nasty word, from the criminal justice system.

At present, we are wasting money and lives, and, in some respects, destroying lives. I want all of that stopped. I want our streets and communities to be safer, and the reoffending rate to come down sufficiently. We will never get down to the ideal of zero, but the rate is far too high at present, and we seriously need to do something about it.

I would be interested to learn more about the joint review. I had not heard of it. That may be my fault, but I would be pleased if the Minister sent me details about it or let me know if it is on some Ministry of Justice website. I shall not detain the Committee further. I hope that the proposals will shunt things on a bit in a sensible way.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Nicholas Winterton Nicholas Winterton Conservative, Macclesfield

With the will and the permission of the Committee, I would seek to put Government amendments Nos. 37 to 48 together. They are not controversial, and therefore I hope that the Committee will be happy with that—[ Interruption. ] May I say to the Government Whip that there are other Government amendments that have been discussed—or not, as they case may be—as part of the group that we have just debated? They will be taken in due course, and I will ask the Minister to move them formally when we come to them.

Amendments made: No. 37, in schedule 4, page 131, line 25, at end insert—

‘11A Section 25 (transfers between England or Wales and Northern Ireland) ceases to have effect.

11B (1) Section 26 (transfers between England or Wales and the Channel Islands or Isle of Man) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(c), for the words from “supervision order” to “2000” substitute “youth rehabilitation order imposing a local authority residence requirement”.

(3) In subsection (2), for the words from “supervision order” to “2000” substitute “youth rehabilitation order imposing a local authority residence requirement”.’.

No. 38, in schedule 4, page 131, line 31, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

‘(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—

“(b) from local authority accommodation—

(i) in which he is required to live by virtue of a youth rehabilitation order imposing a local authority residence requirement (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007); or

(ii) to which he has been remanded under paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007; or

(iii) to which he has been remanded or committed under section 23(1) of this Act,”.’.

No. 39, in schedule 4, page 132, line 19, leave out from ‘for’ to end of line 20 and insert

‘the words from “mentioned in subsection” to “this section is in premises” substitute “mentioned in subsection (1), (1A)(a) or (b)(i) or (ii) or (1D) of this section is in premises”.’.

No. 40, in schedule 4, page 132, line 27, leave out ‘and’ and insert—

‘(aa) after the definition of “local authority accommodation” insert—

““local authority residence requirement” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007;”, and’.

No. 41, in schedule 4, page 132, line 32, at end insert—

‘13A In section 73(4)(a) (provisions of section 32 extending to Scotland) for “to (1C)” substitute “to (1E)”.’.

No. 42, in schedule 4, page 132, line 40, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—

‘16 In section 7(2) (limitations on rehabilitation under Act, etc.) for paragraph (d) substitute—

“(d) in any proceedings relating to the variation or discharge of a youth rehabilitation order under Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007, or on appeal from any such proceedings;”.’.

No. 43, in schedule 4, page 137, line 14, at end insert—

‘31A In paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 (privately fostered children) for paragraph (a) substitute—

“(a) a youth rehabilitation order made under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007;”.’.

No. 44, in schedule 4, page 139, line 2, at end insert—

‘Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46)

35A The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 has effect subject to the following amendments.

35B (1) Section 234 (probation orders: persons residing in England and Wales) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), at the end insert “(in any case where the offender has attained the age of 18 years) or under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007 (in any other case)”.

(3) In subsection (4)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for “and section 207(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003” substitute “, section 207(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and paragraph 20(2) of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007”,

(b) in paragraph (a), for “or, as the case may be, community orders under Part 12 of that Act” substitute “, community orders under Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or, as the case may be, youth rehabilitation orders under Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007”,

(c) in paragraph (a), for “and section 207 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003” substitute “, section 207 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007”,

(d) in paragraph (b), after “2003” insert “or (as the case may be) paragraphs 20(4) and 21(1) to (3) of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007”, and

(e) in paragraph (b), at the end insert “or that paragraph”.

(4) In subsection (4A) at the end insert “(in any case where the offender has attained the age of 18 years) or in a youth rehabilitation order made under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007 (in any other case)”.

(5) In subsection (5) for the words from “subject to subsection (6)” to the end substitute “subject to subsections (6) and (6A) below—

(a) Schedule 8 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 shall apply as if it were a community order made by a magistrates’ court under section 177 of that Act and imposing the requirements specified under subsection (4A) above (in any case where the offender has attained the age of 18 years); and

(b) Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007 shall apply as if it were a youth rehabilitation order made by a magistrates’ court under section 1 of that Act and imposing the requirements specified under that subsection (in any other case).”

(6) After subsection (6) insert—

“(6A) In its application to a probation order made or amended under this section, Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007 has effect subject to the following modifications—

(a) any reference to the responsible officer has effect as a reference to the person appointed or assigned under subsection (1)(a) above,

(b) in paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (2)(c) is omitted and, in sub-paragraph (16), the reference to the Crown Court has effect as a reference to a court in Scotland, and

(c) Parts 3 and 5 are omitted.”

35C (1) Section 242 (community service orders: persons residing in England and Wales) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)(a)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (ii), after “Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003)” insert “, in any case where the offender has attained the age of 18 years, or an unpaid work requirement imposed by a youth rehabilitation order (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007), in any other case”, and

(b) in sub-paragraph (iii), after “section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003” insert “or, as the case may be, imposed by youth rehabilitation orders made under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007”.

(3) In subsection (2)(b)—

(a) after “that court” insert “, in any case where the offender has attained the age of 18 years,” and

(b) after “2003” insert “or it appears to that court, in any other case, that provision can be made for the offender to perform work under the order under the arrangements which exist in that area for persons to perform work under unpaid work requirements imposed by youth rehabilitation orders made under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007”.

(4) In subsection (3)(b) at the end insert “or, as the case may be, conferred on responsible officers by Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007 in respect of unpaid work requirements imposed by youth rehabilitation orders (within the meaning of that Part)”.

35D (1) Section 244 (community service orders: general provisions relating to persons residing in England and Wales or Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3)(a)—

(a) after “2003)” insert “or, as the case may be, a youth rehabilitation order (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007)”, and

(b) after “such community orders” insert “or youth rehabilitation orders”.

(3) In subsection (4)(a)—

(a) for “or, as the case may be, community orders” substitute “, community orders”, and

(b) after “2003)” insert “or, as the case may be, youth rehabilitation orders (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007)”.

(4) In subsection (5)—

(a) for “or, as the case may be, a community order” substitute “, a community order”, and

(b) after “2003)” insert “or, as the case may be, a youth rehabilitation order (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007)”.

(5) In subsection (6)—

(a) for “or, as the case may be, community orders” substitute “, community orders”,

(b) after “within the meaning of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003)” insert “or, as the case may be, youth rehabilitation orders (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007)”, and

(c) after “the responsible officer under Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003” insert “or, as the case may be, under Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007”.’.

No. 45, in schedule 4, page 141, line 30, at end insert—

‘Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 (c. 19)

53A The Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 has effect subject to the following amendments.

53B (1) Section 62 (loss of benefit for breach of community order) is amended as follows.

(2) In the definition of “relevant community order” in subsection (8)—

(a) after “2003;” in paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) a youth rehabilitation order made under section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007;”, and

(b) in paragraph (b) for “such an order” substitute “an order specified in paragraph (a) or (aa)”.

(3) In subsection (11)(c)(ii) for “and (b)” substitute “to (b)”.

53C (1) Section 64 (information provision) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (6)(a) after “2003)” insert “, youth rehabilitation orders (as defined by section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007)”.

(3) In subsection (7) after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) a responsible officer within the meaning of Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007;”.’.

No. 46, in schedule 4, page 145, line 39, leave out ‘in paragraph (b)(ii),’ and insert

‘in paragraph (b) (as substituted by paragraph 12(2)(b) of this Schedule), in sub-paragraph (ii),’.

No. 47, in schedule 4, page 147, line 28, at end insert—

(7A) If a local authority has parental responsibility for an offender who is in its care or provided with accommodation by it in the exercise of any social services functions, the reference in sub-paragraph (7)(b) to a parent or guardian of the offender is to be read as a reference to that authority.

(7B) In sub-paragraph (7A)—

“local authority” has the same meaning as it has in Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007 by virtue of section 7 of that Act,

“parental responsibility” has the same meaning as it has in the Children Act 1989 by virtue of section 3 of that Act, and

“social services functions” has the same meaning as it has in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 by virtue of section 1A of that Act.’.

No. 48, in schedule 4, page 149, line 4, at end insert—

(5A) If a local authority has parental responsibility for an offender who is in its care or provided with accommodation by it in the exercise of any social services functions, the reference in sub-paragraph (5)(b) to a parent or guardian of the offender is to be read as a reference to that authority.

(5B) In sub-paragraph (5A)—

“local authority” has the same meaning as it has in Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2007 by virtue of section 7 of that Act,

“parental responsibility” has the same meaning as it has in the Children Act 1989 by virtue of section 3 of that Act, and

“social services functions” has the same meaning as it has in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 by virtue of section 1A of that Act.’.—[Mr. Hanson.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.