Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 2: 2: Clause 1, page 2, line 17, at end insert— ““( ) a reparation requirement (see paragraph 24A of that Schedule),”” The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 22 and 64. It is quite clear to all Members of the Committee that the philosophy that lies behind the youth rehabilitation order is to establish a generic order. The Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomed in principle the idea of a generic community sentence, which, it says, "““has the potential to enhance the legal protection for the human rights of children and young people in the criminal justice system””." The youth rehabilitation order encompasses lots of previous low, medium and high-effect orders in a single unit. I am therefore perplexed by the Government’s decision to keep reparation orders out of this hierarchy. The Government’s argument behind the generic principle is that, for example, intensive supervision and surveillance orders should be part of a single generic order, and that there is an inbuilt hierarchy in the generic youth rehabilitation orders. Therefore, why do they want to keep the reparation order separate? If we are to move towards a generic philosophy, it is vital that it is all encompassing. The right honourable Mr Hanson, the Minister in another place, said: "““We are trying to ensure that we have the flexibility of having the reparation order in place for low-level offences and, equally, including it as part of a wider youth rehabilitation order if need be. It is important that we do that to prevent reoffending””.—[Official Report, Commons Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill Committee, 23/10/07; col. 215.]" But the menu of options set out in the Government’s list contains many low-level interventions that magistrates can use, and it is not clear how one can distinguish a hierarchy of measures, such as a limited attendance centre requirement or a limited activity requirement, and a reparation order. That is particularly true if the Government’s position is that intensive supervision and surveillance orders fall within generic youth rehabilitation orders. By implication, if I understand the Government aright, there is a hierarchy starting at the bottom and moving right up the scale to intensive supervision and surveillance orders. Surely it makes sense to have all the options available in a clear and methodical manner. The points raised by the other two amendments are slightly different. They concern restorative justice, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is not in his place—he has left the Chamber just at the crucial moment. One thing we know about restorative justice, or at least what we know from the experience we have had with it so far, is that it has been successful. The intervention works in what are often surprising ways. For example, it works not just for property crime, which is what people normally think of with restorative justice, but it also works for some sorts of violent crime. Moreover, it is capable on many occasions of helping the victim who has been the subject of a crime. My concern is that in practice some of the reparation orders do not go as far as they should, which is properly to address the issues of the offence with the victim. Quite often it simply means that there is an obligation on the offender to write a letter to the victim and do no more. That is the purpose behind the provision in Amendment No. 22 of a definition of what the reparation requirement should be. Amendment No. 64, which is an amendment to Schedule 1, defines the reparation requirement in relation to a youth rehabilitation order as meaning, "““a requirement that during the period for which the order remains in force, the offender must attend an activity or activities involving contact between an offender and persons affected by offences in respect of which the order was made and as may be determined by the responsible officer””." I beg to move.