Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 29: 29: Schedule 2, page 168, line 21, leave out paragraphs 3 and 4 The noble Lord said: National standards for breach proceedings require the responsible officers to issue warnings for unreasonable instances of non-compliance and to initiate breach proceedings where there are three unreasonable failures within a 12-month period. Currently, there is discretion to depart from this in exceptional cases and with the authorisation of the youth offending team manager. The Bill removes that discretion. What evidence is there that this change is necessary? Statistics suggest that youth offending teams already take non-compliance very seriously. Between 2000 and 2004, for instance, the proportion of supervision orders returned to court for breach action rose from 7 per cent to 21 per cent. It is not accordingly clear that there is any need to legislate to make enforcement of orders a statutory duty. I suggest to the Minister that these provisions are damaging in a number of respects. First, they potentially harm the relationship between the YOT staff and the offender. Effective work with young people in trouble is dependent on the establishment of a good relationship between the staff and the young people for whom they have supervisory responsibility. Secondly, the change will lead to a significant increase in court workload, with no evidence of any corresponding advantage. Thirdly, it will lead to court appearances in many circumstances where an offender is genuinely trying to comply but is failing. Fourthly, it will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of children in custody. Fifthly, it will reduce or expunge entirely a number of innovative practices that have grown on the flexibility of the current rules. Moreover, the Bill will lead to the anomaly of YROs being subject to statutory breach but reparation orders and post-custody supervision for detention and training orders continuing to be governed by national standards with YOT discretion, despite being for more serious offences. I add that warnings of these breaches should always be made in writing and there should always be clear evidence that the warnings have been received by the individual who is subject to them. I beg to move.