Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

We are always happy to write to the noble Earl, on this occasion as on any other. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for putting his important points so succinctly. This is an issue on which we disagree, as I think was shown in the debate in another place. I shall try to explain why. We think that placing national standards for breaches on the face of the Bill is important to ensure that everyone—courts, young people, sentencers and the general public—is aware of the standards that apply to community orders and the consequences of inappropriate behaviour. If there were no flexibility in these standards, the noble Lord would have a strong point, but I argue that the degree of flexibility answers his concerns. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 states: "““If the responsible officer is of the opinion that the offender has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with the youth rehabilitation order, the responsible officer must give the offender warning””." It follows that if there is a reasonable excuse, he does not have to give the offender a warning. The Bill sets a limit of two formal warnings that may be issued to a young offender in a 12-month period following which, on a third breach in that period, proceedings must be instituted. I repeat that a warning cannot be given unless there is an unreasonable breach. It also allows for immediate court action to be taken by the responsible officer when the breach is so serious that it warrants immediate court action. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. The provisions reflect the current national standards of the Youth Justice Board for breaches. They are in the Bill as clear evidence—this is important to the public—that breaches will be pursued vigorously and a consistent standard applied nationally. It was only a few weeks ago when a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in another place, the honourable Edward Leigh, in his capacity as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said something that was quoted in the newspapers. The Times states: "““Too often offenders who have been given a community order are escaping elements of their punishment and rehabilitation. This is because the Probation Service, which manages offenders ""serving the orders, often fails to ensure all elements of an order are completed before it expires. In fact, the service does not know how many orders have not been completed, nor how many offenders break the terms of their orders””." We do not have to agree with Mr Leigh, but that is what he in his important position said, and it may be, unless we are careful, what the general public begin to feel. We cannot have the public losing confidence in community sentences. Once that confidence evaporates—