My Lords, I can be very short. These are amendments that appeal to us, too. Referral orders, which were created in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, seem to work pretty well. Increasing the age from 18 to 21 is a sensible course to take. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked whether they should not be extended to an age greater than 21. We talked in the previous debate about the crucial years between 18 and 25, and 21 seems a slightly arbitrary figure. I think that I understand why it is in the amendment, but it would perhaps make more sense if the age went between 18 and 25. Twenty-one is not an age where you begin to say, ““This is where offending ceases””; it is usually a bit later than that, although it is very difficult to generalise on such things. If we are going to take this course—we will certainly be interested to hear what the Government have to say about it—to extend the age from 18 to 25 would be a better course than from 18 to 21.
As far as the probation service is concerned, there are great concerns, as my noble friend Lord Judd has said. The second amendment in this group quite rightly suggests that the probation service is probably the best venue for those over 21. Once again, we look forward to hearing what the Government’s attitude is towards this innovative idea.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bach
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 7 February 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
735 c227-8 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:02:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_808094
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_808094
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_808094