Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, I was very struck by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, dividing things between those which were desirable and those which were essential, and pointing to the need to prioritise. It has struck me that this Bill is above all about prioritising. It would be wonderful to be in government when there was a great deal of money to lubricate things but, even when that is the case, not all problems are corrected. We have just heard of an earlier period where, certainly during the early years, there was much more money to lubricate things yet problems persisted. As I mentioned on the last group, we very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that young adult offenders present a real challenge. We agree that improved outcomes among this group need to be achieved. The referral order has a specific place in the under-18 sentencing framework, with compulsory conditions requiring courts to make one—in most cases—where someone aged under 18 is being dealt with by the court for the first time and pleads guilty. It has characteristics that would not be appropriate for young adults. The noble Lord referred to one of these—that the young offender is required to appear before a youth offender panel with their parents to explain their offending. The offender must agree to a contract which will include reparation to the victim or wider community and a programme of activities designed to rehabilitate them. An important feature of the referral order is that the court can require the parents of under-18s to attend the panel, so they are directly engaged by the process and encouraged to take responsibility for their child. The process also provides an opportunity for parents who need help in dealing with their child to be directed to parenting programmes which can provide them with the skills and confidence to become better parents. The referral order is an effective sentence for young people under 18 years of age and through it we wish to promote the increased use of restorative justice. Yet we cannot simply extend it to cover 18 to 20 year-olds. Our commitment is to build capacity and capability for restorative justice, including the adult justice system, which is why we are investing over £1 million in funding for training and the provision of best practice standards and guidance in the youth and adult systems. We will also be consulting shortly on the use of restorative justice in the adult system as part of community sentences and how we can encourage good practice in this area. Doubtless, the noble Lord will feed his very interesting idea into that. As I have already indicated, the Government have—as ever—considerable sympathy with the noble Lord’s motivations in tabling these amendments and seeking a more focused approach with this age group from probation trusts. However, resources are limited. Probation trusts use individual assessment to determine the needs of offenders rather than designating need because of their age group. This is evidence-based and, in our view, the best way to use limited resources. We believe that payment by results will be a sustainable way of bringing in new approaches that will help to deliver better outcomes for offenders, including young offenders. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.