Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.


Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 1: 1: Clause 1, page 2, line 14, after ““Schedule),”” insert— ““( ) a reparation requirement (see paragraph 24A of that Schedule),”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in identical terms to the one tabled in Committee on 5 February and debated between cols. 978 and 981. I have no intention of repeating my opening remarks, but I shall summarise them. The youth rehabilitation order embraces a number of previous low, medium and high-effect orders in a single unit. I expressed my bewilderment at the Government’s decision to keep reparation orders out of the hierarchy and, in reply, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, drew my attention to paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 1, which provides that as part of an activity requirement a specified activity, "““may consist of … an activity whose purpose is that of reparation, such as an activity involving contact between an offender and persons affected””." I accept that, within the framework of a youth rehabilitation order, it is possible, inter alia, to require reparation. However, I say with great respect to the Minister that that is not the point of my amendment. The point of my amendment is to ensure that all possible dispositions open to the court should be within the framework of the youth rehabilitation order; yet the legislation clearly provides that a reparation order can be made in its own right. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, justified that by saying that the reparation order was a low-level sentence and that the courts ought to have the option of making a low-level order without engaging the mechanisms of a youth rehabilitation order. If that is so for a reparation order, surely it should also be so for other low-level orders, such as a limited attendance centre requirement or a limited activity requirement. What is it about reparation orders that distinguishes them from other low-level orders and entitles them to have a classification that is quite distinct from that contained in a youth rehabilitation order? I am a great supporter of the youth rehabilitation order and the amendment is in no way intended to undermine that excellent initiative. However, I believe that, having made that initiative, the Government should have the courage to include all the dispositions within its framework. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c568-9 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Criminal proceedings Alcoholic drinks Administration of justice Legal aid scheme Misuse Probation Rehabilitation Sentencing Young offenders
Legislation
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2006-07 to 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk