---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 16: 16: Schedule 2, page 134, line 31, at end insert— ““(1A) But sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the responsible officer is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify not causing an information to be so laid.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 21. They relate to the breach process and we hope they find favour in this House. We took away a clear message from our debate in Committee on this subject: that flexibility within the breach process is critical. It is right that the breach process should be in the legislation. We need to ensure that clear and consistent standards apply to the enforcement of a community order. Without effective enforcement, the whole system of community punishments may fall into disrepute, both with the courts and the public. However, as we made clear during the debate in Committee, by placing current national standards for youth justice for breach action into legislation we are not looking to change practice. That is why we have brought forward Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. They correct an unintended divergence from the current national standards. Essentially, these amendments will re-instate the current additional flexibility that youth offending team managers have to stay breach proceedings in exceptional circumstances, even where there has been a third breach of a youth rehabilitation order, with no reasonable excuse, in a 12-month period. Government Amendments Nos. 18 and 21 deal with the powers of the court when dealing with a young person for breach of their order. It is right that we should give credit where it is properly due. These amendments are identical to those tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and they reflect amendments tabled in another place. As currently drafted, the Bill states that where a youth rehabilitation order is still in force, a court must deal with an offender for breach of a youth rehabilitation order in one of three ways: by imposing a fine, by amending the youth rehabilitation order, or by re-sentencing. Contributions in Committee from all sides—not least of course from the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, himself—were both informed and persuasive. Parliament sets the legislative framework within which the courts must work. Within that framework, we should not unnecessarily fetter the discretion of the courts. We accept the argument advanced by noble Lords that requiring the court to take one of the three forms of action I mentioned would have done this. That is why we have tabled the amendments. They remove the requirement for a court to take a specified action for breach where the youth rehabilitation order is still in force. In effect, these amendments will allow the court to give the offender a verbal warning, if appropriate, and allow the original order to continue, if that is considered to be the right thing to do. We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed about how the Bill currently deals with breaches. We hope that the House will agree that these amendments fully address those concerns. We think that the breach process now offers the right level of flexibility, alongside the necessary need for robust enforcement. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.