---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, my advice is that the standing committee is wrong on that. I am happy to set it out in more detail for the noble Lord, but that is the advice that I have received. I have also received advice that we consider that the provisions are, as he would expect, compatible with the ECHR. It is notable that the Joint Committee on Human Rights did not take issue with this aspect of the Bill. We think that we are covered in this regard. The point I was making was that for custody to happen, there has to be a wilful and persistent breach of the first youth rehabilitation order. The court can re-sentence and impose a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance for that persistent and wilful breach. At that stage, custody is not available. The young offender then has again wilfully and persistently to breach the order. This time the sentence is imposed for the original wilful and persistent breach of the youth rehabilitation order for intensive supervision and surveillance. Only then is custody available to the court. The court can then impose a detention and training order for a minimum period of up to four months, but it does not have to. Perhaps I may refer in more detail to the comparison with adult community offenders. My understanding is that there is an equivalent provision on breach of adult community orders in Schedule 8 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the schedule provide the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court respectively with the power to impose a custodial sentence of up to six months on an adult who wilfully and persistently fails to comply with a community order imposed for a non-imprisonable offence. So similar provisions are available. In all of this, the emphasis is on what is specifically described as a ““wilful and persistent breach””. That phrase is critical and should reassure noble Lords that we are not proposing to penalise young people disproportionately for minor misdemeanours, which was one of the issues raised in our debate in Committee. We are talking about the worst cases where the young offender is clearly and repeatedly not responding or engaging with their community sentence. Ultimately, the thrust of all our debates has been to ensure that custody is the last option. The YRO structure is designed to ensure that that is the position. That is why it is important to have a vigorous approach to breaches. It is the justification for this structure, particularly in relation to wilful and persistent breaches. On that basis, I invite the House to accept that the proposals are indeed proportionate and acceptable.