---

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

My Lords, I shall attempt to answer the noble Lord’s persuasive case—persuasive as far as the officers are concerned, not as regards the offender. I want to separate those two. It is not so persuasive that I shall take it away for consideration. It is persuasive in the sense that there must be a complete record, of course, and I understand why the noble Lord says that. The real issue is whether that needs to be in the Bill. We believe that these matters are satisfactorily dealt with already in guidance. As I am sure was pointed out in Committee, I point out that the National Standards for Youth Justice Services set out what a responsible officer is required to do in respect of instructions to a young offender made subject to an order. Those instructions state that an agreement must be produced with the offender which should be in writing and signed and will include acceptable and unacceptable absence criteria, the right to be treated fairly and with respect, the requirement to behave acceptably, and time-keeping. The noble Lord may come back to me and say that those standards are not legally binding if they do not appear in statute, and therefore may not be followed on all occasions. Of course, that point is taken, but we believe that properly monitored and enforced guidance offers both a robust and flexible approach to this issue. The Youth Justice Board will monitor and ensure compliance and, importantly, guidance can be changed or tweaked to allow for future variations. If an officer does not do that and the case goes pear-shaped—if I can use that expression in your Lordships' House—which has been known, it is not likely that that officer will ever do it again. He will have breached the national standards and I understand that officers are obliged to behave under national standards. We believe that proper case management procedures are in place and I hope that they will remain properly adhered to in the future. On the matter of young offenders, the argument is different. Many noble Lords in Committee and on Report have suggested that the real problem with breaches and all these orders is with those who are underprivileged and have not had the opportunity of a full and successful education, among other things. They may well have literacy problems—that exists in a much wider range of defendants than we sometimes like to believe, as has been said by many noble Lords throughout the House. To make a young offender notify his responsible officer of a change of address ““in writing”” is asking too much. It must be done, but not necessarily in writing. It could be done by telephone, which is probably the most likely way that it would be done today—by mobile phone or text message. You could oblige every offender to notify changes in writing, but some might not be capable of that. That is why we do not accept the noble Lord's amendment on that. Nor do we believe it appropriate to specify on the face of the Bill the need for a responsible officer to keep written records of their instructions. Not everything has to be in law for officials to comply with it. Responsible officers are required to keep case management records. If they fail to do so, there is a risk that any action for breach might fail—perhaps deservedly so. I repeat that they would have to face up to the consequences of failing to comply. All responsible officers must keep valid and accurate records, as they may be required in court. If a young person wants to see details from their case record, they may apply under existing data protection procedures and we do not believe that it is appropriate to repeat those in the Bill. I have attempted to dissuade the noble Lord from pressing his amendment.