As a defence solicitor, I do not suggest that magistrates always get it right—indeed, I often try to convince them to alter their pre-existing opinion of a particular defendant. Nevertheless in a case involving a low-level offence, such as that referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, it might be appropriate to impose an activity requirement with an element of reparation, or a measure that had an attendance centre requirement. Those types of order used to be distinct and separate and were the lowest level of order before we moved up the scale to supervision orders. Under the Bill all those requirements are contained within youth rehabilitation orders.

The menu of options contains many low-level interventions that magistrates can use. It is not clear how one can distinguish a hierarchy of measures such  as a limited attendance centre requirement or a limited activity requirement and a reparation order. That is particularly true if the Government’s position is that intensive supervision and surveillance orders fall within generic youth rehabilitation orders; by implication, there is a hierarchy that goes right up the scale to intensive supervision and surveillance orders. Surely it makes sense to have all the options available in a clear and methodical manner.

I maintain my view, but do not at this stage wish to press the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.