Offender Management Bill

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, will be very pleased with him for having represented her so well. We send her our best wishes because we know that she has difficulties with which to deal. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the difficulties that we have in relation to children. They are children first but on occasion we have to deal with some of the most heinous offences which one or two of them commit. My noble friend Lord Judd is right to say that many of these children have never ever been loved by anybody. That is a tragedy for them. Therefore, we should pay the most acute attention to their welfare. Courts dealing with children and young people are required to have regard to their welfare. That is provided for by Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. This amendment would additionally require them to have regard to the young person’s well-being, in the light of the factors listed in Section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004. The distinction between welfare and well-being is an interesting, important and rather subtle one. The House will have extensive opportunities to reflect on it during consideration of Clause 9 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred, which was recently introduced in another place. I agree with her that that is probably the better place for these issues to be more fully debated. Clause 9 seeks to define the purposes of sentencing as regards young people under 18. It covers not only detention and training orders but all other forms of sentence for under-18s and therefore provides a more appropriate opportunity for consideration of this issue than the Bill we are considering today. The amendment would also apply the duty to the provider of the establishment in which the young person was to be accommodated. Under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004, governors of young offender institutions, directors of secure training centres and local authorities are already required to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. We consider that this clear duty, which covers all young people in custody and not only those who receive detention and training orders, is sufficient in itself. There is no case for a separate duty covering a less extensive range of young people in custody. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment. However, I commend him and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for always ensuring that this children’s issue—as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said—is raised because it is important for us never to forget the importance of these issues. We shall deal with the other age groups on later amendments.