Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

Time is against us, but I rise to support Amendment No. 67 and to speak to my Amendment No. 79. I have the greatest respect for the two previous speakers, and they have said a great deal with which I agree. I welcome the new approach of the Government to youth justice. There is much to be gained from it, such as the amalgamation of various departments into the Youth Justice and Children Unit. On Amendment No. 67, I merely wanted to quote from the position paper of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, which states: "““The treatment of children in trouble with the law should be underpinned by a commitment to children's human rights, as enshrined in the UNCRC ... Children who offend should be treated as children first. Youth justice legislation should be consistent with and complementary to all other legislation dealing with children””." We are short of time, but we will return time and time again to the issue of children in custody, because it is very serious. The purpose of Amendment No. 79 is to ensure that children and young people who have been detained in custody for more than 13 weeks and were not previously looked after by a local authority have access to the same level of support as children and young people leaving local authority care or accommodation. It ensures that support is provided for a vulnerable group of children. It amends the leaving care provisions in the Children Act 1989, which were inserted by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. Children who are detained in custody have very similar needs and vulnerabilities to looked-after children. Many of them will have experienced periods of being looked after before entering the secure estate. They need considerable support when returning to the community, as evidenced by the very high rates of reoffending, which have been quoted time and again. Seventy per cent reoffend within 12 months. It is a disgrace that we can put up with these figures. Children and young people in contact with the youth justice system have high levels of need across health and social care—we have discussed this over and over again. One-third of young offenders have a mental health need, and around half have problems with peer and family relationships. One-third have significant problems with education or work. Two-thirds of young offenders come from backgrounds where the family structure has broken down, and one-third have been looked after by the local authority at some point. Three-quarters of them have a history of temporary or permanent school exclusion, and poor attendance levels are also common. One-quarter of children and young people in contact with the youth justice system have learning disabilities, and there are high levels of speech, language and communication difficulties among them. They are indeed a very needy group. Including these children in the definition of ““relevant child”” would place local authorities under a duty to appoint a personal adviser for them, to carry out a needs assessment on them and to develop a pathway plan based on their identified needs. The local authority would also be under a duty to provide accommodation and maintenance if they were needed and should provide assistance to achieve the goals set out in the pathway plan. Youth offending team workers’ powers are limited. The RAP project by the Youth Justice Board is still being evaluated; there are positive results, but it is in a number of pilot sites only and for people with mental health or substance misuse problems. It is quite limited. There is lots of evidence of poor planning pre-release and a lack of support once back in the community. YOP workers focus on offending issues, not always on wider welfare needs. They simply cannot do both. Once the licence is finished or the sentence completed, youth offending teams tend to close a case, regardless of whether the child and his family have ongoing needs. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable children in society. They are likely to be children in need in accordance with Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, and they will need support to achieve well-being in the five outcomes in the Children Act 2004. Because of their age and the fact that they have been detained, it is extremely unlikely that social workers in children and families social care departments will take on their cases. It is therefore better to focus on the kind of support provided to care leavers. It is not necessarily a costly exercise. Overall, we are talking about a small number of children, and ultimately costs will surely be saved because it will assist in reducing reoffending and the need for further custodial sentences. It will help young people make a contribution to society. All children need support where appropriate. These amendments build that support into policy and systems. I stress that in the long term it will save money.