Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Indeed, she was a good girl. She had been a social worker and a children’s officer, and she used her time in this House to enormous effect in bettering the lot of disadvantaged children—particularly those in trouble. In this House, she introduced an amendment which became Section 1(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and which set a custody threshold for people under 21 before it was repealed by Section 101(2) and Schedule 13 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Her Section 1(4) provided that the courts should not pass a sentence of custody on a person under 21 unless they were, "““of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate because it appears to the Court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified””." The measure had a significant effect on the number of young people sent to custody. Between 1982 and 1990, there was a 54 per cent reduction in the use of immediate custody for indictable offences for people under 21. The clause was opposed by the then Conservative Government and was achieved only after a considerable amount of persuasion by Baroness Faithfull, which she was extremely good at. The Government subsequently admitted, however, that she had been proved right by events. There are sound human rights arguments for reserving custody for children to the inescapable minimum, for trying all other measures first and for imposing a high seriousness threshold. I cannot believe that that is what we are doing at the moment. Liam McManus, who was 15 years old, killed himself in Lancaster Farms Young Offender Institution while serving six weeks’ custody for breaching his supervision order. I know a family where a child with learning difficulties was sent to Huntercombe Young Offender Institution on his sixteenth birthday for three months for not keeping his appointments with his supervisor in the youth offending team. The arguments I heard for why he did not keep his appointments were certainly worthy of examination. We have the latest custody figures from the Ministry of Justice, from December 2007. They show that 387 of the 1,781 sentenced children aged 15 to 17 received a sentence of six months or less. Such a sentence cannot have been imposed for public protection reasons or for seriousness, so why was it imposed? Of the 1,781, 143 were imprisoned for theft and handling, 79 for drug offences, 35 for motor vehicle offences and 216 for other non-violent offences. I therefore find the Government’s position a little hard to understand. They frequently say—the Minister said it again today—that they want custody used as a last resort. I have no doubt that he is absolutely sincere or that that is what he wants. The Youth Justice Board has a target to reduce the use of custody by 10 per cent—not that the Youth Justice Board can reduce the use of custody. Presumably it means that it requires the youth offending team workers to try much harder to put good ideas for non-custodial options to the courts and to persuade them of the merits of such a course. If the Youth Justice Board has such an objective, surely the Government support it? Custody is very expensive. It is very damaging to a child’s prospects. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, even an admission of guilt and a conviction is very damaging to a child’s prospects. The research from the University of Edinburgh child cohort study makes it clear that the most likely predictor of future involvement in crime is an initial involvement in the criminal justice system. Most other countries in Europe manage not to use custody as we do. The Government may like to take particular note of the view of the Local Government Association, which we have just heard quoted on this matter. It has written to many of us urging our support for an amendment such as this one. It says: "““We do hear of horrific acts of violence perpetrated by young people, and for young people who commit such offences a custodial sentence must, of course, remain an option. However, there are a great many young people drawn into the youth justice system who do not represent a serious risk to the physical or mental health of others and are actually vulnerable themselves. We must respond to those young people as children first, seeking to address their welfare needs whilst seeing that justice is done—but does not jeopardise the child’s future, long-term health and well-being””." This is the crux of its argument: "““We are convinced that a failure to take such an approach will ultimately be borne by the local community.””" The Local Government Association is making the point that local communities will have to bear the consequences of this policy. Young people who are sent to prison for six months for non-violent offences will come back, but their prospects will be worse. They will cost their local community a lot. They may well cause a great deal of damage. Those are very strong practical reasons which I hope the Government will consider when looking at these amendments.