Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

I thank the noble Earl for that. Up the road in Scotland, where, as I have said time and again, all is far from perfect, we at least do not lock up children in custody until they are 16. I turn to the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend. It is important that we do everything in our power to ensure that it becomes a reality that custody is indeed used as a last resort, for we risk doing great damage to our society as well as our children—and we must keep on saying ““children””. The amendments go some way towards achieving this by requiring the use of a YRO first, unless of course the offence is so serious that the YRO cannot be justified. It is an important safeguard, given the reality of what is happening in the use of custody for children today. The new clause in our amendment would require an ISSP—intensive supervision and surveillance programme—to have been tried before a detention and training order is imposed. The point of YROs is to enable the courts to have greater flexibility in their sentencing, which we welcome, so that the punishment fits not only the crime but the offender. Again, this presumes that all options are available. Having an ISSP as part of the new menu of YROs would further ensure that custody was truly a last resort—the last bulwark. However, it is important that the ISSP option should not be used as a substitute for other community sentences—it must come as the last ditch—although there is evidence that this is happening. However, if it is retained as the last ditch, custody is more likely to be the last resort. That is what our new clause aims to achieve. I have met and talked to the people who deliver ISSPs; I did so a year or so back in Peckham. I was very impressed by the commitment that they brought to the work, which is indeed very intensive. The work was, in this case, carried out by young men who were often from the same estates as the young offender and who offered understanding and friendship as well as the supervision required; they gave the sense of being involved in the same form of living. The evidence so far from the past four to five years is that these programmes are working well. However, the investment in time and money is considerable, though justified. That leaves only the question of the extent to which the programmes are available. It still remains possible for this provision to be bypassed either under Sections 90 and 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or for ““dangerous offenders”” sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 if the offence is so very serious or violent. Therefore, ISSPs do not act as a way out of bringing those other, more serious considerations to bear. I urge the Minister to give these amendments the most serious consideration, as they go to the heart of how we manage offending young people while keeping custody as a last resort, which I know that he, too, wants. I hope that he can reassure us that the necessary investment of money and manpower is in place so that this is a reality.