I support the amendment very positively. The noble Earl has put the argument very well, as indeed did the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As we argued yesterday—it is impossible not to repeat some of the ground in the context of this amendment—it is wrong and misleading to suggest that somehow there has to be a balance between the interests of the child and the interests of the community.
It is upsetting when it is suggested directly or implicitly that those of us who argue the position that I am about to argue are somehow soft on the need to protect society. It is quite the reverse. We are very hard on asking people to stop being stupid by creating situations in which the child is more likely to become criminalised and to be excluded, with all the consequent costs and negative outcomes to society in the future. Seeing the interests of the child as crucial is not only necessary because we have a responsibility for children and we care in value terms about children, it is essential to protect society in the future from the cost of reoffending and from the damage of reoffending.
Yesterday in our very interesting deliberations, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to one of the children involved in the horrible murder of James Bulger and how he had a mental age of four. If we are really taking the interests of the child seriously, if we really are committed to rehabilitation, not only for the person concerned and not simply on principle but because—I say it again—this is a way of protecting society, we must treat each child as an individual with their own position, their own needs and their own experiences. On the evidence of how things have been done in the past, I do not believe that that happens. That may happen on occasion, but it is probably more on occasion than as a general rule.
Therefore, it seems to me that this is an essential amendment. I applaud those who have tabled it. I hope that my noble friend will respond sympathetically. Either we care about the protection of society or we do not; either we see children as children, as I said yesterday, whatever their situation, or we do not. If we see them as children, we must see them as individuals in need of an individual approach, if we are to get things right.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Judd
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 6 February 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c1077 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:51:05 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444052
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444052
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_444052