Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 79: 79: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— ““Pre-sentence reports and other requirements for persons under the age of 18 (1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) is amended as follows. (2) In section 156 (pre-sentence reports and other requirements), after subsection (8) insert— ““(9) All provisions of this section are subject to the requirements of section 156A below in relation to offenders aged under 18.”” (3) After section 156 insert— ““156A Pre-sentence reports and other requirements for persons aged under 18 before a custodial sentence may be imposed (1) A court shall not pass a sentence of custody on a person under the age of 18, unless it has obtained and considered a pre-sentence report which includes information from the relevant local authority stating— (a) the circumstances relating to the offender and the offence or offences of which the offender has been convicted, (b) whether the offender appears to be a child in need as set out in section 17 of the Children Act 1989 and if so details of the offender’s needs as assessed by the local authority, and (c) the services the local authority has provided to meet the needs of the child or young person. (2) The court may require the attendance at court of a senior official of the relevant local authority or any other local authority in order to determine what further services may be provided which may prevent or avoid the need for a custodial sentence. (3) The court may not pass a custodial sentence unless it is satisfied— (a) if the offender is a child in need, that services have been provided by the local authority which were appropriate or sufficient to meet the child’s needs, and (b) that the provision of further, or any, services by the local authority would not prevent or avoid the need for a custodial sentence, unless a custodial sentence is necessary to protect the public from an imminent and demonstrable risk of serious physical or mental harm. (4) All local authorities must submit annual reports to the relevant Secretaries of State setting out the numbers and circumstances of all children who have been sentenced to custody from that local authority area. (5) For the purposes of this section ““relevant local authority”” means the local authority in which the offender was habitually resident at the time of committing the offence or offences in relation to which sentencing is being considered by the court. (6) In the event that the offender is no longer resident in that local authority area at the time of sentencing, or if there is any doubt as to the relevant local authority, the court may of its own volition or upon the request of any party determine which is the relevant local authority.”””” The noble Lord said: This amendment is proposed by the Standing Committee on Justice, a coalition of all the principal charities that work with children. It seeks to introduce a requirement for local authorities and the courts to consider appropriate local authority provision to meet the needs of an offender under the age of 18, when custody is being considered. Local authorities are, as the Committee will be aware, under a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need. Is there a need for the court to determine whether further service provision by a local authority could avoid having to send into custody a child under the age of 18, or is it just lip service to say that custody should be the last resort for children, as required by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? It is interesting and instructive to illustrate the problem by consideration of looked-after children. A project was carried out by the National Children’s Bureau which produced a report entitled Tell Them Not To Forget About Us. In that report the bureau found that looked-after children who enter prison often miss out and have missed out on the support and care planning services to which they are entitled. As a result of not having those services, their long-term outcomes are very poor. The National Children’s Bureau was commissioned by the Department for Education and Skills to look at the care planning system for looked-after children in prison. Di Hart, the principal officer of the bureau’s children in public care unit, and author of the report to which I have referred, concluded: "““The picture that emerged was one of fragmented planning and poor outcomes””." Young people often feel abandoned by the social workers on whom they have come to rely and practitioners are confused about their respective responsibilities. In the report of the National Children’s Bureau, there is a foreword, written by Maria Eagle, who is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for children and families, and Rob Morgan, who is the chair of the Youth Justice Board. The foreword says: "““The Government is committed to supporting effective multi-agency working to help support all children and young people, and to improve the outcomes they achieve in life. It is crucial that children do not fall between agencies, and that each agency works as effectively as it can with the others involved in that child’s life. That means getting the right systems in place to facilitate this, and not to hinder it””." The foreword continues: "““For the small number of looked after young people and care-leavers who are sentenced to custody, it is particularly important that the local authority children’s services fit seamlessly with the way the youth justice system operates””." In that foreword there is recognition of the problem that this amendment seeks to address. It is important to consider the looked-after children because 46 per cent of children in prison are or have been in care. Although they are entitled to ongoing social work support when in prison, there are few systems to ensure that they receive the help that they need to plan effectively for release. With that introduction, I take Members of the Committee to Amendment No. 79 and to the proposals that we have included for a new Section 156A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The new section states: "““A court shall not pass a sentence of custody on a person under the age of 18, unless it has obtained and considered a pre-sentence report which includes information from the relevant local authority stating … the circumstances relating to the offender and the offence … whether the offender appears to be a child in need … details of the offender’s needs as assessed by the local authority, and … the services the local authority has provided””." Provision is made for the, "““attendance at court of a senior official””," to assist the court, and—this is the critical part—the, "““court may not pass a custodial sentence””—" on a child under 18— "““unless it is satisfied … if the offender is a child in need, that services have been provided by the local authority which were appropriate or sufficient … and … that the provision of further, or any, services by the local authority would not prevent or avoid the need for a custodial sentence””." That puts to the very forefront the question of whether a child under the age of 18 has received the necessary support from the local authority to which the child is entitled. A child on the brink of being sent into custody must surely be ““a child in need””. I draw the Committee’s attention to the caveat that a custodial sentence must not be passed without a report unless it is necessary to protect the public from an imminent and demonstrable risk of serious physical or mental harm, so the proposal would not apply when it is obvious to the court that it is necessary to protect the public immediately. There are other aspects to the amendment, which has been put forward by the organisation that is concerned with all the charities involving children. In my respectful submission, it has approached the problem in the right way and in accordance with the international covenant. I beg to move.