Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 103A: 103A: Clause 98, page 68, line 39, leave out ““16 and 17”” and insert ““under 18 years”” The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 110 and 113. Amendment No. 103A would remove the restriction that the youth conditional caution would be available only for young people between 16 and 17 years of age by extending it to all those below the age of 18. The Government propose that youth conditional cautions should be available only for young people between 16 and 17 years old, who would accordingly no longer be subject to the current limit of two pre-court disposals prior to mandatory charge under the reprimand and warning scheme. Excluding 10 to 15 year-olds from the provisions would require the prosecution of younger children in circumstances that would result in a conditional caution for 16 and 17 year-olds. This would cause particular problems of parity in the case of co-defendants who might have had similar pre-court histories but where one was aged 15 and the other 16. In such cases, the current provisions might result in the younger child being prosecuted and therefore obtaining a criminal record while the older co-defendant would be eligible for a conditional caution. The current proposals are counterproductive. The available evidence suggests that the risk of a child becoming a persistent offender is related to the age at which he or she receives a first court conviction. Given that the purpose of the youth conditional caution is in part to counteract the recent rises in the numbers of children going to court, the rate of increase since 2002 in those coming to the attention of the youth justice system has been higher for children below the age of 15 than for those above that age. Our amendments would ensure that the youth conditional caution would be available to all those over the age of 10, and would require an appropriate adult to be present when the effect of a youth conditional caution, and the implications of non-compliance, are explained to a child under 17. The amendments have the support of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, which acknowledges that additional safeguards may be required for younger children but considers that these could be adequately accommodated in the proposed code of practice. I remind the Committee that the Minister in the other place said on Report: "““I have not ruled out considering extending conditional cautions to 10 to 15-year-olds. I want to look at the matter in more detail so I am unable to bring forward such proposals at the moment, but I hope that he will take me at my word””—" he was responding to the amendment— "““when I say that we are looking at that in a serious and effective way””.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/08; col. 423.]" I hope that the Government will indeed look at these amendments seriously and effectively. Noble Lords who were in the Chamber some half an hour ago will have heard the very combative exchange between the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Henley, who seemed to be ““up-tariffing”” their ability to bring forth, as representatives of respective Governments, worse and worse criminal justice legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, reminded the Committee that Liberals had not had an opportunity to bring forth any criminal justice Bills in recent years. It is true that we may not have had an opportunity to bring forth Bills in recent times, but no one in the Chamber will doubt our desire to improve the legislation that really should not be in front of us in this manner. I move the amendment in that spirit today. I beg to move.