Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

moved Amendment No. 44: 44: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— ““Secure accommodation for children and young persons convicted of a criminal offence (1) After section 89 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) insert— ““89A Detention orders (1) This section applies where a child or young person (under 21 years of age) is convicted of a criminal offence and a court makes an order that that child or young person should be detained. (2) A local authority must provide suitable premises in which that child or young person can be securely accommodated and appropriate care and support provided. (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the provision of suitable premises under subsection (2).”” (2) In section 27(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (c. 58) (remand of persons aged 17 to 20) omit the words— (a) ““, if the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that a remand centre is available for the reception from the court of persons of his class or description, ””, and (b) ““and, if it has not been so notified, it shall commit him to a prison.”” (3) In section 43(2) of the Prisons Act 1952 (c. 52) (remand centres, detention centres and youth custody centres) omit paragraph (c). (4) For section 106 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 substitute— ““106 Interaction with sentences of detention in a young offender institution (1) Where a court passes a sentence of detention in a young offender institution in the case of an offender who is subject to a detention and training order, the sentence shall take effect as follows— (a) if the offender has been released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102 above, at the beginning of the day on which it is passed; (b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102. (2) Where a court makes a detention and training order in the case of an offender who is subject to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, the order shall take effect as follows— (a) if the offender has been released under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release of prisoners), at the beginning of the day on which it is made; (b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released under that Part. (3) Subsection (1)(a) above has effect subject to section 105(3)(a) above and subsection (2)(a) above has effect subject to section 116(6)(b) below. (4) Subject to subsection (5) below, where at any time an offender is subject concurrently— (a) to a detention and training order, and (b) to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, he shall be treated for the purposes of sections 102 to 105 above and of section 98 above (place of detention), Chapter IV of this Part (return to detention) and Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release) as if he were subject only to the one of them that was imposed on the later occasion. (5) Nothing in subsection (4) above shall require the offender to be released in respect of either the order or the sentence unless and until he is required to be released in respect of each of them. (6) Where, by virtue of any enactment giving a court power to deal with a person in a way in which a court on a previous occasion could have dealt with him, a detention and training order for any term is made in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18, the person shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to detention in a young offender institution for the same term.”” (5) Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life, etc.) is repealed.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I remind noble Lords that I speak as former national president of the YMCA which of course works very much in this area. I should also like to place on record my warm appreciation to those who put their names to this amendment. Indeed, I have heard that more noble Lords wanted to put their names to the amendment than were able to do so, which illustrates the strength of feeling on this issue in the House. The amendment is quite complicated, legally—I recognise that—and as I said in Committee I am very grateful to those with good legal minds who told me how it should be phrased. I was happy to accept their advice. The purpose of the amendment is to move to a situation in which no young person or child is put into custody unless special purpose-provided accommodation is arranged by the local authority, wherever it may be. Some have argued that to say that a child must never be put into custody unless those purpose-provided arrangements are available is pushing it too far, because there will always be exceptions. That sounds a very reasonable observation, but my experience is that it is a very dangerous one. As long as one recognises the possibility of exceptions, there will always be a tendency for people to rationalise that a particular case is an exception and that therefore it is necessary to put a child into the wrong kind of custody. That is sometimes just from inertia and sometimes just out of convenience. We have reached the stage when we must say that it is never going to happen—so we need to make sure that the alternative proper accommodation is available. Other countries have done this, and I cannot see why we have to lag behind. Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that custody should be a measure of last resort, and for the shortest possible time. I do not want to pull punches this afternoon, because it would not help my noble friend if I did. Our profligate use of custody does not conform to that principle and, too often, in effect, still constitutes a form of state-inflicted violence on young people, victimising children. With some notable and imaginative exceptions, for which prison staff and the non-governmental organisations involved cannot be too highly commended, I argue that custody as it currently operates is just not achieving positive results. The facts speak for themselves: custody does not prevent reoffending or help to make our communities safer. Eighty per cent of under-18 year-olds sentenced to custody reoffend within two years, while 30 per cent of children released from STSs reoffend within one month. It does not provide respite; custody moves crime but does not stop it. Prisons holding young people are frequently violent, drug-ridden centres of crime. Between 2003 and 2006, 18,000 assaults were recorded inside young offender institutions. It is no exaggeration to say that custody kills children. In 2007, three 15-to-18 year-olds and four 19-to-20 year-olds took their own lives in prison. Since 2000, 79 people aged under 21 have committed suicide in prison. More than 1,000 incidents of self-injury by juveniles in prison were recorded in 2006. I cannot believe that I am alone in asking what kind of society we are living in that we just drift along accepting this nightmare and what is happening under our noses. Prisons do not work for young people. There is very little exercise, activity or education, even in the juvenile prisons that have had huge additional funding. In Feltham, for example, a new education block was built, but it can accommodate only half the juveniles at any time. In Brinsford Young Offender Institution, the Chief Inspector of Prisons found that children never went outside for exercise, and that prison holds 473 boys aged 15 to 21. The training and educational levels required of prison officers remain fairly minimal. I do not in any way want to underestimate the daunting task with which they are confronted, nor do I want to underestimate the heroic efforts of some prison staff in dealing with young people, but in this general context, it is disturbing to note that prison officers recently asked for stays because they cannot control children. I hope that I can take an example from my own experience in education: it was from a much more primitive age, but in a first-class school to which I was privileged to go. Some masters used the cane and some taught. Perhaps that is an oversimplification, but discipline problems did not arise with some members of staff who managed to engage the attention and participation of the young. Others had to rely on deterrents to encourage the young to learn. Similarly, it is worrying that the first thing that happens to a young person on reception to prison is a forcible strip search. Secure training centres exacerbate the problem. I question whether there are not real moral issues involved in the concept of running children's jails for profit. What are children's jails about—profit or the very things that we discussed at length and in depth on a previous amendment? Whatever the arguments in that context, secure training centres clearly fail to solve the children's problems. They have had serious incidents of disorder and death, and they rely on excessive use of physical violence by staff. I am sorry if I sound irate about this issue, but I am irate about it. I feel, powerfully, that as a civilised society, the time has come to take a complete change of direction. We have to say that this kind of custody is never going to happen any more. Until we say ““never”” and therefore have to introduce alternative purpose-built accommodation, that will not happen. And, please, do not let anyone in the tabloid media or elsewhere say that what is being argued is the soft option. It is the tough option. What has too often been called for by the ill-informed media is something which in effect makes a bad situation worse, causes more crime in society, further distorts the odds against the young and is totally counterproductive. In the spirit of all that my noble friend said in introducing the government amendment earlier, I profoundly hope that he can be really reassuring to the House this afternoon. I beg to move.