| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mark Pritchard: Does my hon. Friend agree that localism would be enhanced by directly elected police commissioners setting local priorities, rather than by local priorities being set in Whitehall by the Home Secretary?
James Brokenshire: I agree that the local community should have a greater sense of control. The regionalisation debate is framed by the fact that local people feel powerless when it comes to influencing the direction and emphasis of local policing. My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, and I look forward to developing that thought process on ensuring that local communities have a greater say and a greater involvement in how local policing is undertaken in their areas. The Bill is a missed opportunity to promote, debate, discuss and emphasise such approaches.
My second point concerns the creation of the new chief inspector for justice, community safety and custody. I know that that process has been driven to some extent by the Gershon savings that the Chancellor has sought to impose to make the inspectorates more efficient, but my concern is that the inspectorates should not become less effective. I know that the loss of the chief inspector of prisons has rung alarm bells at a time when standards in prisons and, in particular, standards in young people's secure accommodation are at the forefront, given the Carlile inquiry on children in secure accommodation.
I note that the Bill contains specific provisions on how the inspection of prisons is undertaken, but the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers,
"remains concerned that, over time and in practice, the sharp focus and robustly independent voice of the Prisons Inspectorate may be lost or muffled within a larger whole."
Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust has also emphasised that view:
"The sharp focus on the treatment of prisoners and prison conditions, and the immense authority carried by a succession of post holders and admired across the world cannot but be diluted by these new suggested arrangements."
That concern is clearly significant, and I note that the Home Secretary referred to it in his initial comments. When a combination of all the inspectorates is brought to bear, it is important that the standards, knowledge and ability that allow proper inspections to take place are maintained.
My final point builds on the strong comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on the opportunity to review the Extradition Act 2003. Although the Bill includes some amendments to the 2003 Act, I am disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to address the manifestly unjust and unfair arrangements that have sprung up as a result of the 2003 Act, which are shown most acutely in the current relationship between the United States and this country.
The Prime Minister has said that the Bill is intended to address issues of terrorism, and there is a broad consensus on the need to be able to deal with those
6 Mar 2006 : Column 660
suspected of terrorism efficiently and effectively, but the operation of the 2003 Act has not been limited to such cases. I do not intend to stray into commenting on individual cases, but it seems strange that there appears to be no direct reciprocity between the US and the UK. The situation is imbalanced, because the UK must make out some form of prima facie case in seeking to extradite people from the United States to this country, yet that does not happen in reverse. The fact that we must make a basic case, whereas the US does not, strikes me as iniquitous and grossly unfair.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of any specific case, it is clear that the current arrangements with the US could lead to significant miscarriages of justice and that the Government have failed to stand up for the interests of the citizens of this country. The Home Office has the opportunity to do something about that in this Bill, and for the sake of justice I urge it to seize the opportunity to address the serious imbalance in the extradition arrangements between the US and the UK.
6.56 pm
Annette Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I apologise for not being present at the beginning of this important debate, although I have contacted the Speaker's office to explain why.
I share the concerns expressed by hon. Members while I have been in the Chamber about the proposed amalgamation of police forces. I am particularly sad that the federation model has been rejected for Dorset, because it is what people really want.
I shall comment on the Bill in relation to children and young people, who are often blamed for crime and, in particular, antisocial behaviour. Although young people may be involved in many instances of antisocial behaviour, it is untrue to say that they are always responsible, and I share the concerns expressed by many organisations that we must not demonise young people. Even if we accept that some children and young people cause antisocial behaviour, we must remember that a large number of young people are the victims of antisocial behaviour.
When we consider the children and young people who may cause antisocial behaviour or crime, we must examine the reasons for their behaviour. I welcome the recognition by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) of the importance of youth services. I have said many times that we started with enforcement and punishment, but that we should have paid much more attention to understanding underlying causes and implementing preventive measures at an earlier stage. I welcome the statement within the respect action plan that we must tackle root causes with the same vigour and determination with which we have taken on antisocial behaviour. It is important to get the right balance between enforcement on antisocial behaviour and tackling the causes of antisocial behaviour.
Clause 4 includes new proposals on community support officers, and I welcome the increase in the number of CSOs. I have been impressed by the contribution made by the few CSOs whom I have met in my constituency, where we would like our fair share of the proposed sixfold increase. CSOs have walked around and engaged with young people, and their job involves balancing enforcement with part of the role of
6 Mar 2006 : Column 661
a youth support worker. It is important that the standard set of powers that they will have should be accompanied by statutory requirements for training. A recent Home Office evaluation of the role of CSOs found that many of them expressed concern about that. If there is to be more training, resources will need to be made available to ensure that CSOs receive adequate and appropriate training on how to work effectively, safely and appropriately with children and young people.
The Children's Society, on behalf of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, calls for the proposed training to include an understanding of child protection and the procedures and services that will enable CSOs to act in the best interests of children, instead of taking a straightforward enforcement approach to their situation and behaviour. At a local level, it argues that such training should be consistent with the local safeguarding children's board arrangements and responsibilities for training. Will the Minister therefore ensure that there is full co-operation with her colleague the Minister for Children and Families?
Clause 5 contains a proposal to introduce a new function for CSOs to allow them to remove young people of school age whom they believe to be absent from school without lawful authority—in other words, an extension of sweeping. I have a few concerns about that. The National Foundation for Educational Research concluded that although truancy sweeps had been successful, in terms of the numbers of young people picked up, and had raised awareness of the issue, it was
We need, as always, to get the right balance between enforcement and measures that will encourage children to attend school. Merely sweeping and punishing does not solve the problem. There may be a great need to address family difficulties that are part and parcel of the reason why the child or young person is staying away from school. Perhaps the Department for Education and Skills should be thinking about the curriculum.
There are many reasons why young people truant. One of my great concerns has been young carers getting caught up in sweeps. Young carers have many reasons for being unable to attend school. Sometimes the calls on them from home are such that they cannot get there. It is a difficult choice for them. There is clearly a need for greater support for this invisible army of young people, an enormous number of whom—up to 100,000—are giving up large portions of their lives and may get caught up in truancy sweeps in the process. Of course, some young people need to be caught and dealt with appropriately, but it should not be a blanket measure—there should be an understanding of the underlying problems.
Clause 15 places a duty on ward councillors to respond to a call for action from anybody living or working in the area that they represent about a crime and disorder matter in that area. There are concerns that that mechanism could stigmatise young people and alienate them from their communities. For example, it could lead to an extension of the use of naming and shaming by publicly identifying individual children or
6 Mar 2006 : Column 662
families. I have spoken out before about my deep concern about naming and shaming in relation to antisocial behaviour orders. That might sometimes work in terms of protecting a community, but ASBOs have been imposed on children with learning difficulties and mental disorders, and it is outrageous to name and shame such children and families. Concern about such behaviour is probably the most frequently raised issue in our surgeries, but we have to tackle it in the right way. It is all too easy for people to say that the problem is down to this family or that family. Calls for action must involve a measured response, possibly involving full consultation within the wider community, and certainly involving children and young people.
Clauses 16 and 17 cover parenting contracts and orders. When I served on the Committee on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, I was very cautious about parenting orders. I accept, as I have said publicly before, that they have been successful in some cases. I thought that parents forced to sit in parenting classes would simply fold their arms and refuse to participate, but although that might have happened sometimes, I have heard about great successes. There is a place for these measures, but again we need to look at the wider picture. Ideally, parents should co-operate voluntarily. We need widespread parenting support right across the community as a basic way of life. It should be universal, and not delivered in such a stigmatised fashion.
Poor parenting undoubtedly contributes to some of the problematic behaviour by children and young people, but it is not the only cause. Some children might misbehave in the community as a way of crying out about what is happening in the home. Perhaps they are being abused or there are problems with their parents. Children's organisations suggest that social services should carry out an assessment of need under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. The Government could be more receptive to such suggestions. We have had the tough side—let us look at some of the difficult cases in which the behaviour of children and young people has tragic causes.
Finally, I should like to comment on a very sad outcome of the Home Office's legislation. The United Kingdom locks up more children than most other industrialised countries. In 2004, in England, 4,461 children aged 15 and under were detained in custody. The total number of under-18s detained was about 10,000—enough to fill 10 secondary schools. The recently published Carlile inquiry report clearly shows the damage done to children in custodial settings. Restraint that involves the deliberate infliction of violence is used systematically in penal custody. In her annual report, published in January 2005, the chief inspector of prisons raised serious concerns about the use of physical force on children in prison. Twenty-nine children have died in custody since 1990, 28 of whom hanged themselves. One 15-year-old died after being restrained by three staff at a privately run secure training centre. Nine of those 29 children were on remand.
Children in penal custody are known to be among the most disadvantaged in our society. More than a quarter have the literacy and numeracy of an average seven year old. Eighty-five per cent. show signs of a personality disorder. More than half have been in care or involved with social services, and most have been excluded from school. The Commission for Racial Equality has shown
6 Mar 2006 : Column 663
that black children are twice as likely to end up in prison as at university. In 2004, 3,337 children who were assessed as vulnerable were nevertheless sent to young offender institutions.
Yes, we are being asked to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime and there is a need to do that. However, I make my final appeal: we must deal with the problem of all those children who are locked up in what appear to be very unsatisfactory conditions.
7.10 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |