Clause
84
Qualifying
offenders
Mr.
Heath:
I beg to move amendment No. 352, in
clause 84, page 57, line 39, after
‘person’, insert ‘aged 18 years or
above’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to take
Government amendments Nos. 212 and 239, and Government new clause
37— Review of violent offender orders in respect of young
offenders
.
Mr.
Heath:
We are back to the issue of how we apply the
various criminal sanctions to those who are under 18, as opposed to
those who are 18 and over, and whether a difference should apply now. I
feel that perhaps I am pushing a slightly open door because I have
looked carefully at the Government’s amendments, which spend 50
or 60 lines moving in the direction of my simple amendment consisting
of five words. Perhaps there is an element of doubt in the mind of the
Minister as to whether it is appropriate to apply violent offender
orders to those who are under 18 at the time of the implementation of
the order. I emphasise that point because there will be some young
people who have served a sentence for a violent offence, who would be
subject to a qualifying offence but will have passed their 18th
birthday by the time they can receive an order. I will state very
quickly why it would be sensible to make the
limitation.
The first
point is the general case, which we have explored several times in the
Committee, that there should be a different penal system for young
people from that which applies to adults. The second point is about the
number of people who are under 18 to whom violent offender orders would
apply. In a moment I will ask the Minister to justify the existence of
these orders, particularly with the further restrictions that he is
proposing through the amendments, but I am advised by the Standing
Committee for Youth Justice, which has done some work on this regarding
criminal statistics, that well under 1,000 young people commit a range
of offences that are eligible for VOOs. Of those, only a few dozen
receive a qualifying sentence—one of 12 months or more. Of those
few dozen, very few will not be over 18 by the time they are released,
so the measure will apply to very few individuals, unless we get the
sort of inflation that there has been in the world of ASBOs. It is a
shame that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is not
with us because he would have a lot to tell us about ASBOs and how they
were never intended to apply to young people. Perhaps that is why he
has been allowed a leave of absence for this afternoon’s
sitting; the fact that he is unavailable to make that speech has
reduced our proceedings considerably. I will presume to make the point
for him, as it is one that he has made forcefully on a number of
occasions.
The next
point is whether a violent offender order is likely to be either
appropriate or effective in the case of a young person. I accept that
within the orders there are positives as well as prohibitions, and
therefore there are some aspects that could be seen as of value to a
young person. Having said that, there are other ways of achieving those
objectives without applying a violent offender order as a
mechanism.
6 pm
Finally, we
already have a different way of managing young people on release if
they represent a risk to others. We have reporting requirements that
are more stringent for young people than for adults, and we have youth
offending teams, which the Government always seem to forget until they
bring back a proposal and then are reminded that such teams
exist—perhaps they should listen to what they have to say in
respect of young people. Such teams were the invention of this
Government and their role is to assess the risk of serious harm and to
develop a risk management plan. That is exactly the area in which the
violent offender orders are intended to work. If the risk is really
serious, we are talking about multi-agency public protection
arrangements as well. They are a much more stringent regime than
anything that a violent offender order is likely to offer.
Whatever the
justification for violent offender orders in respect of adults, it is
thus hard to substantiate a case for applying them to a person under
the age of 18. It is hard to read the Government’s amendments
without forming the view that they have reached the same conclusion.
New clause 37 sets out a long list of requirements for under-18s.
Government amendment No. 212 will introduce the need to consult youth
offending teams. Quite honestly, if all the Government amendments are
necessary, would it not be better to say that the violent offender
order does not apply to young people and that we use the youth
offending teams and multi-agency public protection arrangements in the
case of more serious risk? In other cases we use the apparatus that the
Government have put in place, which has not been deficient in this
specific area and which will do the job extremely well. I look forward
to hearing the Minister’s convoluted way of justifying something
that is very hard to
justify.
Mr.
Burrowes:
I endorse many of the comments made by
the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The convoluted way in which the
Government have sought to deal with young offenders might be a response
to the amendment that he tabled. It also illustrates the problems
inherent within the violent offender orders. The more they try to deal
with offenders who need special consideration, the more one sees that
they have problems. That seems to be highlighted by the new clause and
the way in which it will deal with those who are under 18, and those
who are under 17 when the orders are made, and the complications that
arise. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to
amendment No. 352 and his justification for the new clause. Although it
might improve the situation, it could raise more questions than answers
about the need for offender orders in the first
place.
Mr.
Coaker:
Just because ideas are proposed by other
hon. Members, it does not mean that I will reject them—that is
one of the things that I try to bring to Committees. There are issues
about under-18s that need to be considered. I do not believe that
anyone here wants to criminalise young people. In fact, in our earlier
proceedings, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State spent a
considerable amount of time debating that whole issue. Without
digressing too far, because I will speak to the amendments about the
application of
violent offender orders to under-18s, we need to consider how we deal
with young offenders. There is a real dilemma here. The Government have
introduced all sorts of measures to try to ensure that we keep young
people out of prison—or out of the criminal justice
system—as far as we can. When addressing the small number of
people who may cause a problem—I shall mention the numbers in a
minute—it is incumbent on us to ensure that we protect
communities. That is something to reflect
on.
I
shall put this thought into the minds of Committee members, including
the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Somerton and Frome:
there are some quite dangerous, violent young people under 18—I
am not saying that hon. Members would disagree with that—and
many of their victims are not 70-year-old pensioners, although that is
what people believe from reading the newspapers, but other young people
who are under 18. That is a huge dilemma. That is part of what this
discussion and debate are about. Although we do not want to criminalise
young people and make them subject to violent offender orders, it is
because of our desire not to do so that we need to ensure that we have
in place processes, procedures, a criminal justice system, and other
civil orders, that protect other young
people.
There
is a difficult balance to strike and this is a difficult debate. I do
not for one moment suggest that either of the hon. Gentlemen who have
spoken want to put other young people in danger, but there is tension
and difficulty here. Although we do not want many young people to be
subject to violent offender orders, our view is that, for a very small
number, those orders should be available to the
courts.
To
give a specific answer to the question that the hon. Member for
Somerton and Frome asked, we estimate that the number is 20. That
estimate in respect of such people for whom violent offender orders may
be appropriate came from the Youth Justice Board, which also advised us
that the figure could be less than 20. I hope that that answers the
hon. Gentleman’s specific point about the
numbers.
On
the amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for
Cambridge—and, indeed, the Government amendments—we have
considered in detail whether violent offender orders should apply to
young people. That matter was specifically raised as part of the
Government’s consultation on the orders earlier this year. This
is a difficult issue that none of us likes to contemplate. The
Committee will be aware that the primary aim of violent offender orders
is to protect the public from the most serious violent offenders, a
small number of whom, unfortunately, will inevitably be under 18. We
therefore believe that violent offender orders must apply to both
adults and young
people.
More
than 70 per cent. of respondents to the consultation, including the
Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers,
the Police Federation, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation
and the Association of District Judges, agreed that violent offender
orders should be applied to young people in some way. We have no wish
to apply new interventions such as violent offender orders to young
people without due thought and consideration about their
appropriateness. Because of that, and in recognition of the dynamic
nature of risk and risk management in
respect of young people, we have been working closely with the Youth
Justice Board to develop the appropriate, effective procedures and
practices for the application of violent offender orders to young
people that are set out in the Government amendments. We are trying to
reflect some of the issues that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome
has raised. The provisions will not go as far as he wants, but they
will hopefully include some
safeguards. Government
amendment No. 212 will require the chief police officer to consult a
member of a youth offending team prior to making an application for a
violent offender order in respect of an individual under 18 to ensure
that an order is necessary and appropriate. A youth offending team
would already have been managing the young person following their
serious offence and throughout their time in custody. That
team’s advice on whether an order would be necessary or
appropriate would be based on its extensive knowledge of the
individual, including their offending history, family, accommodation,
education, health, and needs with regard to substance misuse. It will
also know what work has gone on with the young person to tackle their
violent behaviour during the course of their sentence. It is important
that all that information is taken into account when deciding whether
to apply for a violent offender order for a young
person.
Government
amendment No. 239 will amend section 38 of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998 to enable youth offending teams to provide support to individuals
below the age of 18 who are subject to such an order or interim order.
Section 38(1) of the Act places a statutory duty on local authorities
to make specified youth justice services available in the local area.
The amendment adds to that list of specified youth justice services and
requires the youth offending team to co-ordinate the provision of
support for children and young people subject to an order or interim
order.
I
have already explained how a youth offending team manages a young
person following their serious offence and throughout their time in
custody, and how it will have built up an extensive knowledge of that
young person. Inevitably there will be instances when a young person
refuses that support. We cannot, of course, compel a young person to
accept an offer of support, but none the less we feel that it should be
made available in all
cases.
We
are currently working with the Youth Justice Board to consider the
types of support packages that could be offered to
individuals.
Ms
Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Will my hon.
Friend tell us what attention is being paid to ensuring that the youth
offending teams are adequately staffed? Some have mentioned the
considerable pressures in dealing with their current work loads. How
will that work in
practice?
Mr.
Coaker:
We are talking to the Youth
Justice Board about how to ensure that those subject to violent
offender orders can be properly managed by the youth offending teams
using the resources available to them. We do not think that that will
involve a huge number of young people, but I take the point that many
of them will be quite resource intensive. We are discussing that with
the board, however, to ensure that adequate resources are
available.
Finally, new
clause 37 introduces mandatory annual reviews of violent offender
orders for individuals below the age of 17, which will help to ensure
that orders made in respect of young people apply only for as long as
the risk posed by them is assessed as sufficiently high to warrant it.
That mirrors annual reviews for antisocial behaviour orders for
individuals below the age of 18, which are being introduced by this
Bill. A review will take place every 12 months after a violent offender
order, or interim violent offender order, has been made, or was last
varied or renewed, provided that the young person is still under
18.
I take to
heart the points made about under-18s. We do not want them made subject
to violent offender orders, but believe that that will be appropriate
for a small number. We have tried, through the Government amendments,
to take into account the concerns of people such as the hon. Members
for Somerton and Frome and for Enfield, Southgate. We have tried to
introduce into the Bill various safeguards that we hope go some way
towards meeting those concerns while also ensuring that we do what we
can to protect the public. With those remarks, I hope that the hon.
Member for Somerton and Frome will withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Heath:
It is difficult to pick a fight
with the Minister. He presents himself extremely reasonably. I think
that the Government amendments are a clear admission of the fact that
the provision is unnecessary and that other routes are available. The
case is self-evident. Having said that, my amendment would change the
terms of the orders—admittedly in a very longwinded and complex
way—and address a lot of my points. I shall reflect on whether
there are circumstances for the fewer than 20 young people—so we
are told—in which the violent offender order takes us any
further than the existing reporting structures, risk assessments and
the rest of the panoply associated with a youth offending team’s
management of a case and the MAPPA restrictions. If it is clear that
the order makes a significant difference to even a few, I shall not
return to the issue on Report.
6.15
pm
I
shall reconsider the issue, and reconsider very carefully the
amendments, which I shall not oppose, because they represent movement
in the right direction. However, if I feel that the case has still not
been made, I shall return to the matter because I feel very strongly
that we must be very careful indeed when applying yet more criminal law
to young people—even when they are pretty horrible young people
who commit serious offences and from whom the public need protection.
Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
| 
