New
Clause
24
Provision
of attendance centres
‘(1)
Section 221 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (provision of
attendance centres) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection (1)
after “provide attendance centres”, insert “for
offenders aged 18 and under 21; and through the Youth Justice Board to
provide funding for attendance centres for offenders aged 10 and under
18”.
(3) After
subsection (1)
insert—
“(1A)
Youth offending teams may provide attendance centres for offenders aged
10 and under 18.”
(4) In
subsection (2) for “25” substitute
“21”.
(5) In
subsection (3) after “centres”, insert “for
offenders aged 18 and under
21”.
(6) After
subsection (3)
insert—
“(4) For
the purpose of providing attendance centres, youth offending teams may
make arrangements with any authority or organisation for the use of
their premises.”’.—[Mr.
Heath.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Heath:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The new clause
extends to youth offending teams the capacity to provide attendance
centres for offenders aged 10 and under 18 and to make arrangements
with any authority organisation for the use of their premises or to
provide attendance centres for offenders aged 18 and under
21.
Mr.
Garnier:
We probably do not need this new clause, but it
provides me with an opportunity to mention a matter of pretty
widespread concern, namely the way in which we deal with teenage
offenders. I do not want to say too much about this because we have
discussed it before. I do not know whether the Minister knows this, but
I regret to say that this morning a 15-year-old boy hanged himself at
Lancaster Farms young offenders institution. He was the 30th boy of
that, or that sort of age, to have died in custody since 1990 or it may
even be since 2000. In any event, it is an appalling tragedy,
irrespective of what caused that youngster to be in custody in the
first place. It gives us a good reason to think carefully about how we
incarcerate youngsters, while at the same time bearing in mind the need
to protect the public from criminal activity. I do not need to say any
more. I am sure that the Minister will have plenty to
say.
Ms
Keeble:
I also wanted to pick up on the
same point either on this or a later new clause. It concerns the
appropriate sentences and the provision of facilities for young
offenders. The young person concerned had a sentence of only one month
and 14 days and had been taken back to prison because of a breach of
his licence. That such a short custodial sentence should result in the
loss of life makes one wonder about sentencing policies, whether the
alternatives to custody are sufficient and appropriate and exactly what
we are doing with these young people. I was closely involved in an
earlier case in which the death, sadly, was not suicide. If we are
sending young people to custodial institutions that are unable to ensure
their safety for quite short periods of time, there must be general
questioning of the type of sentence and the type of security that we
provide for them. The loss of this young boy—the 30th since
1990—is completely
disproportionate.
Mr.
Hanson:
May I confirm to the Committee
that Liam McManus was found dead in his cell at 7.45 this morning at
Lancaster Farms. Liam, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton,
North and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough have confirmed,
entered the institution on 8 November and was sentenced to one month
and 14 days following an earlier breach of his licence. He had not been
identified as being at risk of self-harm and he was indeed in a single
cell at the time of his death. Obviously, I regret Liam’s death
and express my condolences to his family, who, I believe, are from the
St. Helens area of the north-west of England. As is normal in these
cases, the prison and probation ombudsman will be investigating and it
would be inappropriate of me to prejudge that investigation still
further, apart from giving the Committee the broad facts of
Liam’s death this
morning.
Obviously
I remain concerned in general terms about the potential for self-harm,
not just in young people’s institutions, secure training centres
and elsewhere, but in the adult prison estate as well. My hon. Friend
the Under-Secretary of State for Justice deals very closely with a
suicide prevention group and is doing considerable work in the
Department with such groups to try to reduce self-harm.
The Committee will understand
that it is in nobody’s interests not to take adequate steps to
prevent such self-harm. If there are lessons to be learned from the
incident this morning and from other incidents, we will obviously seek
to learn from them. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North
and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough will know that, in
general terms, we have established a review of some aspects of the
juvenile estate in terms of restraint at the moment. I am happy to
receive representations from Members on any issues that they feel can
be improved.
Ms
Keeble:
Can my right hon. Friend say something about the
assessment of whether somebody is considered a suicide risk? I have
written to him about the case of another of my constituents, a young
man whose mother fears for his mental health, even though the
institution where he is being held says that he is doing fine. I am
concerned about such discrepancies and about the robustness of the
assessments that are undertaken. I have written to my right hon. Friend
about this case. Could he just double-check who conducted the
assessment and ensure that it is
accurate?
Mr.
Hanson:
I will certainly look at the case that my hon.
Friend has referred to me. There is a professional judgment to be made
about the potential for self-harm of any individual who enters the
prison system, young offenders institutions or secure training
centres.
In the case of
Liam McManus, once again I do not wish to prejudge the prison and
probation ombudsman’s report but my initial understanding is
that he was not
identified as being at possible risk of self-harm. The ombudsman will
investigate this case and make a report, as he does on every
self-inflicted death. Obviously that report will be published and
Members, including the Member of Parliament for Liam’s
constituency, can comment on it then.
Mr.
Garnier:
May I make one request in relation to this tragic
case? The coroner’s inquest into the suicide in 2005 of Gareth
Price at the same young offenders institution, which I visited in
October this year, only began earlier this month. Therefore, nearly two
years have elapsed between the death and the beginning of the
coroner’s hearing. There may be all sorts of good reasons for
that delay in coroner’s proceedings, but it is one of
the things that families of the deceased worry most
about. If there is anything that the Minister or his officials can do
to ensure that the necessary inquest that will follow today’s
sad news can be expedited, I am sure that the young man’s family
will be greatly
assisted.
5.45
pm
Mr.
Hanson:
Again, it is in everybody’s interests that
such inquests take place as quickly as possible. The hon. and learned
Gentleman will know that the inquest into Gareth Price, who was aged 16
and found dead in similar circumstances in Lancaster Farms young
offenders institution in January 2005, opened on 5 November 2007 at
Lancaster shire hall. Sadly, his was not the last such death; the last
death on the under-18 estate was that of Sam Elphick, who died at
Hindley Green young offenders institution near Wigan on 15 September
2005. Every such death is a tragedy and obviously we wish to see that
the lessons are learned from them. I assure the hon. and learned
Gentleman and my hon. Friend that we will consider the prison and
probation service ombudsman’s report into that case and learn
whatever lessons we can to prevent such incidents in the
future.
I am not able
to accept the new clause that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome so
ably introduced. It would have a direct impact on the ability of the
courts to use attendance centres as a requirement under the adult
community order and as an option for dealing with adult violent
offenders. It might lead to greater use of custody, it would damage the
viability of attendance centres, and its approach to the Secretary of
State and the Youth Justice Board would not be helpful. Having said all
that, I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that a review is ongoing
into the use of attendance centres, and we are examining where they
should sit within the youth justice system, with regard to youth
offending services and adult offender management. I hope that he will
allow me to receive the review and make recommendations in due course
to the House.
Mr.
Heath:
My brevity in introducing the new clause was
because I felt that we had dealt with many of its issues during the
early aspects of the Bill. The response that the Minister has just
given, however, suggests that, although the new clause would be a
terribly bad idea and a disaster for the entire system, the ongoing
review may actually recommend it as the right way forward, in which
case his view will reverse. So be it. It was worth putting the new
clause before the Committee.
I cannot but refer to the point
that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made, and which I
intended to make under new clause 57, standing in my name, which deals
with the custody of young offenders rather than with the provision of
attendance centres. The situation under discussion is tragic. We had
for the most part yesterday on the Floor of the House a good and
reasoned debate about the prisons estate, the way in which we deal with
young offenders and the fact that far too many young people serve
custodial sentences. It is extraordinary that this country feels the
need to imprison so many more young people than any comparable
country—comparable, because there are other countries that
imprison more. It is sad, too. It suggests a societal breakdown that we
ought to regret deeply.
It is even more regrettable when
a young person is put into a prison environment and they take their own
life. It happens far too often, and every incident should be a scar on
our collective conscience. We will deal with those issues later, when I
shall have more to say about the later new clauses. At this point,
however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and
clause, by
leave, withdrawn.
New Clause
25
Offence
of pretending to be a legal
executive
‘(1) It is an
offence for a person who is not a legal
executive—
(a) wilfully
to pretend to be a legal executive,
or
(b) with the intention of
implying falsely that that person is a legal executive, to take or use
any name, title or description.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under
subsection (1) is
liable—
(a) on summary
conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a
fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both),
and
(b) on conviction on
indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine
(or both).
(3) In relation to
an offence under subsection (1) committed before the commencement of
section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the reference
in subsection (2)(a) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to six
months.
(4) In this section
“legal executive” means a Fellow of the Institute of
Legal Executives.’.—[Mr.
Burrowes.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Burrowes:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The new clause
replicates a similar clause that was introduced during the passage of
the Legal Services Act 2007, for which I was a Committee member. It was
buried deep within the recesses of that legislation, and it did not
receive the light that it deserved in order to allow proper
consideration of whether legal executives should be protected by way of
their title. The point of this new clause is that all users of legal
services should be clear that anyone who claims to be a legal executive
is in fact professionally qualified, able to exercise such rights as
are granted to fellows, and subject to regulation. The reason for
including the definition that
“‘legal
executive’ means a Fellow of the Institute of Legal
Executives”
is that the
Institute of Legal Executives’ membership restricts the use of
the term “legal executive” to fellows of ILEX. All
members of ILEX—there are 23,000—recognise that the 7,000
who are fellows are properly entitled to call themselves legal
executives but others are not. That is a condition of
membership.
ILEX
members’ concern is that non-members, who are not constrained by
ILEX regulation, should not hold themselves out as legal executives.
There are examples of that happening in a wide variety of legal areas
in which legal executives involve themselves. Proper regulation and
protection of the title of legal executive under statute is in the
public interest, given that legal executives involve themselves in
immigration advice, claims management services and many other areas,
such as unopposed applications in county court proceedings. They also
act as commissioners for oaths.
I do not wish to go
through the debates on the Legal Services Bill, which took up a good
deal of time, but it is important, particularly given the extension of
services and the opportunity to manage and partner in the matter of
legal services, that the term “legal executive” should be
clarified. It is in consumers’ interests to be properly assured
that those providing legal services are competent and regulated. The
new clause would provide such protection, which currently covers other
persons who provide legal services but not legal
executives.
It is also
important to focus the term on fellows of the Institute of Legal
Executives. In discussions of the Legal Services Bill, concern was
expressed that protecting the title of legal executive could cause
other grades of ILEX member to become liable to prosecution. However,
given that ILEX membership restricts the use of the title to fellows,
the new clause would provide a focused way to deal with a problem that
could arise increasingly as legal services are extended to many areas.
Perhaps it would be more appropriate to deal with the matter through
regulatory provisions in the Legal Services Bill, but this is an
opportunity that ILEX, perhaps not surprisingly, says is not to be
missed.
Maria
Eagle:
An admirable speech from the hon. Member for
Somerton and Frome.
The Government
take consumer protection seriously, as the hon. Member for Enfield,
Southgate will be aware, having sat through proceedings on the Legal
Services Bill, now an Act—it is a key principle of that
legislation. I recognise fully the advantages of ensuring that
consumers are clear who can use the title of legal executive. Making it
an offence to pretend to be a legal executive is one way to achieve
that.
The Legal
Services Act 2007 already takes steps to protect consumers by ensuring
that only qualified individuals who comply with an appropriate
regulatory regime can provide legal services. It is therefore an
offence for unqualified persons to carry on reserved legal activities or
pretend to be entitled to do so. In addition, the titles of solicitor
and barrister are specifically
protected. Following
debate on the Legal Services Bill in the other place, the Government
were persuaded of the need for an offence of pretending to be a
barrister and introduced an amendment to that effect. The argument for
protecting a professional title and creating a new offence must be
considered case by case, as not all professional titles are protected
in statute. It is sensible to consider in each case whether such
protection is
needed.
The Institute
of Legal Executives has approached the Department to discuss the issue.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon.
Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), has written to the noble
Lord Hunt of Wirral stating her views. Although the Government accept
the rationale behind the new clause, we have yet to be persuaded that
the title of legal executive should be protected or that the new clause
is as technically perfect as it needs to be, although that is a minor
point. I am perfectly happy to discuss their concerns further with the
hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and the Institute for Legal
Executives. We do not know whether the institute has yet consulted with
its members or with consumers, and would be interested to hear what
they have to say before considering fully whether such a measure is the
right way forward. However, the Government are happy to continue those
discussions with ILEX and with other relevant stakeholders and
interested parties, and examine whether further protection is required.
At this stage, however, we are not ready to concur, so I hope that the
hon. Gentleman will not seek to press his new
clause.
Mr.
Burrowes:
I am grateful for the hope that that offers to
ILEX and to others. Reference was made to the Legal Services Act. The
point that parties such as ILEX wish to make, which is a good one, is
that, of the various types of legal practitioner referred to in the
Act, legal executives constitute the only established professional
group that does not have statutory protection. They believe that it
should be clear that their powers are exercised in accordance with the
wishes of Parliament and that individuals who rightly claim to be legal
executives should be given appropriate protection. However, I welcome
the indication that there will be further discussion and consideration,
and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
| 
