New Clause
53
Rehabilitation
of persons convicted of offences committed under the age of
18
‘After section 1 of the
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
insert—
“1A
Rehabilitation of persons convicted of offences committed under the age
of 18
(1) Subject to subject
(2) below, where an individual has been convicted of any offence or
offences and where these were committed before the individual attained
the age of 18, then on reaching the age of 18 that individual should
automatically be treated as a rehabilitated
person.
(2) A person shall not be treated as a rehabilitated
person for the purposes of this Act under subsection (1) if the
individuals offending behaviour before the age of 18 is deemed to be
serious or persistent.
(3) The
Secretary of State shall by regulations set out the criteria and
procedures for any decisions under subsection
(2).
(4) Regulations made under
subsection (3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of either
House of Parliament.”.’.—[Mr.
Heath.]
Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Heath:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: New clause 54— Conditional
discharge
—
‘In
the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, omit section
66(4).’.
New
clause 57—Restrictions on custodial sentences for offenders
aged under
18
—
‘(1) In the
title of section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (general
restrictions on imposing discretionary custodial sentences), after
“general restrictions on imposing discretionary custodial
sentences”, insert “on offenders aged 18 or
above”.
(2) In section
152(1) of that Act after “where a person”, insert
“aged 18 or
above”.
(3) After
section 152 of that Act
insert—
“152A
Restrictions on custodial sentences for offenders aged under
18
(1) Notwithstanding anything
in this or any other Act, a court shall only pass a sentence of custody
on a person under the age of 18 as a measure of last resort and
where—
(a) the offence
committed caused or could reasonably have been expected to cause
serious physical or mental harm to another or others,
and
(b) a custodial sentence is
necessary to protect the public from a demonstrable and imminent risk
of serious physical or mental
harm.
(2) The court shall state
in open session its reasons for passing any sentence of custody under
this section.”.
(4) In
section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act
2000—
(a) after the
words “the court shall”, omit “(notwithstanding
anything in this or any other Act)”;
and
(b) after the words
“at the time the offence was committed” insert
“and if the conditions set out in section 152A of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003 are
met”.
(5) In section
91(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, before
the words “the court may” insert “and if the
conditions set out in section 152A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are
met.”.
(6) In section
100 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act
2000—
(a) in subsection
(1)(a) omit “sections 226 and 228 of the Criminal Justice Act
2003”;
(b) for
subsection (1)(b) there is
substituted—
“(b)
the court is of the opinion that the conditions set out in section 152A
of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are
met”.
(7) In the
Criminal Justice Act 2003, omit sections 226 and
228.’.
New
clause 58—Pre-sentence reports and other requirements for
persons under the age of
18
—
‘(1) At the
end of section 156 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (procedural
requirements for imposing community sentences and discretionary
custodial sentences: pre-sentence reports and other requirements)
insert—
“(9) All provisions of this section are
subject to the requirements of section 156A below in relation to
offenders aged under
18.”.
(2) After section
156 insert—
“156A
Pre-sentence reports and other requirements for persons aged under 18
before a custodial sentence may be
imposed
(1) A court shall not
pass a sentence of custody on a person under the age of 18 unless it
has obtained and considered a pre-sentence report which includes
information from the relevant local authority
stating—
(a) the
circumstances relating to the offender and the offence or offences of
which the offender has been
convicted,
(b) whether the
offender appears to be a child in need as set out in section 17 of the
Children Act 1989, and if so details of the offender’s needs as
assessed by the local authority,
and
(c) the services the local
authority has provided to meet the needs of the child or young
person.
(2) The court may
require the attendance at court of a senior official of the relevant
local authority or any other local authority in order to determine what
further services may be provided which may prevent or avoid the need
for a custodial sentence.
(3)
The court may not pass a custodial sentence unless it is
satisfied—
(a) if the
offender is a child in need, that services have been provided by the
local authority which were appropriate or sufficient to meet the
child’s needs, and
(b)
that the provision of further, or any, services by the local authority
would not prevent or avoid the need for a custodial
sentence,
unless a custodial
sentence is necessary to protect the public from an imminent and
demonstrable risk of serious physical or mental
harm.
(4) Each local authority
must submit an annual report to the Secretary of State and the Lord
Chancellor setting out the numbers and circumstances of all the
children who have been sentenced to custody from that local authority
area.
(5) For the purposes of
this section “relevant local authority” means the local
authority in which the offender was habitually resident at the time of
committing the offence or offences in relation to which sentencing is
being considered by the court. In the event that the offender is no
longer resident in that local authority area at the time of sentencing,
or if there is any doubt as to the relevant local authority, the court
may of its own volition or upon the request of any party determine
which is the relevant local
authority.”.’.
Each
of those proposed new clauses has been tabled in the name of the hon.
Member for Somerset and Frome. Have I got that
right?
Several
hon. Members
Somerton.
The
Chairman:
I shall get it right before we finish,
David.
Mr.
Heath:
There is not very long to go now,
Sir Nicholas.
The new clauses bring us back to
some of the issues that we discussed in relation to part 1 of the Bill.
It is a strange aspect of our proceedings that we reach the end and yet
seem to be discussing things that we have already discussed, but that
does not make the points that are encompassed in the new clauses any
the less
important. I was very brief in my remarks on the previous proposal, so I
want to spend a little longer on the present
group. New clause 53
deals with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and I do not think
that I need to spend long on it. It would invoke the Act for a young
person who was convicted of a less serious crime at the point when they
reached their 18th birthday. In other words, it would mean that young
people would start with a clean sheet when they reached the age of
majority, unless they had been convicted of a serious or persistent
crime. It would work on the basis that children should be treated as
children and on an acceptance of the idea that children, like adults,
might make mistakes. We would be expressing the hope that the sentence
imposed had had the desired effect and that children should start their
adult life with a clean sheet.
The point is quite an important
one. I accept that if someone has a string of convictions, or is guilty
of a serious crime, the position would be different. Nevertheless, it
seems to me to be appropriate to take cognizance of the fact that
things that we do as children should not saddle us for a prolonged
period of time—certainly not in those crucial years on reaching
majority when one is beginning to start to seek a first job, or a place
in further education, when there is a risk of serious prejudice to the
rest of the person’s life.
New clause 54 addresses an issue
that we have certainly already discussed: that at the moment a court
cannot impose a conditional discharge of a youth conditional caution.
The same applies to final warnings. It seems reasonable that a court
should have full discretion to apply a disposal that seems appropriate
under all the circumstances and after consideration of the individual
case, but at the moment the law prohibits that. It seems to me that
there is no obvious reason why the court should not have the option of
a conditional discharge, if that is the right way of dealing with an
offender at that
point.
6
pm
The purpose of
new clause 58 is to ensure that when an offender is under 18 and is to
be given a custodial sentence, appropriate local authority provision to
meet the needs of the offender is considered by the local authorities
and the courts. That would prevent courts from sentencing children and
young people to custody if it appeared that further service provision
could avoid custody. We come directly back to the point that we were
discussing on the previous amendment: whether there are ways of
preventing children and young people from being put into custody, which
we all say that we want to avoid. I accept at face value what the
Government are saying on this issue, in terms of their earlier
provisions within the Bill—part of its objective is to divert
young people away from a custodial sentence.
The new clause would ensure that
alternatives to the custodial sentence are applied, even at the point
at which the court has decided that perhaps a custodial sentence is
justified, and it would cause the court to determine whether it is
justified for the punishment of the offender or for the protection of
the public. If it is for the protection of the public and that is the
only disposal that provides for that, there should be no
question. But if we are talking about a custodial sentence for the
purpose of punishment there may be alternatives that are more suitable,
which will have a better effect on the recidivism of the offender. To
enable the local authorities, the Secretary of State and others to step
back and take an overview of the needs of the particular individual is
no bad thing. New
clause 57 is perhaps the most important of the clauses within this
group of amendments, so I would like to take a little time with it. It
would introduce a statutory custody threshold that must be tested
before any young person is sentenced to custody, ensuring that it is a
matter of last resort, and that it is being used for public protection.
I made some reference to this in the discussion on earlier provisions,
but we have an extraordinarily large number of children and young
people in prison in this country. I will give the Committee some
figures. For every 100,000 children in the population of England and
Wales, about 23 are in custody. The equivalent figure in France is six;
in Spain it is two; in Finland it is 0.2. The number of 15 to
17-year-olds in prison increased by 98.6 per cent. in 10 years, between
1995 and 2005, from 1,675 to 2,326. We should be very concerned about
that.
We should also
be concerned about the sort of young person who is in
prison. We often talk about the underachievement, in academic terms, of
adult prisoners, but we should recognise the difficulty for young
people as well. Nearly half of the children in custody had literacy and
numeracy levels lower than an average 11-year-old; over half of them
had a history of being in care or social services involvement; 40 per
cent of girls and 25 per cent. of boys reported suffering violence at
home. One in three girls and one in 20 boys reported sexual abuse; 40
per cent. of boys and 67 per cent. of girls had serious mental health
problems and over half reported dependence on a drug in the year prior
to imprisonment.
We must then
look at what is happening to young people within the prison system. I
know that there have been strenuous efforts to improve that. The
Minister talked about processes of restraint and the things that
happen. However, we should recognise that the inspections and
considerations that review the treatment of young offenders in prison
suggest that, even with the best will in the world, there are still
serious weaknesses. That is not intended as an attack on prison
staff—far from it.
Indeed, my noble Friend Lord
Carlile of Berriew, whose arguments in his role as independent assessor
are often supported by the Government, in his 2006 inquiry said
that
“some treatment of
children in custody would, in any other circumstances, trigger a child
protection investigation and could even result in criminal
charges.”
That is quite
serious stuff from a respected colleague. When we look at the utility
of keeping those young people in custody, we will see that we are
spending an enormous amount of money on custody—£280
million a year from the Youth Justice Board. However, we know that 76
per cent. of those who are discharged from custody reoffend within one
year. In other words, it is a revolving door. With regard to
discouraging reoffending, we are paying for no discernible
effect.
It seems to me
that some of the other disposals are so much more effective for that
age group. Some of them have been brought forward by the Government in
the Bill, and I applaud that. That was discussed at length earlier and
we have said that we think it is of value. Having a higher threshold
before sending people into custody, or at least a higher level of
consideration, must be a good thing per se. It is beneficial in terms
of effectiveness, budget and, most importantly, the effect that it has
on those young people, so that we do not have another Liam in our
prison estate. That is what this section of the Bill is about and that
is why the new clause is a serious
issue. Having a custody
threshold for young people is not a new idea. We used to have it in
English statute law, in section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. It
was inserted into the 1982 Act against the wishes of the Conservative
Government by a noble Lady on the Labour Benches. The Government
resisted it and later applauded it as a necessary and valuable addition
to the Act.
However, that provision was
repealed by the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It set a custody threshold
for people under the age of 21. Now the operative age would be 18.
There is clear evidence that it had a significant effect on the number
of young people who were sent into custody while it was in operation.
The Government ought to think seriously about whether that would be a
useful addition for reminding the courts of the seriousness of reducing
a young person to a custodial
sentence.
Mr.
Hanson:
I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for
bringing forward his proposals. This is a useful discussion. He will
know that we had a long discussion in relation to part 1 of the Bill
about the use of custody and our wish to see other out-of-court
disposals that will result in a reduction in custody and give further
opportunities through the youth reoffending order to ensure that we do
not put individuals in custody. He has raised a number of points with
regard to the clauses. It might be helpful if I tried to address some
of the points that he has brought forward.
As for new clause 53, I accept
that it is helpful to ensure that young adults are moved away from
offending and are helped into employment. One of our big objectives
through work with the Corporate Alliance for Reducing Re-offending is
to look at how we can help the employment of offenders. That is key to
getting individuals who are leaving the custodial estate at the age of
18 into employment. Indeed, we are gearing some of the training
programmes and work in the estate to secure employment and skill levels
that are consummate to the job market
outside.
The hon.
Gentleman will know that, in 2002 and during the past couple of years,
we have been looking at the document entitled “Breaking the
cycle: Taking stock of progress and priorities for the future”.
It reports on how to support individuals to get back into employment as
well as on the several changes that have been made. Since that report,
the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which followed the Bichard
report, has come into play. It means that we need to look into how and
when, and under what circumstances, we consider the employment of
ex-offenders in many areas of employment. The Bichard report has put
into the pot some significant new areas for discussion following our
original “Breaking the cycle” report.
We are re-examining whether we
need to update the policy proposals in “Breaking the
cycle”, and whether we need to look at new arrangements under
the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 not only for young people, but
adults. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that his new
clause is serious and would have a major impact on the employment
prospects of young people and pose a risk element for employers and the
public at large. I ask him to withdraw it because such issues need full
examination in the light of our original objectives in “Breaking
the cycle” and our current thinking into how ex-offenders, both
young and over the age of 18, can be employed in the community at
large.
I am keen to
ensure that young people and adult prisoners are given fair
opportunities to get back into the employment market. As the hon. and
learned Member for Harborough and the hon. Gentleman will agree and as
our debate on prisons highlighted, there is an element of consensus
that employment skills, raising those skills and employability are the
key drivers of the prevention of re-offending in respect of people
throughout the criminal justice system. However, the new clause is a
step too far, given the stage that we have reached in our consideration
of such matters.
New
clause 57 would place unacceptable restrictions on custody for
under-18s. I share the objective of the hon. Gentleman to reduce the
level of custody of under-18s in our estate, but we need to examine it
in terms of preventive measures, interventions and the work of the
Youth Justice Board rather than take a blanket approach that would
include the removal and restriction of the court’s ability to
use custody for some of the most serious offences,
including—under the new clause—the removal of the
mandatory life sentence equivalent for murder. It is a serious
matter.
I share the
hon. Gentleman’s objective. I am happy to discuss with him
outside Committee how we can reach a satisfactory conclusion, but the
ability to be able to set the custody threshold at the level sought by
the new clause would be difficult for both the public and the community
at large to accept. It would place the public at significant risk and
have the impact of examining sentences that would not be in agreement
with the public’s expectations in the current
circumstances.
6.15
pm
New clause 58
would place additional duties and requirements on the courts and local
authorities to consider prior to the court being able to impose
custodial sentences on a young person. I hope that the hon. Gentleman
will accept that it would duplicate existing safeguards and provisions
in respect of information about the young offender, and would impose
additional bureaucracy and cost, particularly on local authorities, for
little extra gain. Safeguards exist in respect of the court’s
duty towards the offender, and I am satisfied that the information that
is available to it under the current arrangements enables it to make
the appropriate sentencing
decisions.
Finally, in
relation to new clause 54, section 66(4) of the Crime and Disorder Act
1998 is designed to ensure that those who continue to offend, despite
out of court
intervention, can expect significant punishment, as we stated in the
White Paper “No More Excuses”. A young offender will
already have a number of out of court disposals which were conditional
in some way, so another conditional one would be inappropriate. To
continue to use conditional disposals for a young person who, when
before the court, continues to offend despite previous interventions,
risks undermining community confidence in the criminal justice system
and undermining the potential intervention that custody might bring to
prevent the young offender from further
offending. I accept
that there is a real challenge for all hon. Members, inside and outside
the Committee, to look at what we should do to tackle the level of
reoffending mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It is not acceptable to me
or the Government to find that we have in the region of 75 per cent.
reoffending rates from those leaving custody. Something is not working
if that is the case. The solutions that the hon. Gentleman has brought
forward today, while raising the issue, would add to some of the
problems and would not necessarily stop the reoffending. They would
also cause some difficulties in public
perception.
Mr.
Burrowes:
We all know the 75 per cent. statistic. However,
the Minister says that that is the reoffending rate, but it is the
reconviction rate. The reoffending rate may be a lot
higher.
Mr.
Hanson:
Indeed, that is for reconviction. Neither I, nor
the hon. Gentleman know how much reoffending goes on that is not
caught. Reconviction is at a very high level. I am not proud of that
fact. It is something that we should address in detail. It is an issue
that is of great importance and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise
it. I ask him to withdraw the motion on the basis that we will examine
how we can affect employability and will look at questions about the
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 as part of the “Breaking
the Cycle” review that we are undertaking. I do not think that
the public or the Committee would accept that there is not still a role
for custody for individuals in the community who commit very serious
offences.
Mr.
Heath:
That is precisely what I did not say in the new
clause, which would make it very clear that custody is for those who
present a threat to the protection of the public. I have no difficulty
with that at
all.
Having said that,
I am grateful to the Minister for the way that he approached his
response. I did not expect a meeting of minds on every issue. Why
should there be? However, I do think that we can discuss matters in an
intelligent and sensible way. I think that we did that yesterday, with
the possible exception of a couple of speeches at the
beginning.
Mr.
Hanson:
Not by anybody
here.
Mr.
Heath:
Not by anybody in this room. We had a very sensible
debate yesterday. There is more that we share in terms of penal policy
than that which separates us. We are all seeking the same objectives. I
am pleased with what the Minister said about the
rehabilitation of offenders. It is high time that we looked at that
again to see how we can improve things. It is not just a case of wiping
the slate clean. As the Minister knows, we need to come to terms with a
whole range of issues associated with transition, and I look forward to
talking with him further about
those.
At some point,
we must accept that the custody system does not do what we pay it to
do. We pay enormous amounts of money for it. There must be better
alternatives. We should recognise the damage that it potentially does
to young people. In that age group, only those who must be shut
away—because it is only by shutting them away that we can
protect the public—should be given standard custodial sentences.
I do not dispute that there may be other secure sentencing
possibilities that we should use instead, but it seems futile to spend
an enormous amount of money on a system that has a virtually 100 per
cent. reoffending rate. Nobody would plan a public policy with that
little effect, but still we carry on with it and expand it in
increasing numbers. However, the hour is late and it is time we moved
on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion.
The
Chairman:
The hon. Member for Somerton and
Frome—[ Hon. Members: “
Hooray”]—seeks leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
| 
