| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The reason for choosing the word "instruction" and sticking adamantly to it is that "instruction" has those further overtones that are needed for children in this category—of guidance and direction as well as literal teaching. The instructions on the toys one receives at Christmas normally say, "Battery not provided".
Lord Shutt of Greetland: We will think again when we have recharged our batteries, when we next consider the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 196 to 199 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Custody care orders]:
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 200:
- Page 38, line 2, leave out "one half of"
The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment referring to custody care orders. New Article 44A(6) provides that,
- "the period for which a child is to be kept in secure accommodation under a custody care order shall be one half of the period of the order".
Lord Hylton: I welcome the new invention of custody care orders. However, it is unclear how they will work in practice. The numbers of children and young people affected by them may be very small indeed. Therefore, one wonders where these people will be kept. Will they be mixed with ordinary children in care, or will they be separate? If they are to be
separate, is there some danger that they will be in ones and possibly two, and therefore isolated? There are risks either way, whether they are mixed or separate. Close co-operation will be needed between the NIO and the Department of Health. I would be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord would comment on those aspects.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I should like clarification on the effect of the provision. I think that it stems from a policy decision that when a custody order is made, the period in custody shall be no more than half the total, and that the remaining half shall be under supervision. In other words, they are to be divided 50:50. If that is the case, what is the reasoning for that policy decision? I assume also that it extends to custody orders that are made by the court for a longer period than six months. I recognise that the court will have to give reasons for the award of a longer sentence. Does the same 50:50 division apply there?
I hope that no element of parity with remission rules comes in here. We know that there is a statutory period of remission of 50 per cent for sentences of imprisonment. It is inappropriate to apply that sort of reasoning to a custody care order, because the court will make a careful judgement as to whether a custody order is appropriate. It would seem quite wrong to have a statutory period dividing by half that period on the same basis as remission of sentences. I do not think it arises, but I thought it might. I would be grateful if that could be cleared up.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: As a layman, I have to confess that I find this somewhat baffling. I am sure that clarification and guidance would be welcome not only from my limited intake but to—I hesitate to bracket other Members of the Grand Committee with me—the general public and others who would be engaged in the enforcement of this provision.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to respond. The provision is for children between 10 and 13 who need the most careful attention. It is intended to be a fixed term of half spent in secure accommodation—I confirm the understanding of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—and half thereafter to be spent under supervision, probably by a probation officer, in the community. As the noble and learned Lord said, it is a policy decision following the recommendation of the criminal justice review that children who require custody at quite tender years should be accommodated within the care section rather than in a juvenile justice centre.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, we anticipate relatively small numbers, but this is a gap in our present system. We are not currently able to provide this, which is intended to give children—I stress quite few in number and of young years—the opportunity to remake a life if he is on the downward track. They will be kept by the appropriate authority in secure accommodation. I cannot give the noble Lord the final details, but when I have further details
I shall write to him. I echo and endorse his comments that there must be the closest possible co-operation between the relevant authorities.If the amendment were passed, the half-half split would not obtain and children of 10 to 13 would be treated much more harshly than older children. I entirely accept that this was intended to be a probing amendment and I hope that I have satisfied the Committee.
Lord Hylton: Can the noble and learned Lord assure us that continuity of education will be maintained during the time spent in secure accommodation? That would go some way towards overcoming the possible problems of isolation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Continuity of education will be maintained. In the nature of things, it will not be maintained at the educational establishment that the child formerly attended, but one of the benefits in my experience of secure accommodation managed properly is that quite intense educational opportunities are provided with a much lower pupil-teacher ratio than one finds in a mainstream state school.
Lord Glentoran: I wonder whether this is an appropriate time to ask this question. This system, particularly the youth criminal justice system, is a Rolls-Royce system. The more I know about it, the more I like it, provided we can keep the parameters right. However, I sense that it will be extremely costly. What are the Government's intentions on how the system will be funded?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is expensive. From my fairly recent memory, secure accommodation in England and Wales costs of the order of £125,000 a year. On the other hand, as a number of noble Lords have observed, the alternatives are extremely expensive in social disharmony and real distress caused by quite young children, wholly disproportionate to their chronological age. The funding will have to be made available.
Viscount Bridgeman: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his clarification of the points raised. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201:
- Page 38, line 3, at end insert "; but the appropriate authority may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, at any time discharge a child who is being so kept"
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 202 and 212 in this group. Within Clause 55, new Article 44G defines the legal regime under which a child subject to a CCO will be detained. Because accommodation is provided within the care system, it draws on the provisions in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It has been brought to our attention that we have produced unintended results. We have disapplied provisions
within the 1995 order which have wider application. For instance, Article 3 of the 1995 order, which requires a court in civil proceedings, in determining any question with respect to the upbringing of a child or the administration of a child's property, to have the child's welfare as its paramount consideration, is disapplied. That was an unintended effect. New Article 44B has been recast with exactly the same policy aim in mind, removing the unintended anomaly.We had various representations, which I ought to touch upon. The amended article now makes specific provision within the prescribed legal regime for reviews and representatives as provided by Article 45 of the 1995 order. This will undoubtedly strengthen the process of managing a child's period in secure accommodation. The recast, new Article 45B does not contain any further provision relating to the discharge at any time of a child in secure accommodation by the appropriate authority with the consent of the Secretary of State. The provision has been retained and now appears more logically in new Article 44A(6) and new Article 44F(3)(b), where it is associated more appropriately with the definition of periods to be spent in secure accommodation. The meaning and purpose has not changed. Those are in a sense technical amendments. They were rather convoluted and I hope I have explained them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202:
- Page 38, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 39 and insert—
On Question, amendment agreed to.
"(1) This Article makes provision about the application of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (N.I. 2) in relation to a child during any period for which he is kept in secure accommodation by the appropriate authority under a custody care order (or under any other order under this Order or as a place of safety).
(2) Of the provisions about a child looked after by an authority (within the meaning of Article 25) those specified in paragraph (3) (and no others) apply.
(3) Those provisions are—
(a) Article 26 (duty to safeguard and promote welfare);
(b) Article 27(1), (2)(b), (e) and (f), (8) and (9) and Article 28(2) (accommodation and maintenance);
(c) Article 29(1), (2) and (4) to (6) (promotion and maintenance of contact with family);
(d) Articles 30 and 31 (visits);
(e) Article 34 (death);
(f) Article 35(1) and Article 36(1) and (4) (advice, assistance and befriending);
(g) Article 45 (reviews and representations); and
(h) Articles 72 and 73 (provision of homes).
(4) In their application by virtue of paragraph (2)—
(a) Article 29(4) has effect with the omission of sub-paragraph (a); and
(b) Article 34(1)(a) has effect as if the reference to the Department were to the Department and the Secretary of State.
(5) The following provisions—
(a) Article 5(7) (person having parental responsibility not to act inconsistently with order);
(b) Article 52(3) to (6), (7)(a) and (9) (effect of care order); and
(c) Article 53(1) to (9) (parental contact),
apply as if the custody care order (or the other order or the placing of the child in a place of safety) were a care order and the appropriate authority were the authority designated by it and in whose care the child is.
(6) Articles 8 to 14 (residence, contact etc. orders) and Articles 17 to 24 (children in need) do not apply.
(7) No care order or supervision order under Part 5 may be made or, if such an order has already made, it does not have effect."
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page