| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
When this matter was debated in another place, the Minister, Mr Hanson, suggested that local authorities would have to bear no less than, on average, some £500,000 per county. Where is this money going to come from? Will it be diverted from the criminal justice system or will the resources devoted to other community orders be stretched further? It appears that a court cannot impose a fostering requirement without consulting the local authority, so there will be a financial incentive for the local authority to say that it is not in a position to provide intensive fostering facilities. The consequence might well be that the child will end up in custody.
So a financial issue is at the heart of this potentially extremely successful arm of youth justice. I expect that between the stages of the Bill in another place and now the Government have not advanced very much in their thinking about how they will finance this, but they must surely see the dilemma here; clearly some local authorities, either because they are relatively wealthy or because they really believe in intensive fostering, are more likely than not to provide facilities and other counties will not. You might end up with a kind of postcode regime for this measure. In our submission, it would be a very great shame if that were to be its fate.
Through the amendment I am urging the Government in approaching this issue to think a little more carefully and imaginatively than they have felt themselves capable of so far. I beg to move.
5 Feb 2008 : Column 984
Lord Ramsbotham: I support the amendment and give notice of something that is already happening in this area, organised by Community Service Volunteers in Sunderland. This is a proposal called the VYOI—the Virtual Young Offenders Institute—which has been funded by the Treasury to the tune of £3 million for three years; this is the third year. It entails young offenders whose criminality is not deemed so great being given the opportunity of living with and being intensively fostered by a foster parent appointed by Community Service Volunteers. The offenders are given employment and education and they are helped into accommodation when their period is over. Of course, if they fail in any way to come up to the terms of the scheme, they are sent back to custody.
The interesting thing about this experiment was that it took an enormously long time for Community Service Volunteers, having got funding from the Treasury, and supported in its appeal for it by the then chief executive of NOMS, to persuade the Probation Service and others to release these young offenders into intensive fostering, because they claimed that the offenders were their responsibility. The work is now in progress, overseen by the regional offender manager in the north-east, and an evaluation of this project, funded by the Helen Hamlyn Trust, is being carried out by Newcastle University. Here I declare an interest, because I am an adviser to the Helen Hamlyn Trust and suggested that it should fund this evaluation. It would be worth the Minister monitoring this, because it is something practical that has potential and there are evaluated results that can be taken into account.
5.30 pm
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I, too, support this amendment. If the evidence is there, as it seems to be on a small scale, the argument can be made that the extremely high costs referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, could be justified in the long term. However, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also makes the point that I made in our earlier debate; namely, that unless the facilities are available for a particular disposal to be carried out, it is pointless to make this disposal. This is one of the only instances in the Bill where it has to be established before a disposal is made that intensive fostering facilities are available. I urge the Government to reassure us constantly that if a decision is made on a community-based penalty, both the resources and the facilities will be there.
Lord Bach: I thank noble Lords and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for raising this issue. It gives me the chance to say a few words about this scheme. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for telling us about the Sunderland scheme. My noble friend has already said that he will monitor it and we look forward to hearing more.
The scheme is based on the Youth Justice Board’s intensive fostering pilot, which offers an innovative alternative to custody. Let me repeat—this is an alternative to custody and is pitched at this level as a reflection of its intensity. The fostering requirement retains its place as an alternative to custody alongside intensive supervision and surveillance. The Committee will know that intensive
5 Feb 2008 : Column 985
The Youth Justice Board emphasised the value of intensive fostering in its evidence to the Commons Committee, stating:
“It is also welcome that the YRO will include a fostering requirement as another clear alternative to custody allowing for use of the Intensive Fostering programme currently being piloted by the Youth Justice Board ... Intensive fostering is being piloted on a small scale as an alternative to custody in cases where a young person’s offending is directly linked to his or her home environment”.
Those places where it is being trialled are Stafford, Wessex—which is Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—and parts of east London. The programme is designed to provide highly intensive care for the child or young person for up to 12 months, as well as a programme of support for the wider family. This structured intensive fostering programme of daily activity is clearly distinguishable from ordinary fostering. Currently the programme is available on a small scale—so far 35 young people have taken part. The pilot is due to end in October 2008. As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested in moving his amendment, while evaluation of the scheme is not complete, initial indications are positive, although we have to put in the caveat that only a small number of people have been through it.
The noble Lord properly raises the issue of money and resources. The first thing to say is that we do not think that this scheme will involve a large number of children, even when it is up and running. It is a vital tool in the kit of those who, like this Committee, want to keep young people out of custody. But we do not think it will be widely used and, as far as resources are concerned, let me quote from Mr Les Lawrence, the chairman of the children and young persons panel from the Local Government Association, who gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee on 18 October 2007. He said:
“The early indication is that the number of places and the resources, working with the court and the other agencies, are sufficient at this point, as is the number of places that are required to match the number of available resources. Yes, there is support from local authorities, because of the other services that need to go with the fostering service, but thus far, albeit from early indications from that pilot, it seems that the resources—if used in an aligned and the proper way—are sufficient at present”.—[Official Report, Commons, Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill Committee, 18/10/07; col. 141.]
So far, so good. The noble Lord is quite right, when considering a programme that I think will have the universal support of Members of the Committee, to ask how it will develop in future. He can rest assured
5 Feb 2008 : Column 986
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister, and rather intrigued by his last remark that the scheme will not fail through lack of resources. Is there a glimmer of hope that, where a local authority consistently refuses to provide resources for intensive fostering in its area, it might either be leant on or assisted by the criminal justice regime? Is it fair to say that the Government are considering this at the moment? I am not sure whether the Minister is inclined to respond.
Lord Bach: Of course I will answer the noble Lord. I admire very much his pressing me so politely. I think the most important word he used in setting out the options was “leaning”—I will leave it at that.
Lord Kingsland: Taking a child away from its family is a very serious matter. Everybody here is aware that this is—perhaps “draconian” is the wrong word, but it is a far-reaching arrow in the quiver of possibilities. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances, it can have extremely beneficial effects. Therefore, we applaud the Government’s pilot projects and hope that, if the initial findings are verified with larger samples, resources will not prove to be a barrier to ultimate success. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 5:
(a) the offender has already been the subject of a youth rehabilitation order, or orders, which falls within section 1(3), or(b) the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that, notwithstanding the age of the offender, a youth rehabilitation order which falls within section 1(3) cannot be justified for the offence.”The noble Earl said: We now arrive at the question of custody thresholds. I am moving this amendment because I have the privilege to be on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and I have been on it longer than some of the other noble Lords. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who used to be a pillar of the committee, has put his name to the amendment, and I speak with the background of the JCHR brief. Your Lordships will know that it is not exactly a committee packed with Conservatives. Basically, it consists of people who seem to be interested in, and are keen to protect, the rights of the subject. Some of us come to it from an old-fashioned, right-wing view that the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and all those lovely historical liberties of the subject should be upheld at all costs; others come to it from a slightly more left-wing, human rights angle and the Tom Paine tradition. However, on this issue we are unanimous.
5 Feb 2008 : Column 987
I shall quote from a particularly interesting part of our report. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child came over here to see how we were doing and issued a report in 2002, which said that it was,
- “deeply concerned at the ... increasing numbers of children in custody, at earlier ages for lesser offences, and for longer custodial sentence imposed by the recent increased court powers to give detention and training orders. Therefore, it is the concern of the Committee that deprivation of liberty is not being used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time, in violation”—
I underline the fact that this was in 2002 because in 2003 approximately 1,400 children under the age of 18 were in custody in England and Wales. That number more than doubled over five years, with a 110 per cent increase, from 1,405 in 2002 to 3,000. The number of children under the age of 15 in custody has increased even more dramatically—by 700 per cent, as I explained earlier—from 100 to more than 800, with only 50 being serious cases. That increase has been driven by government legislation and the sentencing climate. Over the same period, indictable offences have dropped by 20 per cent, and that is no artificial change. The rates have been stable since 1995 and 42 per cent fewer people report being crime victims. I also said earlier that the figures for this country were 23 per 100,000 and, for the Finns, 0.02. Just for fun, I shall put France down as six and Spain at two. That shows that something has gone wrong in the use of custody thresholds and we think that that needs to be addressed seriously.
Everyone agrees that children can be very unpleasant on occasion, and we have recently read in the newspapers of sentences for children who behave in a very repellent manner, but it is more important than anything else to get at those children. One does not defend the public by getting at those children, but one does defend the public and act for the good of public safety by ensuring that proper rehabilitation of the disgusting, as well as of the less disgusting, is carried out. I think we are all saying that the use of custody is just not working and, if it does not work, that is immoral. Therefore, we should ensure that everything else is tried before custody is used and that should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
5.45 pm
Lord Judd: I am delighted to support the noble Earl in his amendment. I thought that he moved it in a characteristically reflective style, which is always very enjoyable to hear. He referred in passing to left-wing advocates. I served on the committee with the noble Earl for some time and often felt that he was essentially, in the best sense, a left-wing advocate of decency, humanity and common sense. However, that is not why I rise to support the amendment, although I am glad to do so in that spirit. He referred to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, but when the human rights commissioner from the Council of Europe visited this country, he had an informal meeting with the members of the committee and was really perturbed by what he detected—I think it may be fair to say that he thought it was inadvertent—as the increasing criminalisation of young people in our
5 Feb 2008 : Column 988
The second reason is that, with the help of the Home Office—I always believe in looking at things as they are—I visited one of the teams working on the front line in this sphere. I do not think that I am doing them a disfavour if I say that I was terribly impressed by their unhappiness about the way the system was operating; they were quite perturbed about it. I think that it is something that needs to be addressed and, for those reasons, I hope that my noble friend, who is a reasonable man, will respond to the amendment reasonably and sensitively.
Baroness Stern: I, too, am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and, as will be clear, I am in very good company. I very much support the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I am also a Member of your Lordships’ House who remembers very well Lady Faithfull—a Conservative Peer of immense achievements.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Lucy. She was a good girl.
Baroness Stern: Indeed, she was a good girl. She had been a social worker and a children’s officer, and she used her time in this House to enormous effect in bettering the lot of disadvantaged children—particularly those in trouble. In this House, she introduced an amendment which became Section 1(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and which set a custody threshold for people under 21 before it was repealed by Section 101(2) and Schedule 13 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Her Section 1(4) provided that the courts should not pass a sentence of custody on a person under 21 unless they were,
- “of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate because it appears to the Court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified”.
The measure had a significant effect on the number of young people sent to custody. Between 1982 and 1990, there was a 54 per cent reduction in the use of immediate custody for indictable offences for people under 21. The clause was opposed by the then Conservative Government and was achieved only after a considerable amount of persuasion by Lady Faithfull, which she was extremely good at. The Government subsequently admitted, however, that she had been proved right by events. There are sound human rights arguments for reserving custody for children to the inescapable minimum, for trying all other measures first and for imposing a high seriousness threshold. I cannot believe that that is what we are doing at the moment.
Liam McManus, who was 15 years old, killed himself in Lancaster Farms Young Offender Institution while serving six weeks’ custody for breaching his supervision order. I know a family where a child with learning difficulties was sent to Huntercombe Young Offender Institution on his sixteenth birthday for three months for not keeping his appointments with his supervisor
5 Feb 2008 : Column 989
We have the latest custody figures from the Ministry of Justice, from December 2007. They show that 387 of the 1,781 sentenced children aged 15 to 17 received a sentence of six months or less. Such a sentence cannot have been imposed for public protection reasons or for seriousness, so why was it imposed? Of the 1,781, 143 were imprisoned for theft and handling, 79 for drug offences, 35 for motor vehicle offences and 216 for other non-violent offences. I therefore find the Government’s position a little hard to understand. They frequently say—the Minister said it again today—that they want custody used as a last resort. I have no doubt that he is absolutely sincere or that that is what he wants.
The Youth Justice Board has a target to reduce the use of custody by 10 per cent—not that the Youth Justice Board can reduce the use of custody. Presumably it means that it requires the youth offending team workers to try much harder to put good ideas for non-custodial options to the courts and to persuade them of the merits of such a course. If the Youth Justice Board has such an objective, surely the Government support it? Custody is very expensive. It is very damaging to a child’s prospects. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, even an admission of guilt and a conviction is very damaging to a child’s prospects. The research from the University of Edinburgh child cohort study makes it clear that the most likely predictor of future involvement in crime is an initial involvement in the criminal justice system. Most other countries in Europe manage not to use custody as we do. The Government may like to take particular note of the view of the Local Government Association, which we have just heard quoted on this matter. It has written to many of us urging our support for an amendment such as this one. It says:
“We do hear of horrific acts of violence perpetrated by young people, and for young people who commit such offences a custodial sentence must, of course, remain an option. However, there are a great many young people drawn into the youth justice system who do not represent a serious risk to the physical or mental health of others and are actually vulnerable themselves. We must respond to those young people as children first, seeking to address their welfare needs whilst seeing that justice is done—but does not jeopardise the child’s future, long-term health and well-being”.
This is the crux of its argument:
“We are convinced that a failure to take such an approach will ultimately be borne by the local community”.
The Local Government Association is making the point that local communities will have to bear the consequences of this policy. Young people who are sent to prison for six months for non-violent offences will come back, but their prospects will be worse. They will cost their local community a lot. They may well cause a great deal of damage. Those are very strong practical reasons which I hope the Government will consider when looking at these amendments.
Lord Judd: Does the noble Baroness agree that her last remarks endorse the observations that were made to me by the team that was working on ASBOs, who
5 Feb 2008 : Column 990
Baroness Stern: As ever, I agree completely with the noble Lord.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 5 and agree with the points just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 6, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Falkner.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |