Police and Justice Bill

I apologise for not being present at the beginning of this important debate, although I have contacted the Speaker’s office to explain why. I share the concerns expressed by hon. Members while I have been in the Chamber about the proposed amalgamation of police forces. I am particularly sad that the federation model has been rejected for Dorset, because it is what people really want. I shall comment on the Bill in relation to children and young people, who are often blamed for crime and, in particular, antisocial behaviour. Although young people may be involved in many instances of antisocial behaviour, it is untrue to say that they are always responsible, and I share the concerns expressed by many organisations that we must not demonise young people. Even if we accept that some children and young people cause antisocial behaviour, we must remember that a large number of young people are the victims of antisocial behaviour. When we consider the children and young people who may cause antisocial behaviour or crime, we must examine the reasons for their behaviour. I welcome the recognition by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) of the importance of youth services. I have said many times that we started with enforcement and punishment, but that we should have paid much more attention to understanding underlying causes and implementing preventive measures at an earlier stage. I welcome the statement within the respect action plan that we must tackle root causes with the same vigour and determination with which we have taken on antisocial behaviour. It is important to get the right balance between enforcement on antisocial behaviour and tackling the causes of antisocial behaviour. Clause 4 includes new proposals on community support officers, and I welcome the increase in the number of CSOs. I have been impressed by the contribution made by the few CSOs whom I have met in my constituency, where we would like our fair share of the proposed sixfold increase. CSOs have walked around and engaged with young people, and their job involves balancing enforcement with part of the role of a youth support worker. It is important that the standard set of powers that they will have should be accompanied by statutory requirements for training. A recent Home Office evaluation of the role of CSOs found that many of them expressed concern about that. If there is to be more training, resources will need to be made available to ensure that CSOs receive adequate and appropriate training on how to work effectively, safely and appropriately with children and young people. The Children’s Society, on behalf of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, calls for the proposed training to include an understanding of child protection and the procedures and services that will enable CSOs to act in the best interests of children, instead of taking a straightforward enforcement approach to their situation and behaviour. At a local level, it argues that such training should be consistent with the local safeguarding children’s board arrangements and responsibilities for training. Will the Minister therefore ensure that there is full co-operation with her colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes)? Clause 5 contains a proposal to introduce a new function for CSOs to allow them to remove young people of school age whom they believe to be absent from school without lawful authority—in other words, an extension of sweeping. I have a few concerns about that. The National Foundation for Educational Research concluded that although truancy sweeps had been successful, in terms of the numbers of young people picked up, and had raised awareness of the issue, it was"““less certain of the long-term impact on individual pupil attendance.””" We need, as always, to get the right balance between enforcement and measures that will encourage children to attend school. Merely sweeping and punishing does not solve the problem. There may be a great need to address family difficulties that are part and parcel of the reason why the child or young person is staying away from school. Perhaps the Department for Education and Skills should be thinking about the curriculum. There are many reasons why young people truant. One of my great concerns has been young carers getting caught up in sweeps. Young carers have many reasons for being unable to attend school. Sometimes the calls on them from home are such that they cannot get there. It is a difficult choice for them. There is clearly a need for greater support for this invisible army of young people, an enormous number of whom—up to 100,000—are giving up large portions of their lives and may get caught up in truancy sweeps in the process. Of course, some young people need to be caught and dealt with appropriately, but it should not be a blanket measure—there should be an understanding of the underlying problems. Clause 15 places a duty on ward councillors to respond to a call for action from anybody living or working in the area that they represent about a crime and disorder matter in that area. There are concerns that that mechanism could stigmatise young people and alienate them from their communities. For example, it could lead to an extension of the use of naming and shaming by publicly identifying individual children or families. I have spoken out before about my deep concern about naming and shaming in relation to antisocial behaviour orders. That might sometimes work in terms of protecting a community, but ASBOs have been imposed on children with learning difficulties and mental disorders, and it is outrageous to name and shame such children and families. Concern about such behaviour is probably the most frequently raised issue in our surgeries, but we have to tackle it in the right way. It is all too easy for people to say that the problem is down to this family or that family. Calls for action must involve a measured response, possibly involving full consultation within the wider community, and certainly involving children and young people. Clauses 16 and 17 cover parenting contracts and orders. When I served on the Committee on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, I was very cautious about parenting orders. I accept, as I have said publicly before, that they have been successful in some cases. I thought that parents forced to sit in parenting classes would simply fold their arms and refuse to participate, but although that might have happened sometimes, I have heard about great successes. There is a place for these measures, but again we need to look at the wider picture. Ideally, parents should co-operate voluntarily. We need widespread parenting support right across the community as a basic way of life. It should be universal, and not delivered in such a stigmatised fashion. Poor parenting undoubtedly contributes to some of the problematic behaviour by children and young people, but it is not the only cause. Some children might misbehave in the community as a way of crying out about what is happening in the home. Perhaps they are being abused or there are problems with their parents. Children’s organisations suggest that social services should carry out an assessment of need under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. The Government could be more receptive to such suggestions. We have had the tough side—let us look at some of the difficult cases in which the behaviour of children and young people has tragic causes. Finally, I should like to comment on a very sad outcome of the Home Office’s legislation. The United Kingdom locks up more children than most other industrialised countries. In 2004, in England, 4,461 children aged 15 and under were detained in custody. The total number of under-18s detained was about 10,000—enough to fill 10 secondary schools. The recently published Carlile inquiry report clearly shows the damage done to children in custodial settings. Restraint that involves the deliberate infliction of violence is used systematically in penal custody. In her annual report, published in January 2005, the chief inspector of prisons raised serious concerns about the use of physical force on children in prison. Twenty-nine children have died in custody since 1990, 28 of whom hanged themselves. One 15-year-old died after being restrained by three staff at a privately run secure training centre. Nine of those 29 children were on remand. Children in penal custody are known to be among the most disadvantaged in our society. More than a quarter have the literacy and numeracy of an average seven year old. Eighty-five per cent. show signs of a personality disorder. More than half have been in care or involved with social services, and most have been excluded from school. The Commission for Racial Equality has shown that black children are twice as likely to end up in prison as at university. In 2004, 3,337 children who were assessed as vulnerable were nevertheless sent to young offender institutions. Yes, we are being asked to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime and there is a need to do that. However, I make my final appeal: we must deal with the problem of all those children who are locked up in what appear to be very unsatisfactory conditions.