Children and Young Persons Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 29: 29: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause— ““Provision of care for children and young persons convicted of criminal offence (1) After section 42 of the Children Act 1989 insert— ““PART IVA Detention Detention orders 42A Detention orders (1) This section applies where a child or young person (aged up to 20 years) is convicted of a criminal offence and a court makes an order that that child or young person should be detained. (2) A local authority must provide suitable premises in which that child or young person can be securely accommodated and appropriate care and support provided. (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the provision of suitable premises under subsection (2).”” (2) In section 27(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58) (remand of persons aged 17 to 20) omit the words— (a) ““, if the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that a remand centre is available for the reception from the court of persons of his class or description,””, and (b) ““and, if it has not been so notified, it shall commit him to a prison.”” (3) In section 43(2) of the Prisons Act 1952 (c. 52) (remand centres, detention centres and youth custody centres) omit paragraph (c). (4) For section 106 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) substitute— ““106 Interaction with sentences of detention in a young offender institution (1) Where a court passes a sentence of detention in a young offender institution in the case of an offender who is subject to a detention and training order, the sentence shall take effect as follows— (a) if the offender has been released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102 above, at the beginning of the day on which it is passed; (b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102. (2) Where a court makes a detention and training order in the case of an offender who is subject to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, the order shall take effect as follows— (a) if the offender has been released under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release of prisoners), at the beginning of the day on which it is made; (b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released under that Part. (3) Subsection (1)(a) above has effect subject to section 105(3)(a) above and subsection (2)(a) above has effect subject to section 116(6)(b) below. (4) Subject to subsection (5) below, where at any time an offender is subject concurrently— (a) to a detention and training order, and (b) to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, he shall be treated for the purposes of sections 102 to 105 above and of section 98 above (place of detention), Chapter IV of this Part (return to detention) and Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release) as if he were subject only to the one of them that was imposed on the later occasion. (5) Nothing in subsection (4) above shall require the offender to be released in respect of either the order or the sentence unless and until he is required to be released in respect of each of them. (6) Where, by virtue of any enactment giving a court power to deal with a person in a way in which a court on a previous occasion could have dealt with him, a detention and training order for any term is made in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18, the person shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to detention in a young offender institution for the same term.”” (5) Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life, etc.) is repealed.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, in one of those characteristic outbursts of well based indignation with which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, regaled us a few amendments ago—I always find those outbursts very challenging—he spoke of his increasing frustration at the relationships between each piece of legislation and how we have to approach each individually in the absence of anything to resolve the issue of an underlying theme that would govern all legislation in the respective areas. All I can say is that I could not agree with him more. In thanking all noble Lords who have added their names to my amendment, I should say that I shall be urging them to do the same in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill because I am going to do exactly the same there. I will be tabling this amendment again in the context of that Bill. We are dealing here not with a theoretical issue but with real, pressing and acute situations and realities that affect the young and society as a whole. I hope I will be forgiven for drawing the attention of noble Lords to the horrific stories that have been coming from the island of Jersey recently. Jersey is not part of our immediate concern, but there are lessons to be learnt about what can go wrong and the vulnerability of young people. However, it is not just Jersey. Let us look at ourselves. I picked up the newspaper only today and read that the Chief Inspector of Prisons is actually suggesting that Oakhill Secure Training Centre for young people should be temporarily closed because things have gone so badly wrong and because of what is happening to the young people held in that centre. I do not apologise for repeating what I said in Grand Committee and probably at Second Reading. Since 1990, some 30 children have died in custody, in the care of the state, the self-same state that has signed a convention which states that we have a responsibility for upholding and encouraging the well-being of young people. We have heard that 28 of these deaths were self-inflicted, one was a homicide and one was restraint related. Two of the most recent deaths were in privately-run secure training centres; all the others were in Prison Service accommodation in young offender institutions. Relating back to the amendment we have just discussed, in the same period 201 young people aged 18 to 21 have died in custody, including 178 self-inflicted deaths and five homicides. I do not know how we can accept these figures; they are totally appalling in a country which regards itself as civilised. In this context, my amendment is designed to ensure that the young people are not destined to find themselves locked up in conditions which are not only counterproductive but dangerous for them. I am, of course, the first to recognise that there is a need to protect the public—we all know this—and that there are some young people who simply have to be detained because they are a threat, a danger, a hazard to the public. But if we really want to look to the interests of the public, the challenge—and the greater the problem the greater the challenge—is to see how we can get down immediately to a programme which is designed to enable these young people to become positive and responsible members of society as distinct from negative, destructive members of society. This, of course, ties up with the ongoing continuity of responsibility of the local authorities and the rest, and this is what my amendment is designed to achieve. I have said this before in Grand Committee—and I know that the argument can come back—but you cannot say ““never””, because if you say ““never”” there will always be exceptions and what are you going to do about the exceptions? The problem is that if you say ““never”” there will always be a tendency for the exception to become the rule; it will be the easy option to send people off to the wrong kind of detention. At some point you have to say this is simply not going to happen and we are going to ensure that it does not. Other countries have done that. Why cannot we do what others have done? Are we helpless? In terms of penal policy and their responsibility for young people, other countries have found that it makes sense economically and socially to ensure that where young people have to be detained they are invariably detained in special accommodation designed for such young people. We know that in prison too often—not always, thank God—the prevailing ethos is not going to be one which is conducive to rehabilitation and to enabling the young to become responsible citizens. I have been over these arguments in more detail in Committee and the rest. I hope my noble friend will be able to say today that the Government are set on a course which will make amendments of this kind unnecessary. I beg to move.