Schedule 1
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
5:30 pm
David Heath (Shadow Secretary of State for Justice & Lord Chancellor, Ministry of Justice; Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
We come now to consideration of the youth rehabilitation order with fostering requirements, and what might be suggested by such an order. The amendments are small and it might be said that they state the obvious, in terms of the provisions, but they also cover areas that are not explicit in the Bill. The present wording of schedule 1 requires the court to be satisfied
“that the behaviour which constituted the offence was due to a significant extent to the circumstances in which the offender was living,”
and
“that the imposition of a fostering requirement would assist in the offender’s rehabilitation.”
It goes on to say that before any fostering requirement is made, the court’s assessment needs to be accompanied by consultation with the offender’s parents or guardians and consultation with the local authority in which the court intends to place the offender with a foster parent.
It is axiomatic in what Ministers have said about the orders that they would be derived from a proper consultative process by all concerned. The measure would not be imposed by a court out of the blue sky, but would be the result of all the agencies involved with the care and future management of the offender sharing the view that this is a disposal that they would recommend. The courts will make the decision as to whether it is an appropriate disposal, but other agencies must be involved. There is no mention of that in the Bill but it is assumed that that will be the case.
Amendment No. 174 tries to ensure that the court will have properly consulted with children’s services and the youth offending team before it considers this fundamental, and as we know expensive and perhaps difficult to effect, order. The court must be satisfied that it is the right and proper disposal for that individual.
The Minister may intend to include that in sentencing and other guidelines to the court, but it is important that the point is made. This is a culmination of a consultative process rather than ex cathedra judgment by the court. Quite apart from the interests of the criminal justice system, it is fundamental to the child’s interests.
Amendment No. 171 might be taken as a statement of the obvious. Again, it is an important consideration that the court must take into account. It touches on the point made in the context of the previous amendment by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. It would be wrong to take somebody out of an environment that may be conducive to them offending or reoffending, only to place them in an environment which is no better. We have already had assurances from the Minister about pilot schemes, and I see no reason not to include the latter point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, although whether it can be rolled out is a different matter from whether it should form part of the provision within the Bill. Even though a criminal justice Bill arrives every few weeks, there is no reason not to use this one to make the necessary amendments to the law.
During the pilot schemes, individuals were placed with foster families and not into children’s homes—some of us have serious doubts as to whether children’s home accommodation could possibly provide the stability and safe refuge that would be required. We must be satisfied that the order would do the same. Amendment No. 171 states that
“the imposition of a fostering requirement would tend to improve the circumstances in which the offender was living”.
That is modest wording for what we intend to accomplish. It should very significantly improve the environment in the context of the behaviour that constituted the offence.
May I just say one thing in parenthesis? Is it correct to say that
“the behaviour which constituted the offence was due to a significant extent to the circumstances”,
rather than that the circumstances contributed to the likelihood of the offending behaviour? There is a difference. I would hate it if a clever person were challenging this at some later stage and said, “You cannot possibly imply causality from the family environment with any certainty.” I ask the Minister not to respond now, but to ponder whether there is any difficulty with the bald expression “the offence was due”. Of course, the offence was due to the behaviour of the individual and perhaps the circumstances in which he or she found themselves on that day, having the opportunity to commit the offence. It is not due to the environment, but the environment can affect the propensity of an individual to commit an offence, which is what we are dealing with through the intensive fostering arrangements. That is an aside.
I have two separate points to make, neither of which I intend to seek to divide the Committee on. First, I should just like to gauge the Minister’s reaction to the orders arriving out of a genuinely consultative process with all concerned with the individual’s welfare and management. I think that that is intended, but I want to ensure that that is always so. Secondly, I want to ensure that the placements are, as far as can possibly be arranged, to the benefit of the individual and will not be allowed where a local authority has failed to make proper provision—if it is their responsibility to do so—and the different environment is no better than the one from which the child was taken as a result of the rehabilitation order.