Clause 30
Policing and Crime Bill
1:00 pm
Paul Holmes (Chesterfield, Liberal Democrat)
I have three brief points to make. First, I am sure that the police would say that the existing powers are too limited. However, it can be argued that there is a battery of existing powers that could be used in the situations envisaged in clause 30. Under section 46 of the Children Act 1989, the police can, under certain circumstances, remove children for their own safety. Under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, under certain circumstances, children under 16 can be removed to their place of residence. Under sections 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, action can be taken if anyone—children, in this case—is using
“threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour”.
A group of 10, 13 or 15-year-olds under the influence of alcohol might well fall under the provisions in the Public Order Act in respect of their language, behaviour and so on. Why are all those existing powers in legislation deemed so inappropriate that we need a blanket provision or catch-all so that all children between the ages of 10 and 18 can be dealt with as stated in the Bill?
My second point concerns a matter that we have already touched on. Is it suitable simply to say that we can move people on? Let us imagine a group of 10, 11 or 13-year-olds in a public place, perhaps on a dark winter’s evening: the police believe that there is a problem and that they need moving on. Is it really appropriate simply to move a group of 10-year-olds from one spot to another, rather than taking them back home, for example, or taking some other action? There is a question about the suitability of moving very young children around and whether we are simply displacing their behaviour.
The police will say that in some cases the issue is not clear-cut. A group of children might well be causing what the neighbours perceive as a public order problem, but are not actually breaking the law. At 9.30 pm one evening, I was with a police community support officer in Duckmanton, a pit village on the edge of my constituency. Three 13 and 14-year-old lads were riding around on their bikes, hitting each other over the head with a huge lump of polystyrene. No offence was being committed, although some litter might have resulted and they were shouting very loudly. However, the neighbours would certainly have been unhappy about it. If the police had a word with them and they would move to another area and repeat the performance. In what way is existing legislation inadequate and why is it suitable simply to move the problem around, especially when dealing with particularly young children—the Bill proposes to amend legislation to cover children as young as age 10?
My third point concerns the attitude in this country towards age and criminality and the way in which we treat children. Rod Morgan, former chairman of the Youth Justice Board, said about eight days ago that we have one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Europe, although it is even lower in Scotland at eight years old. However, we lock up twice as many young people as we did in the early 1990s, and we are criminalising many more. When we lock them up, it costs £200,000 a head to keep them in secure accommodation: money which might be better spent on adopting—the Government are fond of this—the Finnish example of strict liability.
In Finland, the age of criminal responsibility is 15, and the emphasis is on trying to rehabilitate young children aged 10 to 15, working with them through psychological approaches or rehabilitation programmes—whatever is appropriate for them and their families. That would cost much less than £200,000 to lock them up, as we tend to do. In Finland, only three children in the 10 to 18 age range are in confinement, as opposed to the 3,000 here. Statute that allows us to experiment with the Scandinavian route already exists, but with clause 30, we seem to be looking more at a punitive approach rather than tackling the problem at its source.