Clause 74 - Remands of children otherwise than on bail
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill
4:00 pm

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

I beg to move Government amendment 253, in clause 74, page 54, line 17, at end insert—

‘( ) This section is subject to section 128(7) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (remands to police detention for periods of not more than 3 days); but that provision has effect in relation to a child as if for the reference to 3 clear days there were substituted a reference to 24 hours.’.

Good afternoon, Mr Sheridan, and welcome to our proceedings.

This is a technical amendment that replicates an existing provision of section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in chapter 3, and it is not a change in policy or practice. The amendment extends the powers set out in the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 for a court to commit a child whom it would otherwise have the power to remand into police custody for a period of up to 24 hours, if it is necessary to detain them in order that inquiries into further offences can be undertaken.

Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith, Labour)

May I echo the Minister, Mr Sheridan, in saying that it is a pleasure to see you back chairing the Committee after the recess for party conferences?

I will make just very brief remarks, although having said that I have had a text message from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland to say, “Can you keep talking until I get there?” Given the slightest encouragement, I will do so, and will address the issue of measures affecting young people in remand and custody. The Government will not get a lot of trouble from us in relation to them. We are in broad agreement with the approach, although I will have something to say when we discuss the amendments that we have tabled to clauses 81 to 84.

It seems sensible—at least in prospect—that a remand in local authority accommodation is a remand in which local authorities will be more engaged. In terms of consistency of care and supervision and probably in terms of cost, that will make sense in the long run.  Apart from the fact that it is a better formulation, clause 74 is perhaps a way to make the local authority take its duties more seriously in that regard.

The Public Bodies Bill will soon deal again with the question of the Youth Justice Board. I do not intend to spend a long time on that subject now, but it seems that the approach that the Government are taking in this clause is rather at odds with their approach in abolishing that body. What we want to see is a concentration on young people. As we have said in previous amendments, young people should be dealt with in a discrete way and in a way that is different from how adult offenders are dealt with. I think that that is what the Government are doing in a number of clauses. They are not doing that, however, in early parts of the Bill, where they lump together children and adults. We saw that in terms of the long periods of supervision, mental health treatment and other matters of that kind, and we certainly see that in the abolition of the Youth Justice Board.

There is therefore an inconsistency in what the Government are doing, and we need a clear definition of “a child”. That definition includes persons under the age of 18 in clause 74 (5), which removes the anomaly regarding 17-year-olds. I will not have a great deal to say on the early clauses of chapter 3, other than to say that we support the approach that the Government are taking.

Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)

I suppose that we do not all owe the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland a favour for the request she made to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, but at least he has managed to sit down before she graces us with her company again.

On clause 74 and chapter 3 in general, it may be useful to make clear what we are trying to do in chapter 3, which makes provision for the remand of children otherwise than on bail. We have introduced the changes to update the current provisions; apply them to 17-year-olds who are treated as adults by current legislation; provide clarity; and remove the current differing treatment by age and gender. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Hammersmith has welcomed this. We have chosen to rewrite the provisions in chapter 3 rather than make further amendments to the existing legislation, which was a method favoured by the Labour party when they were in government. It managed to amend section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 eight times in 13 years. I hope that members of the Committee will agree that our approach is rather better.

The clauses in chapter 3 set out how a child can be remanded in custody and the different criteria that have to be satisfied before such a decision can be made. The clauses also set out the steps to be followed by courts and local authorities when a child is remanded. Courts must first consider a child’s eligibility for bail under the Bail Act 1976. Those provisions remain unchanged. Existing legislation governing the remand of children and young people is repealed by virtue of schedule 11.

Clause 74 sets out who the subsequent clauses apply to, and in what context they will apply. Under the provisions of the Bill, a child or young person who is not bailed must be remanded to local authority accommodation, or, where conditions set out in clauses 81 to 84 are met, to youth detention accommodation. The provisions in chapter 3 have been widely welcomed by children’s charities and interest groups such as the Prison  Reform Trust and the Children’s Society. I therefore propose that that clause 74 should stand part of the Bill.