With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the youth justice system in England and Wales. I am today publishing a white paper, with a once-in-a-generation set of reforms to build a youth justice system that intervenes early, responds more effectively and does more to turn young lives around, so that we can better protect the public. I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend Jake Richards, and, before him, my hon. Friend Sir Nicholas Dakin, for all their hard work in getting us to this point.

Over the past two decades, the number of children entering the youth justice system and being detained in custody has fallen dramatically. This progress is the result of real cross-party consensus, with a modern youth justice system that began under Tony Blair’s Government and was continued, during his time as Prime Minister, by Lord Cameron—he famously said he would “hug a hoodie”—who, with Lord Gove, asked me to carry out the Lammy review.

But this success has brought a new challenge. Our youth justice system is now working with significantly fewer young people, but they are significantly more vulnerable and at significantly higher risk. Most begin their journey into crime long before they come to the attention of the police, their lives shaped by instability, by trauma and often by neglect—the kind of childhood that most of us in this House could barely imagine. Some grow up surrounded by violence, addiction and abuse, while others are moved endlessly around children’s homes or foster care placements, never staying in one place long enough to have the stability needed to feel safe, let alone the love and care that would enable them to really thrive. All those factors make them more likely to end up in the justice system. When we fail to intervene early enough, the consequences can be devastating—for those children, of course, but also for victims and entire communities, because around 80% of prolific adult offenders first enter the justice system as children.

The risks that children face have also changed. Today’s children are navigating online harms, criminal grooming through social media and exposure to extremist content. Too often the system has struggled to keep pace: opportunities to intervene are missed, warning signs go unnoticed and agencies do not consistently share information. This means that children can slip through the cracks between services, which risks escalation, and responsibility between agencies becomes blurred. The lessons emerging from the Southport inquiry, following the tragic murders of three young children by Axel Rudakubana, a violent 17-year-old who was known to authorities, are a terrible reminder of what can happen when systems are not sufficiently co-ordinated and not sufficiently decisive in the face of escalating concerns.

We must learn those lessons but also strike the right balance. The system must recognise that they are still developing and that most have huge capacity to change. We should not over-criminalise but, at the same time, avoiding criminalisation must never mean overlooking risk or failing to act. Benign neglect, however well intentioned, is still neglect. Where behaviour causes harm, timely, proportionate and effective Intervention is essential to protect the public and to support children to change course.

That principle is reflected throughout this White Paper. First, we will intervene earlier, investing an additional £46 million over the next three years in our turnaround programme, which is already showing promising results in diverting children from crime, and by strengthening the join-up with other programmes that support children on the cusp of offending. We will also strengthen and expand the use of parenting orders, which can compel parents to address their child’s behaviour, including attending counselling or guidance sessions. If they do not act, they will face penalties. We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an offence of child criminal exploitation, building on the work carried out by others, including Baroness May, and placing the focus where it belongs: on the adults who groom, the adults who coerce and the adults who profit from exploiting children. Through new youth diversion orders, we will tackle the increasing number of young people who commit terrorism offences, allowing agencies to intervene before that risk escalates.

Where offending does happen, we will ensure that children get the right response at the right time. Diversion must be firm, fair and effective. We will fundamentally reform the youth out-of-court resolution framework, to improve consistency and public confidence so that children receive interventions that genuinely address their behaviour and cut crime. We will also pilot problem-solving youth intervention courts, laser-focused on rehabilitation and prevention. They bring together judges, youth workers and specialist support to tackle the root causes of offending, whether mental ill health, school absence, addiction or exploitation, while still demanding accountability from young offenders.

Custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences, but for many children even a short spell inside can deepen their problems, exposing them to more violence and criminal influence. So we are setting an ambition to cut the number of children remanded in custody by 25% over this Parliament, alongside an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences, which so often are ineffective, with more than two thirds of children going on to reoffend. Instead, we will invest £5 million in intensive community placements and stronger bail support, protecting the public while giving children a genuine chance to change course.

We will also reform the childhood criminal records regime, because mistakes made at 13 should not become a life sentence of closed doors and lost chances, not least where this prevents young people from getting a job, which is a crucial factor in helping offenders turn their lives around. We will carefully consider the age of criminal responsibility in this country, which currently sits at just 10 years old, to ensure that it still reflects a modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development. We will also strengthen local youth justice services so that they are better equipped to meet the needs of today’s children.

We will soon set out detailed proposals for a new approach to youth justice service oversight, and funding arrangements so that children receive consistently high-quality support wherever they live. That includes reforming the Youth Justice Board, sharpening its focus on continuous improvement of local services and transferring some of its key functions to the Ministry of Justice, so that Ministers are fully accountable for how the system performs.

I have been clear that custody will, where appropriate, be necessary for public safety. However, we will take further action to improve safety and education across the youth estate, while setting a clear long-term direction of travel away from large, outdated institutions and towards smaller settings that can better rehabilitate children.

The White Paper is also about fairness. Not all children in our justice system are equal. Those in care are still far more likely to be drawn into the system. Black children remain vastly over-represented—22% of the youth custodial population, compared with 6% of 10 to 17-year-olds overall. Black children are also over-represented among victims, being around six times more likely to be victims of homicide. I warned about this disproportionality when David Cameron asked me to do the Lammy review, nearly a decade ago, and the fact it persists today should shame us all. These reforms will begin to address that, building a system that is fairer and more consistent.

It is not a choice between punishment and rehabilitation; it is about what works: protecting the public, cutting reoffending, and stopping vulnerable children—so often victims themselves—becoming tomorrow’s dangerous adult offenders. This Government will do whatever it takes to give more children the chance of a better future, and to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the Shadow Secretary of State.

It is obvious that we are now in the legacy-hunting stage of this Government. Less a range of exhausted volcanoes, more a row of trampled molehills, Ministers are desperate to be remembered for something. This morning a word cloud was published by the pollsters at More in Common. The public were asked for the Prime Minister’s greatest achievement, and emblazoned across the page, in huge capital letters, was the sad word “Nothing.”

Today’s announcement, however, is a fitting tribute to the Justice Secretary and his predecessor, Shabana Mahmood. So desperate are they to find the causes of crime that they sometimes forget that their job is to prevent and punish crime itself. The truth is that Labour just does not have it in its DNA to be tough on crime. The Government have let 60,000 criminals out of jail early, they are abolishing short-term sentences—so that almost all shoplifters and the Majority of knife criminals will no longer be sent to prison—and they are pretending that they are doing these things because they have to, but they are doing them because they want to.

The Prisons Minister says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. The Minister for Sentencing, Jake Richards, says that a pretty big chunk of the overall population should not be in prison, and today’s announcement is more of the same. So I have some specific questions for the Justice Secretary. He wants to increase the age of criminal responsibility to reflect a

“modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development”.

From smoking bans to voting rights, this Government have a confused view of childhood, so what should be the age of criminal responsibility?

With a wave of sexual and violent crime committed by illegal immigrants, many of whom pretend to be children, can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those people will not escape justice a second time by giving a fake age to the police? The Government say they will review the function and purpose of criminal courts for child defendants, but the purpose of a criminal court is obvious: to try criminals. Can the Justice Secretary rule out abolishing criminal trials for under-18s?

The Government also say that they want to end lifelong disclosure requirements for the under-18s. Can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those requirements will still apply to people guilty of violent crimes and to prolific offenders?

The Government say they will slash custodial remand for young offenders by a quarter, but remand should be used in response to need, not arbitrary targets. What is the Justice Secretary’s alternative? Will he just send criminals home? Will he stick to that target regardless of the level of violent crime and repeat offending?

The Government want more parenting orders, but this morning the Justice Secretary said that they are not used much at the moment because all judges can do to enforce them is issue a fine. He was unclear on this question. So will Ministers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman was asked on the radio this morning whether parents who do not comply will face custodial sentences. He fudged that question, so I am asking him to answer it now.

The figures show that young repeat offenders often start with theft and move on to drug offences and violence, yet the Government’s big idea is to stop punishing swathes of crimes committed by under-18s. The gangs who swarm shops to steal goods in places like Oxford Street, Ilford and Clapham do not need to be put on a course; instead, they need clear punishment, which can include prison.

The results of soft-touch liberalism are visible in towns and cities up and down the country, yet the changes that the Justice Secretary is announcing today risk amounting to more of the same. This is a big call. If youth crime goes up as a result, it will be on this Government.

The Tories have a mixed record when it comes to youth justice and keeping young people out of criminality. We should remember that their local authority spending cuts led to a huge fall in council services for young people—about 70% in real terms. While they were in power, £1 billion was lost, leading to the closure of many youth clubs, a reduction in the outreach work that is vital to keeping young people on the right track, and youth workers being completely undermined. All that early Intervention work was stopped—an entire generation sacrificed at the altar of austerity.

As Nick Timothy will know—he was at the driving wheel—the Tories also cut 20,000 police officers and 7,000 police community support officers, leading to a collapse in visible neighbourhood policing. On their watch—[Interruption.] Conservative Members really should listen to this. On their watch, more than 1,000 Sure Start centres closed. Early intervention was demolished on their watch.

I said it was a mixed record because there was a fall in the number of first-time entrants into the youth justice system. Figures peaked at around 110,000 back in 2007, but fell to just 7,500 while the Tories were in office in 2023. When they entered government, there were around 2,000 children in youth custody; by the end of their tenure, that had fallen to just over 1,000. Those were great achievements. It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does not want to celebrate those achievements, which began under David Cameron and Michael Gove.

The hon. Gentleman asks about the age of criminal responsibility. As he will know, the Bar Council is consulting on this issue, and I look forward to receiving the conclusions of its work. He also asks about foreign national offenders. We are absolutely clear in this consultation that we will look at the 16 and 17-year-olds who arrive in our country from somewhere else and commit a violent crime; if they do so, I am afraid that they will be deported. We are really clear about that. We have driven up deportation in our country.

The hon. Gentleman asks whether we are abolishing the youth court and the criminal standard. Of course we are not. However, we are consulting on youth intervention courts because, just as we have seen in our family drug and alcohol courts, problem-solving approaches —gripping the young person, their parents and those who work with them; looking at the addiction and mental health issues and giving them support; holding the multidisciplinary teams to account—can really make a difference. We stand by that.

The hon. Member asked about young people on remand. We want to recruit a new generation of specialist foster carers, because it is much better to have a responsible, loving adult—

Exactly—we used to have them, and the Tories abolished them. We want to bring them back and grow their numbers so that we can support these young people.

There are a range of things we can do through this white paper, and I encourage the hon. Member for West Suffolk to read it in detail. A lot of his predecessors would agree with it. It is good work, and we need to get on with it.

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

I welcome the white paper, which shines a welcome light on an often-neglected part of the criminal justice system. The remarkable drop in the number of young people in custody, from a high of 3,400 a day, is sometimes box-ticked as “job done”, but when half those young people are on remand and a Majority do not go on to receive a custodial sentence, there is clearly more to be done.

The Justice Committee is conducting an inquiry into children and young adults in the secure estate. While the Government are right to look at early Intervention and alternatives to custody, will the Lord Chancellor also look at the successes and failures of the current custodial system for young people and how it can better rehabilitate young people and reduce the risk of reoffending?

We will look at this and do the necessary inquiry, and I know that my hon. Friend’s Committee is doing that work at the moment. He is concerned, quite rightly, about the huge rates of both prolific crime and recidivism. Clearly, the system is not working. We have this group of young people present in the system, and sometimes over two thirds of them go on to reoffend. We can do better, and we must do better. We have put rehabilitation at the heart of this youth justice white paper.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Government’s white paper represents a truly critical opportunity to transform the youth justice system and, importantly, reduce lifetime offending. We know that most offenders in our prisons today are repeat offenders and that persistent offending often begins early in life, with eight in 10 prolific offenders in England and Wales committing their first crime as a child. We must stop this chain of escalation, and the earlier we intervene, the better.

Nowhere is that more applicable than for children in care, those from ethnic minorities and those with special educational needs, who are disproportionately represented in the justice system. Will the Secretary of State set out how this overhaul will ensure that these children, given their specific vulnerabilities, will receive the targeted support that they desperately need?

May I take this opportunity to highlight the great work of the organisation SHiFT and encourage the Justice Secretary to engage with it? I believe that SHiFT’s model could be rolled out across the country, helping young people before they even commit their first crime?

Education for young offenders can be a crucial step in diverting them from a path to reoffending. We are pleased that the Children’s Commissioner will undertake a review of education in young offender institutions, but can the Justice Secretary ensure that it will take into account the fact that 80% of young people who are sentenced have special educational needs and make sure that the support they are getting in those institutes is fit for purpose?

The Youth Justice Board provides vital independent oversight of the youth justice system, yet the Government have chosen not to act on the report they commissioned from Steve Crocker, instead bringing a number of the board’s functions more directly within the remit of the Ministry of Justice. What is the purpose of those reforms? What benefit will the Government gain from bringing those functions in-house, and will the Justice Secretary address the concerns from across the sector that these reforms risk reducing specialist experience and weakening independent accountability?

Finally, will the Secretary of State set out how the use of parenting orders will affect the recruitment of foster parents, those being asked to take on special guardianship orders or kinship arrangements, and those considering adoption? If parenting orders will not apply to those families, how will they be supported effectively to ensure that this measure does not lead to further family breakdowns and more children ending up in the care system?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the manner in which she made her remarks. She understands that we have seen this revolving door, where two thirds of children and young people released from custody go on to reoffend, and many of those young people are extremely vulnerable. We have to do something about it.

I thank her for mentioning the cohort of young people —way too many—who are within the care system. I am very grateful that the Minister responsible for children in care, my hon. Friend Josh MacAlister, is on the front bench today alongside me. He takes a huge interest in the work that our Departments do together to deal with this area.

The hon. Lady mentioned young people who are adopted. She knows that I am a parent of an adopted child, and I take these issues extremely seriously. She is right, and we are looking in totality at the way in which parenting orders have worked. There must be something going wrong if the number of parenting orders issued has fallen over the last decade from more than 1,000 to just 33 last year. We have to look at it in the round and ensure that judges have the right tools to support parents and guardians over this next period.

The hon. Lady raises the reforms we are making to the Youth Justice Board. It is still the case, if we look across the country, that there is a postcode lottery. We have to eliminate that postcode lottery, which also exists because of online harms, because of grooming, because of mental health and because of neurodiversity. I was in Feltham recently and I saw the good work that it is doing with young people who are neurodiverse. It is important that the Department, working with our colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, bring some of these powers back to the centre so that we can get coherence across the country and end that postcode lottery.

I welcome this statement and the white paper. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that programmes such as turnaround are felt in constituencies such as mine in Colchester and beyond?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentoring turnaround, which is an important scheme that began under the last Government and has continued under us. It is making a big difference by diverting these young people. I will look closely at its use in her Constituency, but we are absolutely clear that it is about not just diverting them but ensuring that we are diverting them to quality. We can see from the recidivism rate of 7% that turnaround is an exceptional programme.

Can I ask the Secretary of State about two things? The first is education, which he has mentioned. It is, of course, important to look at education for young people in a custodial setting, but does he agree that it is also important to consider the link between attendance at education and rehabilitation for those who have received non-custodial disposals, and will he ensure that his proposals make that link clear?

Secondly, in relation to advocacy on behalf of young people within the youth justice system, the Secretary of State will recognise that, with a smaller number of young people going through the system, it is more and more difficult to maintain a specialist advocacy profession and to ensure that advocates are properly rewarded for the very specific skills they need to develop. Will he look at the fee structure for advocates and ensure that we continue to encourage the right balance of skills, attention to conferences and that they get to know the client, which is particularly important for young people in the youth justice system?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his expertise in this area. He is right to mention the role that the education system plays, and not just for those in custody. There is more to do in respect of education for young people in custody. Too many of them spent time in their cells during the pandemic, and not outside their cells getting skills. We are looking at reforming referral orders and, whereas we previously had just volunteer panels keeping up to date with these young people in communities, we are looking a bit closer at the role of the judge and professionals in those referrals to ensure that education is taking place and that we have a more multidisciplinary approach in respect of the outcomes for those young people. I thank him for mentioning special advocacy and I assure him that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, is looking closely at this and chairing a group to look at the issues.

I welcome the white paper. My right hon. Friend has acknowledged that 80% of prolific offenders first offend as children and that two thirds of children reoffend within a year after being released from custody, so does he agree that early and fast Intervention is crucial to cut crime? Can he please also outline what specific youth provision, including mental health help, is available to young people in my Constituency of Wolverhampton West to deal with this issue?

I will look specifically at my hon. Friend’s Constituency. It should be the case that turnaround and diversion work can make a difference, and I hope it is making a difference in his patch. I met the previous Health Secretary to discuss these issues, and I look forward to taking them up with the new Health Secretary in the coming days.

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. The Justice Committee heard that, as of February 2026, there were only 412 young people in custody, of whom about 44% were on remand, so when he says, with a great flourish, that he intends to reduce the number by 25%, he is talking about reducing a very small number—about 185—down to about 135. That is a very small number of individuals. Rather than making a huge effort, as he appears to be doing, to bring about this very small reduction, his efforts would be better spent on improving education and training in the youth custody system.

I say very gently to the hon. Gentleman that we can do both. We can improve education in our youth custody system—I entirely accept that there is more to do, particularly coming out of covid and particularly because of chronic under-investment by his party—but I encourage him to think a bit harder about the remand population. There is, of course, tremendous churn among the 400 young people who are currently in custody, and therefore we are not talking about a sliver of 25%, adding up to 135. That is not the case. It is significantly more than that, because over the course of a year, it gets into the thousands of young people. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, but that is basic maths.

I welcome the white paper and put on record my thanks both to my right hon. Friend and to the Minister for youth justice, my hon. Friend Jake Richards, for their work on this issue. One of the most heartbreaking things I have to do as a Member of Parliament is meet families and young people who have been failed by the system after those young people have taken actions that have caused disturbance for their families and the wider community. Accountability matters, but one of the crushing realities I have learned as an MP is that state failure plays a large part in criminality and the lack of options for young people. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that youth Intervention courts and other measures will begin to address not just criminality and the lack of accountability, but the lack of opportunity in training, caring, support, education and—particularly in my patch—apprenticeships, so that we divert people from prison in the first place and those in custody have opportunities when they come out?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and of course I know his city of Peterborough very well. Peterborough has a vibrant third sector, and we have to get it involved in offering opportunities to young people in the community. There is no doubt that there are lots of skills and training opportunities in Peterborough and the whole of East Anglia, and we want young people to take them up.

The white paper contains many announcements that we, as Liberal Democrats, can support, so I gently ask the Deputy prime minister what evidence the Government have that the potential threat of a prison sentence will be an effective mechanism for compliance with a parenting order. Have the Government done an impact assessment, and how can he guarantee that the use of stricter punishment will not adversely affect the outcomes for the child involved?

I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has raised the extremely rare circumstance in which we would expect a judge to remand a parent in custody, but I think he will agree that the judge’s effectively having only a fine does need reform. That is why we have seen the number of parenting orders come down. It is important that we are there to support and encourage parents. I was hugely shocked when I sat recently in Highbury magistrates court, with a lot of young people facing quite serious offences, and there was no parent in sight.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the publication of the white paper. Education has a vital role to play in reducing youth offending. There is a strong link between the offences committed by young people and educational disengagement earlier in their lives. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the Department for Education’s work on persistent absence, exclusions, special educational needs and disabilities, and support for care-experienced young people is properly joined up to ensure that the Government have a focus on removing disengagement from education and reducing youth offending?

I welcome the work that the Secretary of State has asked the Children’s Commissioner to do on the quality of education in young offender institutions, but we already know that the quality of that education is abysmally poor and that action is urgently needed. Will he set a timescale for that work, so that we know when we will see the positive change that is so urgently needed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for championing these issues. I hope that she sees an indication of what she seeks from the fact that two Ministers are working hand in hand and sitting on the interministerial group to direct this activity. There is more to do on education in the youth custody context and more to do on neurodiversity and its prevalence among this cohort of young people. We have to extend that work into communities and join up better with local child and adolescent mental health services as well.

May I ask the Justice Secretary to explain a bit more about the intensive community placements to which he made brief reference? Can I put to him a particularly challenging scenario? Imagine that we have, say, a single parent—a single mum—who is very much afraid of her own adolescent child. She is aware that that child has been getting machetes and other violent accessories through internet-related delivery services. Let us imagine that she does what she is supposed to do, and what we would all think she ought to do, which is to report the child. Given that no offence has yet been committed by the child, what protection will be offered to her against potentially lethal violence from her own adolescent son?

The right hon. Member raises a very serious issue, and it lies at the heart of what we are discussing, because we are seeing young people, particularly this prolific cohort, becoming addicted—often addicted online and often groomed—and this is where the knives and, sadly, the terrorism come in. This is not a stand-alone policy; the work of Prevent, the police and social services matters. Here we have to do better to join up that work, and that is the signal we got following the Fulford inquiry into what happened in Southport. This is an attempt to move directly in that direction, recognising that we are seeing that addictive behaviour in a cohort of young people, and that they are often neurodiverse. We need to support parents to get this right, and an intensive supervision court can make a real difference and put a judge right at the centre of that ring.

I truly welcome the statement and the white paper. I am pleased to see in the statement a consultation to end lifelong disclosure to ensure that a child or young person’s poor choices in their early life do not define their future prospects as an adult. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the work I have done with FairChecks and Penelope Gibbs. I suggest that he considers how tougher accountability for parents or carers could go on to further affect the stability of families, especially when they feel they have been failed by earlier interventions or Intervention services. Will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me to discuss this matter further?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend not just for championing these issues from the Back Benches, but for the tremendous work she did while she was Children’s Minister. She will be pleased to hear that I met Penelope Gibbs just last week to discuss these very issues, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to look at what more we can do. This is an important consultation. A third of people on jobseeker’s allowance have an offence on their record. We have to do something to ensure that these things do not follow young people for the rest of their lives.

Devolving youth justice powers is hardly a novel argument, and the white paper itself acknowledges Wales’s action on the prevention of youth offending. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether Labour will finally listen to the people of Wales, who have elected a Government clear in their stance on devolution, and allow Wales full powers over justice?

I look forward to meeting the new team in Wales soon to discuss what more we can do together.

I am so pleased that early Intervention and working with families is at the heart of this Government’s approach. As a former Cabinet member for children’s services in Denbighshire, I know how important that is. Will my right hon. Friend set out how increased investment in programmes such as Turnaround will help children in Clwyd North before they enter the justice system?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and she knows from her experience how vital this is. It goes back to the point that I was making about the postcode lottery that we see across the country. We must even up standards and ensure a universal element to this, so that it is not just a pick and mix from local authority to local authority. That is why I am bringing powers back to the centre from the Youth Justice Board, as well as empowering it to drive change and innovation in local communities. That is why we must continue with that £46 million funding for Turnaround over the next three years.

Let us be honest: tens of thousands of young people have been let down in this country by successive Governments. The right hon. Gentleman said that those in care are drawn “disproportionately” into the justice system, and all that talent—in my view, forgive me, God-given talent—is wasted. We talk about productivity in this country, but what about social productivity? What about social justice for those young people in care homes? It is completely wasted talent. People go from children’s homes, paid by the state, into prison, also paid by the state. Although I welcome some of what the Secretary of State has said, the fact is that the Government, and previous Governments, have lectured parents on how to parent, but the worst parents of all—look at the evidence; look at the data—are the Government themselves. Will the right hon. Gentleman work with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that social workers in whatever part of this country keep an eye on what young people are doing at school, follow up when they are failing in their exams, and ensure that they leave school with qualifications, so that fewer of them end up in the criminal justice system?

The right hon. Gentleman and I have been friends for many years. I know that, like me, he has a deep Christian faith; one heard the power of redemption in his voice. I have long believed that the phrase “looked after” is one of the biggest oxymorons in the English language. Those kids are not sufficiently looked after, which is why I am so grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Education is sitting beside me and doing such considerable work to turn this system around.

My constituents want and deserve a justice system that is fit for purpose, delivers justice for victims, and tackles crime properly and effectively. That said, poverty and deprivation play an important role, so will the Secretary of State assure me that there is a proper and effective cross-Government approach? He mentioned the Department for Education, but the heart of this strategy goes further than that. We need a carrot and stick approach, not just words.

My hon. Friend is right, and he knows from his long experience that the role local government plays, alongside mental health services and education, is vital, and we must do much better to join this up. Whenever something goes badly wrong, it is usually because services have not been sufficiently joined up. That is why the new intensive supervision course in this area can make a real difference for young people.

In my 20 years’ experience in the courts, I have watched young people’s attitude change: there is no respect for the courts when they walk into the courtroom, and no fear of the police. Prison—or young offenders institution—sentences are no longer a deterrent, because they are simply not given out. We rarely see parents in court in support, for lots of different reasons: these children are neglected because their parents are battling alcohol or drugs, have financial issues or are out of work; or they are in a care system that is letting them down. I have visited care homes that I know let under-age youngsters go out at night and prostitute themselves, because nobody can keep an eye on them or control them. The care system fails those kids too. In places such as my Constituency, I witness kids going out in gangs, subject to organised crime gangs. They need opportunities, they need apprenticeships—

Order. One of us is going to give way and it is not going to be me. [Interruption.] Please, sit down immediately. I need to get everyone’s questions in. If you want to make a statement, you can apply for an Adjournment Debate. I am sure there are many other ways to do that, but you cannot just hog the whole of this debate.

This is one of the few occasions—the first ever, I think—when I have agreed with the hon. Lady, specifically about the context for these young people. She brings tremendous experience to the Chamber as a magistrate working in this area, and we can agree about children in care, the adult grooming that we are seeing and parents often not being present in the criminal justice system—we have to do more to support them. She will find a lot in the white paper that perhaps Reform can adopt as its policy for the next election.

I thank the Justice Secretary for recognising the disproportionality that still exists within the criminal justice system for our black communities. Education and diversionary activities are absolutely essential to early Intervention. After the anti-Muslim hate marches and anti-Muslim rhetoric that we saw at the so-called “Unite the Kingdom” march last weekend, how will the Government ensure that this white paper provides our schools and youth services with the tools they need to prevent young people being radicalised and exploited by hateful, violent ideologies?

I know that my hon. Friend has a tremendous track record in championing issues of disproportionality in this House and beyond this place, and we are grateful for all the work that she does in that area. She is absolutely right that in this white paper we are getting up to date and gripping the online harms facing our most vulnerable young people, who, in a care context, are living without sufficient parenting and are often groomed into terrorism and vile hate. We must do something about that. There are adults who we can gather together to make a difference in the lives of those young people.

I appreciate what the Justice Secretary wants to achieve on reducing the rate of recidivism. He said in his statement that

“custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences”,

but went on to say that there will be

“an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences.”

Will he add some more detail around the length of sentence that he considers to be a “short” custodial sentence? In relation to knife crime, he will know that the minimum sentence for threatening with a knife can be as little as six months. Young people already do not have much fear about being searched for a knife or facing the criminal justice system. If they know that they will not receive a custodial sentence at the end of the process, what deterrent will there be to their carrying or using a knife?

Behind the hon. Gentleman’s question is a serious issue. The evidence suggests that short custodial sentences have poor outcomes, with recidivism of almost two thirds, whereas good community support has far better outcomes, with recidivism down by about a third. This is not about just leaving these young people to their own devices in the community. With tagging, specialist foster care and secure accommodation in communities, one can make a real difference and ensure that young people are monitored, which sometimes does not happen in big institutions.

It seems clear that the lack of early-years Intervention, the lack of SEND support and the cuts to youth services in the past 14 years have let down a generation of our children. How will the youth intervention courts bring together those agencies to tackle the entrenched root causes, including poor mental health and disengagement with schools?

I should call to mind not just the work of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, but the youth guarantee introduced by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and all her work to ensure that young people have opportunities wherever they live in the country. Turnaround is making a difference in bringing those services together. We are remodelling the Youth Justice Board, bringing more back to the centre so that we can ensure consistency across the country. At this time, expertise in these areas, particularly in online harm, does not always exist in communities, so we need to do better.

On Friday, I was at Leeds Trinity University and met with a group of future teachers. They were talking about the exclusion-to-offending pipeline in our schools, and the challenges in meeting the needs of SEND children. Will the Secretary of State elaborate further on what tangible steps his Department will take with the DFE to get this right?

I am pleased that under the new Government, we have gripped the pupil referral unit scandal that was happening up and down the country. Too many young people were not even attending the pupil referral unit; they were effectively on the streets. When they did attend the pupil referral unit, they were not really being supported either therapeutically or educationally. That lottery is coming to an end under this Government. There is absolutely a pipeline into crime, and we have to be joined up for not just those young people in custody in the criminal justice system, but those young people who are often in a pipeline into custody if the pupil referral unit is not working as successfully as it should.

I recently hosted a screening of a short film called “The Orphan”, a dramatisation of a boy being caught up in county lines activity. It was directed by Leo Powell and supported by Stevenage borough council and across our local schools. I welcome the white paper, particularly the new offence of child criminal exploitation and other early Intervention measures, including the Turnaround programme. Will the Secretary of State say more about how that programme can help to tackle the disgrace of county lines?

At this point, it is important to mention the county lines programme, which sits with the Home Office. We in the Ministry of Justice work very closely with it, and it is making a difference. It is an absolute scandal that young people—as young as 10 or 11—have been travelling up and down the country ferrying drugs. No one knew where they were or what school they went to, and they had no support, but we are bringing that to an end. For the first time in a long time, we are seeing knife crime falling, and the number of young people falling into county lines is coming down.

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Is he concerned that by reducing the relative punishment for youth offending relative to adult offending, he may inadvertently be making the young people of Spelthorne and across the country more attractive to be recruited by county lines gangs? That would clearly be an unintended consequence of his actions, but will he think again if it turns out that that is the case?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not be the case. The 412 young people in custody at the moment are there for public protection; they have to be there. Many of those young people are there because of very violent crimes, and some of them are serving very long sentences. Public protection must always come first, but this white paper recognises the modern world—the world that we live in. It also recognises the vulnerability of the particular cohort we are talking about, which has changed vastly from 20 years ago. There is more that we can do with agencies to support these young people, particularly in communities, so that they are not criminalised, mixing and going on to the adult prison, and to reduce the overall numbers.

I am the Member for Harlow, if people were wondering.

May I thank the Deputy prime minister for his really important statement and the non-partisan way in which he gave it? I welcome the fact that he is sitting next to the Minister responsible for children, families and wellbeing, my hon. Friend Josh MacAlister. I have listened to Members across the Chamber, and it strikes me that to really make a difference to young people in my Constituency and across the UK, we have to ensure that Government Departments do not work in silos. What work is the Secretary of State doing with the DFE, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we do not let any young people in my constituency and beyond be left behind?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the work he does in Harlow. He knows that I know Harlow very well, because it happens to be the second home of Spurs supporters in the country. He will be pleased that just two weeks ago, I was sat discussing these issues with the Secretary of State for Education and my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington on the interministerial board that we have, which looks particularly at children in care and their outcomes, what more we can do, what more we can join up and how we can continue to make a difference for them. Over the five years that we have in this term in government, and it is five years—there has been some speculation in recent days that it might be less—I am determined that we are going to make a difference for looked-after children.

I welcome these fairly comprehensive proposals, which I hope will seek to help young people who are either in the criminal fraternity or on the cusp of entering it. We all know that prevention is better than a cure—the old adage, “idle hands become a devil’s workshop” comes to mind. In Birmingham, where a third of our population are under the age of 20, we have lost a significant number of youth centres. In 2011, there were 59; that number has reduced to 16. What will the Deputy prime minister and Secretary of State do to address this, and will he join me in commending voluntary organisations such as Real Aston football club and the parents who are coming together to fill that vacuum and support our young children?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise the work that Turnaround is doing in Birmingham to make a difference and create effective diversionary activity for these young people, so that they do not continue in a life of crime. He is absolutely right about the devastating cuts to youth centres that we saw across the country. It will take some time to rebuild them, but I know that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, has a strategy. It has set about that strategy, alongside the youth guarantee that also exists for the young people of Birmingham.

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement—it would be churlish of anyone in this Chamber not to welcome the white paper’s proposals, which have been put forward in a positive fashion. Can I perhaps help the Secretary of State in a gentle way? The Youth Justice Agency in Newtownards in my Constituency is doing a phenomenal job of liaising with young offenders to help them understand the impact of crime on victims. The reoffending rates of those who have been attending the Youth Justice Agency in Newtownards are significantly reduced, so could the Secretary of State share what he intends to do with so much understanding and development, which is something that the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit from? Newtownards is doing it; let us do it here as well.

On the issue of restorative justice, we are working with Jacob Dunne in particular to make a difference—he was involved in that punch situation. I hope to get to Northern Ireland particularly over the coming months, because I know that very good work in this area goes on there.