Clause 85 - Remands to Youth Detention Accommodation

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:45 pm on 11 October 2011.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation) 4:45, 11 October 2011

I beg to move amendment 254, in clause 85, page 63, line 38, leave out ‘one of the kinds of’.

Photo of Jim Sheridan Jim Sheridan Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 255.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

These are technical amendments to replicate existing provisions. They allow the Secretary of State to direct that a child given a custodial sentence be placed in a specific establishment in the youth secure estate, which can be a secure children’s home, a secure training centre or a young offenders institution. The power will be exercised on behalf of the Secretary of State by a centralised placements team with established expertise of making placements of under-18s. The team has access to and maintains a central database of youth detention accommodation. Currently, it is run by the Youth Justice Board and has responsibility for placing all under-18s who receive a custodial sentence. The team assesses each child and arranges for them to be accommodated in the best possible establishment, having regard to factors such as age, vulnerability, home location and, where relevant, prior experience of custody. That ensures that the welfare of children is promoted during their detention and that children are placed promptly in suitable accommodation.

Amendments 254 and 255 would replicate such practice for children who are remanded to youth detention accommodation to ensure that they receive the same benefits and protections as the centralised system offers. Local authorities are content that that practice is replicated for all children remanded to youth detention accommodation.

Amendment 254 agreed to.

Amendment made: 255, in clause 85, page 63, line 39, after ‘accommodation’ insert ‘of a kind’.—(Mr Blunt.)

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

I beg to move amendment 368, in clause 85, page 64, line 12, leave out from ‘designate’ to end of line and insert ‘a local authority as the designated authority for the child for the purposes of—

(a) subsection (8),

(b) regulations under section 86 (arrangements for remands), and

(c) section 87 (looked after child status).’.

Photo of Jim Sheridan Jim Sheridan Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 369 and 376.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

Amendments 368 and 369 remove subsection (9) and make consequential amendments to subsection (6) of the clause. We reviewed the subsection and concluded that requiring a local authority to receive a child remanded to youth detention accommodation cannot be right when the Secretary of State for Justice will be directing the placement of the child. The provision under clause 87 for all children remanded in youth detention accommodation to be looked after is sufficient to engage the designated authority with the child. As a result of the deletion of the subsection, consequential amendments will be made to subsection (6) to clarify the purpose of the court designating a local authority under the chapter. A further consequential amendment is made to clause 89 to change the definition of a designated authority for the purposes of the chapter.

Amendment 368 agreed to.

Photo of Andrew Slaughter Andrew Slaughter Shadow Minister (Justice)

I beg to move amendment 340, in clause 85, page 64, line 21, after ‘child’, insert

‘within three hours of the order being made, unless there are geographical or other genuine reasons why this is impractical.’.

The amendment is straightforward. The Minister described the current system for the specialist team that allocates young people to the secure accommodation that is available. The Labour Government introduced the system early in their period of office, when the Youth Justice Board was set up. I have visited the accommodation and have seen how the system works, as I am sure has the Minister. The team’s staff is dedicated and the system works very well.

When the Minister responds, will he explain the current plans for the service? I understand that it is envisaged that it will continue to operate in much the same way as it does at the moment. However, I do not know whether it will operate on the same premises and whether it is envisaged that the same staff will be retained if the Government proceed with the abolition of the Youth Justice Board. A single facet of the Youth Justice Board was that it made a sea change in the way that young offenders were remanded in custody and dealt with before and after the body was set up, and it would be of great concern to us if in the process of abolishing of the Youth Justice Board—if that goes ahead—the integrity of the system was lost.

The most appropriate thing the system does is to ensure that young people go to the most suitable accommodation in respect of their needs, their family and where it is. From then onwards, they are kept under review within the system when they move. One of the issues is the speed with which that is done. I referred earlier to where young people are held pending either appearing in court or after court, if they are remanded, to where they are remanded. The amendment would ensure that such action is carried out expeditiously.

At the moment, the system is a good one. Whether it will be in the future, I do not know but, in any event, it is wrong for the system not to operate efficiently, and it would be more likely to operate efficiently if statute provided that that should be the case. Our amendment says

“within three hours of the order being made, unless there are geographical or other genuine reasons why this is impractical.”

That seems broad enough to encourage things to happen quickly and efficiently, save in circumstances where it is impossible.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) (Prisons and Probation)

There is a marginal technicality. I get the sense from the debate that we shall accept amendment 369, although perhaps I am being presumptuous. Amendment 340 amends clause 85(9), which would be removed by amendment 369, which we have not yet considered.

The amendment’s intention appears to be to ensure that a child remanded to youth detention accommodation is delivered promptly to the establishment where the Secretary of State has directed they should be detained. Contractual arrangements with providers of escort services are, in our view, the proper way to proceed, and such arrangements will include conditions relating to the timely delivery of young people.

The contractual obligations on escort services will reflect a range of factors, such as the distance to be travelled in order to accommodate the young person, what arrangements need to be made for them and the delays in journeys that will inevitably occur. It is a perfectly laudable aim to make the delivery period as short as possible, but the amendment will not achieve that. I have some sympathy with hon. Members’ intentions, as expressed in the amendment, that such transportation should be timely, but it is not appropriate to specify a time limit in primary legislation. I note from how the hon. Member for Hammersmith framed his arguments that he plainly does not think so either. In light of that, I hope that he will not press his amendments.

Photo of Andrew Slaughter Andrew Slaughter Shadow Minister (Justice)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 369, in clause 85, page 64, line 21, leave out subsection (9).—(Mr Blunt.)

Clause 85, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.