Bishop's speech on the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

The Bishop of Chelmsford,  Rt Revd John Gladwin, participated in the first day of the committee stages of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in the House of Lords on 5 February 2008.

• On a proposal by the government to remove clause 50 from the bill relating to provisions to establish Her Majesty’s Commissioner for Offender Management and Prisons and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Prison Complaints. This was debated and agreed to.
• In support of an amendment from Baroness Stern to state the principles of protecting the rights and welfare of children in the criminal justice system. Following debate and a promise of further consideration by the minister, the amendment was withdrawn.
• In support of an amendment from the Earl of Onslow to raise the threshold for passing custodial sentences on young people. Following debate and a promise of further consideration by the minister, the amendment was withdrawn.

The bishop’s contributions are set out below.  They may be seen in context at, respectively:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80205-0003.htm#08020540000408
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80205-0003.htm#08020540000424
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80205-0008.htm#08020549000087

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: I remind the House that Ash Wednesday is tomorrow if noble Lords wish to pursue the general confession.

I underline the sense of urgency on this matter and the importance of the statutory independent basis of this. The Minister will be aware that Bishops have rights of entry into prisons and often have close relations with their local prisons. In our part of the country we have been in the local press with regard to deaths in custody recently, and some important aspects of this issue need to be tackled, not least the fact that those who succeed in taking their own lives in prison are but the tip of the iceberg of the attempts made to do so. I am concerned about the morale of staff in prisons in relation to these matters. That is why the statutory basis should be independent. There needs to be clarity of structure and a proper sense of accountability, so that those who are managing our prisons in their present state of crisis have a sense that they are getting proper public support.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: If no one else is going to speak, may I say how sympathetic I am to what the noble Baroness has said? Do we not need to say in this House and in Parliament that in this nation of ours we have far too many children and young people in custody? Surely the aim of legislation should be to assist us to turn that culture around and move in a new direction. The issue was raised in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which says:

“We note the Government’s statement that it strongly believes that custody for young people should only be used as a last resort. However, we note that in the Government’s response to our predecessor Committee’s recommendation, it said”—

and so forth. It continued:

“As presently drafted, however, there is nothing in the Bill to require that a YRO with ISS be the first resort, before custody, other than in exceptionally serious cases ... In our view, such a requirement would be an important additional safeguard to ensure that custody of children is only used as a last resort”.

That is why the amendment raises an issue that the Government need to address.

For a number of years, my wife had professional work in the field of children held in custody. We know that the behaviour of some children and young people is deeply challenging to society. The easy thing to do, dare one say, is to whisk them out of society rather than think of other means of addressing the issues. We also know that custody is the place in which the highest safeguards have to be set out if the interests of children who have been locked away are to be protected.

I shall be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to the amendment. It is important and it will be good to hear about the Government’s commitment to moving in these directions.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: I rise to support those remarks and to make three brief points. First, there is a danger in our debates of pulling apart the welfare of the child and the needs of the community. If we need a theme it is to bring those two things together. When we are serving the needs and welfare of children, we are serving the needs of society, the community and victims. When we are attending to the needs of victims and society, we should properly be attending to the welfare of children. If we can hold those things together we will get it right.

Secondly, public policy needs to be consistent. When local authorities take children into care, the one thing they seek to avoid, if possible, is putting them into residential units, which is a last resort solution for children. We have the needs of the child in mind and our experience of such homes in the past means that we are very cautious about that solution. Thirdly—this has not been said in the debate—if it is necessary within those principles to take children into custody, such must be the conduct that that too serves the interests of children and their welfare. There is a danger of saying, “We don’t know what to do with this hard core of children and young people who we can’t cope with in society, so we must put them in custody”. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, reminded us earlier of 60 young people with three staff looking after them. That is 60 too many in custody. The style and content of what we are seeking to achieve for children who are held in custody is part of this issue.

Print this page
Bookmark this page