To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress in reducing youth offending in England and Wales over the past 25 years.
My Lords, the last two decades have seen significant reductions of children in the formal youth justice system and in youth custody, and this is good news. We now have a much smaller but, perhaps unsurprisingly, more complex group of children in the justice system, and we need to adapt to deal with this. The youth justice White Paper, published on 18 May this year, sets out a comprehensive programme of reform through which we will modernise the youth justice system.
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. In her reply to questions on the Statement yesterday, she stated that
“there is no intention to abolish the Youth Justice Board”.—[Official Report, 20/5/26; col. 427.]
We are grateful for that. However, she will be aware that the powers of the Youth Justice Board set out in Section 41 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are being steadily stripped away, starting with Liz Truss as Justice Secretary removing the custodial powers and now with the Government following suit by removing the monitoring powers and the core funding powers. Does she not think it would be better to follow the example of the 1997 Labour Government in establishing the board, rather than the example of Liz Truss in stripping it of its power?
It is a great pleasure to be debating the issue of the Youth Justice Board two days running with the noble Lord. The YJB has made valuable contributions to improving outcomes for children, but it has become clear that the youth justice system is now facing a different set of challenges from those that the board was originally designed to address. We are reforming the board so that it can focus on where it can add the greatest value, which is in driving the continuous improvement of youth justice services, and we are bringing the oversight and funding responsibilities into the Ministry of Justice in order to ensure clearer democratic accountability. I state again, and reassure the noble Lord, that the Youth Justice Board will remain a valued, independent public body with a clear purpose.
I know my noble friend will want to do the right thing, but is it not a fact that the only part of the criminal justice system that has worked really effectively over the last quarter of a century is youth justice, and that the ability to retain and promote staff who gain experience—rather than the musical chairs of the Civil Service, where nobody has long-term experience—should lead us to believe that keeping the Youth Justice Board and its functions makes sense, both for the delivery of the programme she has just mentioned and to ensure that we do not have a situation where the turnover within the MoJ results in people simply not knowing what they are doing?
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I pay tribute to the work he has done in relation to youth justice over the years. While proven offending has reduced significantly, that itself has placed pressures on our partners in youth justice services. For that reason, we need to reassess where our focus is best placed in order to ensure that we can add the most value. It is for that reason that the Youth Justice Board is going to be reformed, so that we know that it is using its independence and skills to ensure that we get the best outcomes for children.
My Lords, the team leader for children and young people at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons said recently that what is needed is not further diagnosis but action, in the form of immediate investment in a functional youth custody estate. Why are the Government ignoring his advice and instead indulging in further diagnosis of a well-established problem?
My Lords, we are tough on crime but we are smart on prevention. We are focusing on what works: protecting the public and preventing reoffending. It is well known that locking children up, particularly on short sentences, does not work. Some 60% of children who receive short sentences of custody go on to reoffend, whereas those who are diverted at an early stage do not re-enter the justice system and have better lives, which also prevents increasing cohorts of victims in future.
We have no plans. The Bar Council is conducting a review of this and we will, like any responsible Government, consider that review once it is reported and take matters from there.
My Lords, the prevalence of learning difficulties in the youth justice system is incredibly high. I understand figures show that about 80% of young people who are cautioned or sentenced have some kind of special educational need or neurodivergent condition. Does the Minister agree that this seems to suggest that a stronger focus in the education system on early diagnosis and intervention, particularly for specific learning difficulties, would have an impact on youth offending rates?
I think the noble Baroness may be referring to the excellent report by the Michael Sieff Foundation, which, as she said, said that up to 80% of children in the custodial estate either have special educational needs or are neurodivergent. This is why the Government want to put resources into early diagnosis and diversion, ensuring that there is in place wraparound care for families whose children are showing signs of perhaps entering the criminal justice system, before it is too late. That is why we have invested heavily in the Turnaround scheme—I pay tribute to the previous Government for doing so—which looks to get children upstream, as it were, before they have become involved in the justice system, and to work with the whole family. The success rate is great. Only 7% of children who have been involved in Turnaround go on to commit offences.
My Lords, on a similar subject, what assessment has the department made of the involvement of organisations, particularly arts organisations, that are not specifically involved with the criminal justice system but can help young people at risk of involvement with the criminal justice system? They have, in certain cases, been very successful. Is my noble friend aware of this and will she encourage more organisations to become involved?
I am aware of it. We are intending to make sure that everything possible can be done to ensure that children have as many opportunities as possible and therefore do not get drawn into crime.
My Lords, as a former youth magistrate and a former board member of the Youth Justice Board, I have seen at first hand the strong leadership at the YJB, particularly through its valuable community-based youth justice services. In the light of the youth justice White Paper, can the Minister please assure the House that the YJB’s role will not be diminished in any way that will undermine these services and that it will retain its capacity and authority so that we do not risk reversing the extremely positive outcomes in youth offending that it has helped deliver over so many years?
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for her work as a magistrate in the adult and youth systems. We have to be grateful to people like her for helping to keep the system going. I hope I have given sufficient assurance—it is certainly my intention to do so—that we really value the work done by the board. We want to use its skills and to ensure that it remains independent and keeps doing the great job that it does.
My Lords, I do not think that anybody doubts the Minister’s sincerity, but she should have a little tingle between the shoulder blades when somebody such as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and Members of all Benches express concerns about how the Government are going about fulfilling the White Paper. I think she would find much wider support if, as part of this package, there was not a complete emasculation of the Youth Justice Board and a shunting of it to the sidelines. It is not going to play a key part in this study, and it should. There are lots of people who have had experience of the YJB who would like to help the Government in fulfilling this White Paper. The Minister should get out of the cul-de-sac that she is leading us into.