---

Prisons: Suicides

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the debate affords us to raise profound questions and concerns about the use of custody for children and young people and its consequences for us all. I declare an interest as chair of the Children’s Society. I imagine that we would all regard the recent increase in the use of custody for children as one of the most alarming developments in youth justice. Since 1992, custodial sentences for children have increased by 90 per cent, and the number of child suicides since 1990 is 29. We appear to have a somewhat schizoid approach to the problem. On the one hand, we have a welfare and protection system that is based on ensuring that children are safeguarded and their needs met, an approach that is being strengthened through the Every Child Matters agenda. However, as soon as the child crosses the line into criminal activity, the approach all too quickly becomes one of punishment and retribution. The purpose of the youth justice system is to prevent reoffending. As a result, there is inadequate consideration of the welfare of the child, which results repeatedly in the placing of vulnerable children in prison settings. Concerns have been raised about conditions for children and young people in prison from various quarters—some have been referred to in the debate—including the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Chief Inspector of Prisons and, most recently, the Council of Europe. The Children’s Society concurs with the recent recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which wrote:"““We urge the Government to re-examine, with renewed urgency, sentencing policy and practice (and in particular the use of detention and training orders) and alternatives to custodial sentences, with the specific aim of reducing the number of young people entering custody and with a commitment to implementing Articles 37(b) and 40(4) of the Convention to the fullest extent possible””." I shall explore the difficulties involved in finding alternatives to prison for young people. A young male aged 15 or over sentenced to a detention and training order will almost certainly serve it in prison. The court has no power to direct that a detention and training order should be served in any particular type of secure location, regardless of whether the young person has already been assessed as being or is otherwise evidently too vulnerable for prison. It was over that dilemma that the judge in the case of Joseph Scholes deliberated for 19 days in reaching a decision on sentence. The availability of placements in secure accommodation is a critical factor. Whatever the outcome of a vulnerability assessment and professional judgment, it is the availability or otherwise of an appropriate placement that will determine whether a vulnerable child is relieved of the pressures of penal custody. Prison Service accommodation is cheaper, and that presents a major challenge to the aspirations of the Youth Justice Board. Perhaps the most crucial factor that enables prisons to be so cheap in comparison with other options is the staff ratio. Local authority units provide a ratio between one member of staff to every two children and three staff to four children. The ratio in secure training centres varies between 2.5 and 3.8. Prisons, however, average between 3.4 and 6.6—by far the lowest staff-to-client ratio of any child placement of any kind in any sector. The consequence is that the number of vulnerable children detained in young offender institutions has risen from 432 in 2001 to 3, 337 in 2003–04. The vulnerability of the young people in Prison Service custody has been well documented. Some 60 per cent have previously been looked after by a local authority; 85 per cent exhibit signs of personality disorder; and 25 per cent of males have suffered violence at home. It is estimated that, at any one time, there may be as many as 300 young people in prison who are in need of transfer to in-patient mental health provision that simply does not exist. The recent Safeguarding Children report raises concerns about the vulnerability of young people detained in young offender institutions and highlights serious levels of bullying and assault and a high risk of harm. In recent research published by the Children’s Society, over 100 children, staff and prison officers were interviewed about the vulnerability of children in prison. The research sends out a clear message that prison is a dangerous place for children and highlights the lack of faith that children and staff have in the ability of the prison system to support and protect them. The fact that Joseph Scholes, Adam Rickwood and many other young people like them found themselves in Prison Service custody at all is testament to the problem that we face. Children are not being treated as children; they are not being given the help and support to address their welfare needs and the underlying problems that lead to their engagement with a criminal justice system that is no place for them. The Youth Justice Board has recently produced a strategy for custody for children. It aims to reduce the use of custody for children by 10 per cent by March 2007, which is, of course, to be welcomed. I urge the Government to consider that in their forthcoming and eagerly awaited youth justice Bill. I would call on the Minister to make a commitment, first, to end the use of Prison Service custody for children and young people; secondly, to reduce the numbers of children and young people sentenced to custody; and, thirdly, to invest in alternative secure options for the small number of children and young people considered to be a risk to themselves or other people. The juvenile secure estate cannot continue to struggle and, too often, fail to meet the needs of children and young people, many of whom are extremely vulnerable, the result of which can too frequently be their deaths. That is a risk too far for all of us.