#
My Lords, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, I thank the Minister and his Commons ministerial colleague Jake Richards for the constructive and proactive manner in which they have engaged with me and colleagues on this Bill. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McNally, a former chair of and tireless advocate for the Youth Justice Board, who had hoped to speak in today’s debate but is, sadly, unwell. We wish him a rapid recovery.
Nearly 30 years ago, the new Labour Government revolutionised the youth justice system and laid the foundations for one of the great public policy successes of our time. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established a youth justice system with a clear principal aim: preventing offending by children and young people. It created the Youth Justice Board to monitor the system, advise Ministers, promote effective practice and assess whether that aim was being achieved. It provided for youth custody services and commissioning places in the juvenile secure estate to be transferred to the board, which subsequently took place via the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000. At the local level, it brought together police, probation, health, education and social services in statutory youth offending teams, creating a co-ordinated response to youth offending on the ground for the first time.
The results have been remarkable. The number of under-18s detained in the secure estate, which peaked at 3,052 in 2003, has fallen to fewer than 400 today. Over the same period, proven offences by young people have fallen by nearly 90%, from more than 268,000 to fewer than 36,000. That is an extraordinary achievement. Yet instead of learning from that success and asking how its lessons might be applied more widely throughout the justice system, we have seen three successive attempts over the past 15 years to abolish, diminish or strip responsibilities from the Youth Justice Board.
The first came in 2011, during the coalition Government, as part of the Treasury’s bonfire of the quangos. At the time, I was chief of staff to the Deputy Prime Minister. I had previously had the privilege of working at the Youth Justice Board under the inspirational leadership of our former colleague, Lord Warner, and I knew how important the board was to the success of the system. Thanks to efforts in government and in Parliament, led by Lord Warner, my noble friend Lord McNally and many others, those proposals were happily defeated.
The second attempt came in 2017, when Liz Truss was Secretary of State for Justice, when responsibility for youth custody operations was transferred to the Youth Custody Service and commissioning functions to the MoJ. Responsibilities explicitly assigned to the YJB in the 2000 order were removed under ministerial instruction, without an amending order being laid then or since.
Now comes the third attempt—and, remarkably, it comes from a Labour Government. Under the Government’s proposals, the board will lose responsibility for national oversight, performance monitoring and the administration of the youth justice core grant. Its future role will largely be confined to identifying good practice and supporting local services in continuous improvement. It will have lost the principal levers through which it has been able to drive improvement across the system. Ministers will lose something equally important: robust, independent advice from a board containing experts with practical experience of youth justice and the levers to drive change.
My Bill takes a different approach: it would restore the powers and responsibilities of the board as broadly envisaged by the Labour Government in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000. It also recognises the development of devolution since the board was created. It would require the Secretary of State, the board and the Welsh Government to agree a memorandum of understanding setting out their respective responsibilities for youth justice. It would require consultation with the Welsh Government on board appointments, extend the board’s advisory role to the Welsh Government, and provide for Welsh Government approval of specified grants in Wales.
I do not pretend that the youth justice system is perfect or that there is no room for improvement. The much smaller cohort of children now entering custody often have extraordinarily complex needs, and reoffending remains far too high. There is still plenty that needs to improve, but I am adamant that the changes the Government are proposing would be a major step backwards. What makes their approach particularly difficult to understand is that it runs directly counter to the review of the Youth Justice Board that the Government themselves commissioned from Steve Crocker, a former director of children’s services. His conclusion was clear: changing the board’s current status would be risky, costly and disruptive, with no certainty that its functions would be better delivered inside the MoJ. He warned that splitting these functions across the department would create a system that was
“less agile, more complex, and less transparent”.
He specifically highlighted the importance of technical expertise and an independent voice within youth justice.
What did the Government do with the review they had commissioned? They published it, and, on the very same day, announced a strategy that rejected its central conclusion. Their explanation was that the scale of change required more significant reform than the review recommended, but that is not really an explanation. The scale of change required was precisely what Steve Crocker had been asked to review. John Drew, the former chief executive of the YJB, has identified the danger in the Government’s proposals very clearly, warning that moving youth justice policy and performance monitoring exclusively into the Civil Service will create a greater separation between practical experience and policy-making, increase the likelihood of advice being given by people without experience of the system on which they are advising, and reduce the chance that Ministers will hear dissenting voices. Surely that last point matters. Independent advice is not an inconvenience to good government; it is part of good government.
The other argument advanced for these changes is that democratic accountability somehow requires these functions to be exercised directly by MoJ officials, but that simply does not make sense. The Youth Justice Board is already accountable to Ministers, and, through them, to Parliament. The Secretary of State appoints its chair and board members, and Ministers set the policy and performance framework within which it operates. They approve its strategy and annual business plan, and the board is required to comply with ministerial directions and guidance. The question is not whether the Youth Justice Board is democratically accountable—it plainly is—but whether Ministers use that accountability effectively and set clear objectives, engage with the board and use its expertise to drive improvement across the system.
When I worked at the Youth Justice Board, there was regular engagement between its chair, Norman Warner, and the Home Secretary, first Jack Straw, then David Blunkett, as well as with the Prime Minister. Indeed, the first time I ever stepped over the threshold of No. 10 was to represent the Youth Justice Board in discussions on youth crime. This level of engagement was key to the success of the youth justice reforms. Government understood that the board had an important role in driving systemic change, engaged with it proactively and resourced it properly. I am interested to know from the Minister how many meetings recent Secretaries of State for Justice have held with the chair of the Youth Justice Board specifically to set objectives for youth justice and agree strategies for delivering them.
There is a final question the Government need to answer: why would we take important functions away from an expert board with a proven track record and transfer them into a department already overwhelmed by the crisis in the adult justice system? The reason why the Youth Justice Board was established in the first place is that in the 1990s, when oversight of youth justice was run from the Home Office, it had received little attention. Inevitably, the focus was on adults, as they represent a vastly larger contingent in the criminal justice system. The consequence was an explosion of youth offending and anti-social behaviour, and a collapse in public confidence in the system.
If the Government proceed with their transfer of oversight functions of the youth justice system to the MoJ, the same process will inevitably play out. Youth justice will be relegated to a backwater as the ministry naturally focuses on the adult criminal justice system. In five years’ time, we will be back where we were before the 1998 reforms.
In contrast to the success of the youth justice system in reducing the number of young people in custody and the number of youth offences by nearly 90% over the past 23 years, the adult prison population has risen by around a fifth over the same period, despite crime rates falling. Our prisons are now so overcrowded that people convicted of serious violent offences are being released early. Recalls to prison are at an all-time high—up 28% last year. This is overseen by the department to which Ministers now propose adding responsibility for functions currently exercised by a specialist and highly successful organisation whose very purpose is youth justice. Why? What evidence is there that this will improve outcomes? How will separating policy-making from practical expertise make the system better? Why have the Government rejected the conclusions of the independent review they themselves commissioned? Those questions deserve answers.
If the Government persist with these changes, the Youth Justice Board may survive in name, but in practice it will become little more than a statutory think tank—a pale shadow of the organisation that has played such an important role in one of the great public policy successes of the past 30 years. With all the challenges in our criminal justice system, we cannot afford to dismantle the one part of it which has been an overwhelming success. We cannot and must not go back to the past, when an overwhelmed department neglected youth justice and youth offending spiralled out of control, bringing misery to the lives of so many law-abiding citizens. It is not too late for Ministers to think again. I beg to move.
#
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for bringing forward his Private Member’s Bill. I do not want to start on a downer or with a spoiler, but I suspect that the Bill may fail to receive the support of the Government. Either way, this Private Member’s Bill presents a timely opportunity for your Lordships’ House to consider the future of youth justice in our country.
The proposed government reforms are about having clearer accountability, a greater grip on the criminal justice system where young people are concerned and a more localised, more personalised approach and response, with a particular focus on that small group of young people who are most at risk. These are important aims. The question is: how do you realise them? Youth justice is not simply a question of administration; it reveals what the state believes about personal responsibility and, ultimately, humanity. What is our response to children who have experienced and caused real harm? How bright a future can we give to young people who have experienced a darker past than most of us can ever imagine?
Let us be clear: victims deserve protection, truth and justice, communities have a right to safety and no child’s offending should be excused or minimised, for their own sake, let alone that of society. But we cannot build an effective youth justice system on a fiction that children are simply small versions of adults. Many who enter this system have experienced neglect, exclusion, exploitation, severe mental health difficulties, special educational needs, family breakdown and a broken care system. None of this removes their personal responsibility, but it should inform our response and the response of wider society.
Our prison estate, as the noble Lord just mentioned, is under acute pressure and we have to be serious about reducing that systemic stress. To do that, we need to look upstream. Tomorrow’s prisoners are formed today in childhood and adolescence. That was the key insight of the Taylor review, and it led to the innovation of secure schools. Oasis Restore, which is the country’s first secure school, has a different model from most young offender institutes. It is smaller, more relational, educational and therapeutic, but it is still secure. It holds children accountable. It helps young people to understand themselves and their situation. It develops trust. It promotes learning and life skills. It enables young people to imagine a different kind of future.
I was struck by the testimony of one set of parents, whose child was in Oasis Restore. They said that, for the first time, they received adequate healthcare, encouragement into education, and an assessment leading to diagnoses of autism and ADHD. They had staff who really knew them and cared for them. They were able to start taking responsibility for themselves. This is not soft justice; it is demanding justice and transforming justice. However, as Steve Chalke, the founder of Oasis Restore, warns, it is in danger of creating a “therapeutic island” in a punitive sea of policy, compliance, assurance and accountability. We need safeguarding, inspection and accountability, but when assurance frameworks become unyielding, unco-ordinated and unresponsive, paperwork becomes the enemy of real work.
I was really encouraged earlier today by a conversation I had with Kate Green, the Deputy Mayor of Greater Manchester, who is responsible for building stronger and safer communities. She gave me an insight to the work the Government are doing with the Greater Manchester local authorities. The honourable Jake Richards in the other place, a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, signed an MoU with Greater Manchester in May that will transform youth justice across the city region. It focuses on prevention and diversion from the criminal justice system. It is underpinned and informed by the voice and experience of young people.
Elements of that include: the Greater Manchester Combined Authority becoming the financial administrator of the Turnaround programme, better data sharing across services, and successful remand fostering programmes, which have radically reduced the number of young people returning into young offender situations. It has a youth justice practice hub, which spreads good learning and good practice. It will tackle the disproportionality in outcomes for children in the system. It is a potential blueprint which we could scale across many parts of the country, and the Government should be encouraged to do so.
In this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is helping us to address critical questions: how do we protect the public and reduce the number of future victims? How do we hold children responsible without writing them off? How do we ensure that the most at-risk young people receive not just more punishment and control but better education, better assessment and better support? Although the Government may not support this Bill, it makes a vital contribution to the wider debate. I look forward to hearing from noble Lords as we progress this vital and timely conversation in your Lordships’ House.
#
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for bringing this Bill before the House and compliment him on his unwavering defence of the YJB. I will focus my remarks on one particular issue at the heart of the Bill: the Government’s proposed changes to the Youth Justice Board. I share the concern we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that the proposed changes risk weakening what is demonstrably working. I say that with some personal experience, having seen our youth justice system from two perspectives—first, as a youth magistrate for over 20 years and, secondly, as a former member of the Youth Justice Board.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord McNally for his unrelenting and passionate work in youth justice. I was fortunate enough to serve on the board while he was chair, and I am sorry that he is unable to be here today. I hope he makes a speedy recovery.
The creation of the youth offending teams, supported by the YJB, changed the landscape of youth justice. The YOTs, now referred to as youth justice services, brought together a team locally, including police, probation, health, education, and social care. This gave us a valuable insight into the child, a much more holistic approach to youth justice and, ultimately, better rehabilitation. The evidence shows that this approach has worked. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, has already reminded us of the significant fall in youth offences and youth custody, which is an extraordinary achievement. The YJB has played a hugely important role in supporting that success, and one of its strengths has been bringing together national expertise and independence, with locally delivered multi-agency services alongside its visibility right across the system.
I have often suggested that the adult criminal justice system could learn a great deal from the youth justice approach, and that is not simply my view. Martin Jones, His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation, told the Justice Committee earlier this year that in youth justice
“we have all the building blocks of success, and we need to ensure that we carry that across into the adult system”.
For me, that is an endorsement of the value of the youth justice model and, surely, a reason to ask what we can learn from what is working before we weaken the structures that help make it work.
My concern is not with the principle of reform itself: I recognise that organisations often need to evolve and build on their successes. Instead, my apprehension is centred on what we might lose by moving these responsibilities from an independent specialist body, the YJB, into the MoJ, which we know already has a lot on its plate. If the Government believe that reform is needed, surely one of the first questions should be: “What does the YJB need?”, not whether some of it should just be brought back into the MoJ. The question is: how can we expect to retain the YJB’s expertise and the value of its independent advice to Ministers, while at the same time removing some of its responsibilities?
Phil Bowen, the chair of the Youth Justice Board, has made an important point here:
“We have said to ministers that putting end-to-end oversight back into the department means that you do have a different tone—a minister could suggest an idea like reforms to the youth court, and we could provide advice as wise experts rather than as civil servants”.
That distinction is extremely important. I am uneasy about any reform which could be perceived as a move away from a child-first approach towards a justice-first approach.
The Government themselves recognise that children remaining in the youth justice system are often more vulnerable and have more complex needs. Surely that makes specialist expertise more important, not less. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has highlighted, these proposed reforms run counter to some of the findings of the government-commissioned review by Steve Crocker. This was an important review, which should be taken seriously into consideration.
Therefore, I ask the Minister: are the Government working on an impact assessment and, if not, will they commit today to doing so? It is imperative that any changes lead to better outcomes for children and young people in youth justice. The combination of local delivery, practical experience, national expertise and the independent advice that follows from that is worth protecting, so my plea to the Government is: reform where reform is needed, but please let us build on what works rather than risk weakening it.
#
My Lords, I am no expert on youth justice and I am aware that I am surrounded today by people who are, but I support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, because I have too often experienced the results of a Government thinking that by transferring responsibilities in-house to central government and away from an organisation set up especially to do the job, they will improve matters. They are nearly always wrong. On the contrary, it often makes the organisation more remote, ever looking over its shoulder at the next ministerial edict. It fails to recruit leaders of quality after the first generation has gone and buries those responsible in Civil Service bureaucracy. Ministers, who are usually amateurs in the topic—although not in this House today—are often not there long enough to get to grips with the total responsibilities. Delivery deteriorates as new political priorities take centre stage.
I understand that the pattern of crime has changed; that small group we are left with is really a very difficult group. Maybe the constituent personnel of the Youth Justice Board need to change, but a revamped YJB would likely be more far more effective than further centralisation, which is what we have. It was a mystery to me why the Government would want to transfer responsibilities from a successful organisation such as the Youth Justice Board—even if it has had some blips in its history, as all organisations do—as it has done so much to reduce youth crime. Why would we transfer those responsibilities to a Minister in the MoJ, for example, when the YJB, while challenged, is not actually failing?
The Government seem to have taken no notice of Steve Crocker’s review, which was done only a few months ago. In January this year, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said about its recent report into the Ministry of Justice:
“The criminal justice system remains in crisis, end to end … On legal aid, the reforms of a decade ago are now at serious risk of going down in history as an extinction event for the entitlement to access to legal advice in large parts of the country … The issue of HMP Dartmoor is an absolute disgrace, from top to bottom”.
Again, we all know that what has happened is that the MoJ is leasing it again. It thought it was a sensible thing but that was driven by the need for prison places, never mind that it is actually unusable as a prison. It is a perfect example of a department reaching for a solution—any solution—in a blind panic and under pressure.
Then there are the other problems of the MoJ: severe staff shortages in the Prison and Probation Service, in which a staggering shortfall of personnel means that those left are suffering from exhaustion and low morale; the early release and legislative pressures we have heard so much about recently placing an impossible burden on an already buckling community supervision network—and the Government thought it would be a good idea to add more responsibilities to the MoJ? I just cannot see it myself. It is far better to do the reverse: beef up the Youth Justice Board, increase its powers, think seriously about implementing Steve Crocker’s recommendations, and maybe ask the board itself to make some recommendations about the way forward. It would be useful to scrutinise successful systems in Belgium, Norway and New Zealand on how to improve youth justice.
I support this Private Member’s Bill and wish it success—although without any expectation that the Government will see the light. But I look forward to the Minister’s response.
#
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for introducing the Bill and for giving the House the opportunity to consider, once again, the future of youth justice. The noble Lord’s intentions are entirely understandable, as set out in his opening remarks. We all want a youth justice system that is effective, properly resourced and focused on the welfare of children. We know that many young people who come into contact with the justice system have experienced trauma, exploitation, poor mental health, family instability and other forms of disadvantage. Any successful youth justice system must recognise those realities and respond accordingly.
However, speaking from a Welsh perspective, I am not convinced that the restoration of powers to the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales fits the constitutional context in which we now find ourselves. Earlier this year, the UK Government and the Welsh Government published an agreement on youth justice and probation, committing to an expanded and clearly defined role for the Welsh Government. More recently, the White Paper Cutting Youth Crime. Changing Young Lives again pointed towards greater Welsh oversight of aspects of youth justice funding and delivery. The conversation in Wales is therefore increasingly about how responsibility can better align with devolved services and, ultimately, how youth justice itself should be devolved.
The debate is not principally about restoring functions to the English or Welsh bodies, or a model of that kind. From Plaid Cymru’s perspective, the long-term destination remains clear. We believe that justice, including youth justice, should be fully devolved to Wales. The services most closely connected to preventing youth offending and supporting vulnerable children, including education, health and social care, are already devolved, and it is increasingly difficult to justify retaining responsibility for youth justice at Westminster while so many of the services that shape outcomes for children are the responsibility of Welsh public bodies.
The experience in Wales demonstrates the value of that approach. Through the Welsh Youth Justice Blueprint, partners have pursued a child-first, rights-based, trauma-informed model, focused on prevention, diversion and community support. The results are noteworthy. In 2022-23, 667 children in Wales received a caution or sentence, which is equivalent to 2.3 children per 1,000 of the population aged 10 to 17. Although that figure was unchanged from the previous year, it represents a reduction of 74% compared with 2013-14. Those figures suggest that there is real merit in approaches that seek to intervene earlier and, wherever possible, keep children away from the justice system.
Against that backdrop, I would welcome some clarification from the Minister in his response. The Government have indicated that the Welsh Government will assume a stronger role in youth justice and that responsibility for certain funding streams will transfer to Welsh oversight. Can the Minister explain what that means in practice? Which funding streams are proposed for transfer and what proportion of overall youth justice expenditure in Wales do they represent? Will the funding be recurring and protected for the future? More importantly, what additional powers will Welsh Ministers possess as a result? What decisions will they be able to take in April 2027 that they cannot take today? Will they have genuine discretion to set priorities and direct resources according to Welsh needs, or will they simply become responsible for administering the funding determined elsewhere?
The distinction matters because a transfer of administration is not the same as a transfer of authority or accountability. One of the clearest challenges within the system in Wales remains the use of remand. If Wales is to have greater responsibility for youth justice funding, will Welsh Ministers have the flexibility to invest in alternatives to remand and other preventative measures that reflect the child-first principles of the Welsh Youth Justice Blueprint?
For me, the mission should be focused on early intervention and prevention. If Welsh Ministers are expected to play a larger role in youth justice delivery, they should have the ability to establish community alternatives to remand. Therefore, while I welcome the questions that this Bill raises, I remain of the view that the most effective and democratically accountable solution is the full devolution of justice, including youth justice, to Wales. I look forward to the rest of the debate and the Minister’s response.
#
My Lords, I was encouraged by the Government’s White Paper on youth crime, which highlighted the relationship between complex needs and the experiences of youth justice. However, the increasing prevalence of such needs underscores the necessity of retaining the specialist expertise of the Youth Justice Board.
In my own diocese, I have seen how those needs can draw children into crime; for example, through county lines. Many young people who come into contact with these networks are not simply offenders but often victims of exploitation and trauma. This is particularly true for Suffolk’s looked-after children and care leavers, who are at much greater risk of poor mental health and social exclusion, and are over-represented in the justice system. County lines activity provides a clear example of the importance of meeting complex needs with specialist expertise. The Youth Justice Board has long held this unique expertise, championing a child-first approach which prioritises prevention and safeguarding. We should therefore be cautious about transferring significant functions away from it.
The White Paper also discusses the importance of a joined-up approach to youth crime prevention. For victims who rightly expect accountability from our justice system, bringing Ministers closer to decision-making is essential for maintaining public confidence. But the transfer of key functions uniquely to the Ministry of Justice risks overlooking the intersection of other issues commonly faced by vulnerable children. The Youth Justice Board itself found that 72% of children sentenced in the youth justice system had mental health concerns, and 71% had speech, language and communication concerns. Issues with education, health and social care can therefore compound, making youth offending more likely. If we are to have real progress in the prevention of youth crime, all relevant government departments must be given a central stake in youth justice. If the Youth Justice Board is to play a greater role in driving improvement, it must be equipped to collaborate effectively across government.
More broadly, when debating these reforms, we must resist the misconception that youth justice is characterised by undue leniency. In reality, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is one of the lowest in Europe. It is central to my Christian faith that every individual is made in the image of God and that nobody is beyond hope or redemption. The criminalisation of children and the entrenching of disadvantage through punitive measures can do much to damage the prospect that they might grow into citizens with a stake in our society. Young people must be given the tools to develop new patterns and to flourish in the society that they will one day help build.
This is something that the Youth Justice Board has historically facilitated through restorative justice. Victims want justice, but often they also want to know that what has happened to them will not happen to anyone else. Restorative justice gives victims a voice and enables offenders to confront the consequences of their actions and to turn their lives around. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify what place restorative justice will have in the Government’s plans for youth justice.
#
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for tabling the Bill, and I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions throughout the debate.
I start by acknowledging the position we are in with youth justice and the excellent work done by the previous Conservative Government to halve the number of children in youth custody. In 2016, 939 children were held in young offender institutions. By 2024, that number had fallen to 432. The average custody population in 2010-11 was 2,222, but between April 2024 and March 2025, this had dropped to an average of 420 children in custody at any one time. This represented the lowest number on record, and these numbers are a testament to the hard work of the previous Government. On top of that, the number of first-time entrants in the system dropped from 45,519 in the year 2010-11 to just under 8,300 in 2024-25. I acknowledge the work done by the Youth Justice Board in that time and thank it for its help in reducing the number of children in the youth justice system.
This Bill seeks to reverse the direction of the Government’s proposed reforms to youth justice. Clauses 1 and 3 would set out in primary legislation that the Youth Justice Board would remain primarily responsible for certain existing statutory functions, including the provision of secure training centres and the certification of custody officer and escort arrangements, reversing the Government’s plan to centralise oversight to within the Ministry of Justice. Clause 4 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s power to alter the statutory functions of the Youth Justice Board by secondary legislation and revokes the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000, in which the Youth Justice Board’s statutory functions were expanded and powers to exercise some functions concurrently with the Secretary of State were introduced. These would have the effect of reducing future ministerial flexibility to adjust the Youth Justice Board’s role.
Clauses 1 and 2 would give a formal role to Wales, with Clause 1 requiring a memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State, the Youth Justice Board and the Welsh Government within six months, where the responsibility for youth justice delivery is divided, with arrangements on implementation to be set out within a year. Clause 2 gives the Welsh Government a consultative role separate from the existing Government’s plans regarding devolution.