Youth Justice
Debate between Lord Bellingham and Baroness Levitt(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I certainly will pay tribute to those who work in young offender institutions—it is a really difficult job—but the custodial youth estate is fundamentally failing children at the moment. There is quite a lot of evidence that smaller units such as secure children’s homes are more effective at supporting children. It is a difficult issue. Noble Lords may have heard a rumour that we inherited a challenging financial position, and plainly we need to consider that while we are deciding what to do, but we have a youth custody transformation plan. In essence, the White Paper is the umbrella that sets out where we intend to go and three further announcements will then be made: the youth custody transformation plan in autumn 2026, the diversion from custody—the non-custodial options—plan also in autumn 2026, and the review of youth courts and the part that they play in the treatment of children in the criminal justice system, which I am sure noble Lords will be delighted to hear is being conducted by the eminent academic Professor David Ormerod KC, which is intended to report in August 2027.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Government said that they will try to slash custodial remand for young offenders by one quarter. Is that correct? Surely remand should be used in response to need and not subject to arbitrary targets. That does not make any sense at all. What happens if violent youth crime and repeat offending go up? I hope to goodness they do not but, if they do, will she and her fellow Ministers stick to the targets? That makes no sense.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It is for our independent judges to decide whether somebody is given bail or remanded. All that we are looking at is whether alternatives can be offered to the courts. At the moment, you tend to have a straightforward binary choice of bail back at home where half the problem started in the first place or remand into custody in one of these institutions that we know do not work for children and where there is a huge risk of reoffending once they are released. For the most serious offences, there is no question but that children will continue to be remanded into the custodial estate. But we want to be more imaginative about this, remembering that these are not tiny adults but children, and some of them come from very difficult circumstances.
Criminal Court Reform
Debate between Lord Bellingham and Baroness Levitt(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank my noble friend very much for the question he raises. It is an important point and I am sure the rest of your Lordships’ House will want to pay tribute to my noble friend for the work that he did when standing where I am now, as well as for his long service as a magistrate. He speaks from great experience.
There are two reasons why the Crown Court Bench Division will not include lay justices. The first, as my noble friend will know, is that we do not have enough to staff that at the moment. We have enough justices to run the magistrates’ court and make sure that we do not then end up with a lot of backlogs there. We are running a recruitment programme and hope to recruit 2,000 more, but, at present, we do not have sufficient numbers. The second reason is about speeding up the process. Any judge who has sat on an appeal from the magistrates’ court always sits with two lay justices. It takes a lot longer because of the fact that consultation is required, whereas the point here is to make things faster and quicker. For those reasons, we are not going to adopt that recommendation of Sir Brian—and they are principled reasons.
As for the perfectly proper point about diversity, the judiciary is becoming more diverse. It is not where we want it to be but it is getting there. What it does have is extensive training in matters to do with issues of diversity, fairness and disproportionate impacts on particular sectors of the population. We do not really know what juries think about this because they do not have that kind of training, but we are satisfied that those issues can be dealt with within what is proposed.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, as a former criminal barrister, albeit nothing like as successful as the noble Baroness was, I put on record my support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and for the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. The Minister talked about the Government going ahead with “heavy investment” in courts and legal aid, and I certainly support both those initiatives. The Minister in the Commons said that to bring down court case backlogs:
“We need investment, structural reform and modernisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/25; col. 20.]
However, has the noble Baroness seen the OBR report which states that after last week’s Budget, the MoJ’s capital budget is going to be cut by 3% per annum in real terms? Was she aware of that, and, in spite of that cut, can she confirm that this investment will still go ahead?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The answer to the noble Lord is yes. These are the matters of expenditure to which my right honourable friend committed himself in the other place, and they will go ahead.