Prisons: Young People

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, at the start I declare my health and related interests—in particular, that I am a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and the Centre for Mental Health.

I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Harris on securing this very important debate about his fine report on 18 to 24 year-olds who have died in tragic circumstances in prison. I commend his crucial recommendations, which must, I believe, be implemented.

In this short debate, I shall, not surprisingly, concentrate on the development of liaison and diversion services related to the recommendations of my own report—I am grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about that—and other reports that are complementary to it. I believe that my recommendations dovetail very clearly with the findings of my noble friend Lord Harris. Taken together, they can make a real contribution to tackling this appalling situation.

Crucially, as noble Lords have already stated, the need for early identification and assessment of mental health, learning disabilities and difficulties, and other complex needs, and where appropriate to divert those people out of or away from the criminal justice system, is absolutely essential. They need to be passported at that point to appropriate specialist services, whether that be in-patient services or community-based services.

The report of my noble friend Lord Harris looks specifically at 18 to 24 year-olds. But we must ask ourselves what could be done earlier with children to undertake crucial identification and assessment before they find themselves in the criminal justice system, or at least hitting against it. An example of this is what we do in our schools. I am not suggesting that everyone who works in a school should be a specialist in mental health problems or learning disabilities. However, what basic awareness training could be implemented for our teachers, canteen staff and caretakers so that they are aware of the issues that they see in children and can help to passport them quickly into other appropriate services? We should not have to wait—if I can caricature it as such—for a child to go from the front of the class to the back of the class, out of the classroom, out of the school, into the park and into trouble. Why can we not identify that problem earlier in the system so that they perhaps do not end up in the youth justice system?

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly pointed out, excellent work has been undertaken by the Youth Justice Board and the youth justice services to reduce the number of children in custody. Even so, look at some basic facts from the youth justice system: young people with a mental health condition are three times more likely to be in the youth justice system; they are six times more likely than other young people to have a diagnosable conduct disorder; they are more likely to have a moderate learning disability; and they are more likely to have a speech and communication need or traumatic brain injury. Data from the previous youth point of arrest screening indicate that children on a current care order were significantly overrepresented in the youth justice system.

As we have a national rollout of liaison and diversion services, we have to look at the essential specific needs of children and young adults in that programme. It is clear that the success of such schemes is highly dependent on the existence of effective diversionary infrastructure of services. Although the extra investment over the next five years in children and adolescent mental health services is welcome, there is still a huge shortfall of services across the country, whether that be in-patient beds or services in the community. There is a shortage of therapy programmes and timely referral to them, and there is poor provision for learning disability and speech and language services across the country. With limited resources, thresholds for access to such services are raised and, therefore, become a barrier to effective diversion and liaison schemes.

As we heard from noble Lords, such schemes must take into account maturity. When children move from children’s services to adult services, the age barrier can be a real deterrent to effective continuity of care. The Centre for Mental Health set up the Bradley Commission and we looked at the issue of maturity. Our first recommendation was that:

“National government should foster a whole systems approach to ensure all young people aged 15-24 years who require specialist intervention should experience continuity of care”.

I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on such a proposal.

The rollout of the liaison diversion service is interlinked with other important initiatives about assessment and identification—for example, street triage and the consequent reduction in the use of police cells for children. It is welcome that the Government intend to ban the use of these cells by July of next year, but we need further investment in places of safety away from the criminal justice system to ensure that people in mental health or other crises have the appropriate environment in which an assessment can be carried out effectively.

The key issue around liaison diversion is that it should start at the earliest opportunity—often when young people come into contact with the criminal justice system at the police station. The information that is gathered about their complex needs must then be shared along the criminal justice pathway from the police station to the court and to prison, if that is the appropriate next step, or, more effectively, into the community. There has to be continuity of care. If they end up in the prison system, they can link very effectively to the new officer that is recommended in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. That information must be shared in the system and dealt with in the system. Services must then be in the system so that when the individual comes back into the community they have the effective services that they need for effective rehabilitation to ensure that they do not reoffend.

To achieve all this, we need to build up those services, not just for people who find themselves in the criminal justice system, but for the community in general. We need better mental health services, better alcohol treatment services and better drug treatment services because offenders are only a subset of the community while they have offended. They need to return to the community and still need those effective services. Some 53% of rollout of the liaison diversion services has been achieved so far. I believe that 100% rollout can be achieved by 2017-18 with the Government’s commitment to that investment through the comprehensive spending review.

Offender Rehabilitation Bill [HL]

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bradley]

6: Clause 2, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
“(7A) The supervisor must explain to the offender in language appropriate to his individual intellectual ability and understanding—
(a) the effect of the supervision requirements, and(b) the effects of non-compliance with any requirement with which the offender is required to comply.”

[Lord Bradley]

Amendment 6 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. It requires the supervising officer to explain the implications of licence conditions and the effects of non-compliance in language that is appropriate to the offender’s intellectual ability. As the Minister explained, Clauses 1 and 2 extend statutory monitoring and supervision to offenders serving short sentences for a mandatory period of up to 12 months. The introduction of a new period of statutory supervision with its own requirements, in addition to those of the licence period, adds an extra element of complexity to a person’s custodial sentence. The amendment will ensure that people with poor communication and comprehension skills, such as people with learning disabilities, will be able fully to understand the terms of their supervision requirements, and what might happen if they do not follow them.

It is generally accepted that between 5% and 10% of adult offenders have learning disabilities, and that a significant number of juveniles reaching 18 have speech, language and communication difficulties. However, in the absence of routine screening, the support needs of this group are often left unrecognised and unmet. Research undertaken by the Prison Reform Trust—I declare an interest as a trustee of the trust, and pay tribute to the brilliant work it does on behalf of people with learning disabilities who find themselves in the criminal justice system—showed that more than two-thirds of prisoners with learning disabilities and difficulties experienced problems with verbal comprehension, including problems understanding certain words, and with expressing themselves.

Research by various academics has shown that many people with communication difficulties lack the language skills to understand what is happening to them, and the implications of what is being asked of them. For example, many have problems understanding vocabulary that is commonly used in the criminal justice system, including words such as “victim” and “breach”. Many people with learning disabilities have limited language, comprehension and communication skills, which mean that they may have difficulty understanding and responding to questions and recalling information, and may take longer to process that information. They may also be acquiescent and suggestible, and, under pressure, may try to appease other people. Many also have memory problems, which may mean that they need regular reminders of what is expected of them over their licence and supervisory period.

I found that all these factors came into effect when I undertook my independent review of mental health learning disabilities in the criminal justice system, and I am grateful that the Government are supporting many of the recommendations in the report as we move towards a national rollout of liaison and diversion schemes—including, crucially, early identification and assessment of people with complex needs, including learning disabilities. To ensure that adults understand what is expected of them during their licence and supervision period, the language used must be appropriate to the intellectual ability and understanding of the individual offender. To do otherwise will place the individual at risk of non-compliance, possible breach and a return to court. It will also fail to take into account the need for reasonable adjustments, as required by the Equality Act 2010.

It is worth pointing out that a similar debate during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill highlighted concerns over the use of language by courts in explaining their sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said that the inclusion of the term “ordinary language” was not precise enough to ensure that offenders with learning disabilities and communication difficulties would be able fully to understand and comply with the requirements placed upon them. I am pleased to quote what he said:

“Ordinary language, however simplified, may not be sufficient to explain complex concepts or terminologies which could elude the comprehension of some individuals. For example, people with a learning disability may require easy-read formats, which include pictorial aids … different forms of communication above and beyond ordinary language must be employed, determined by what is most appropriate for the recipient”.—[Official Report, 1/2/12; col. 1652.]

In response, the Minister agreed that guidance would be passed on to the relevant judicial training bodies for consideration. I understand that this was the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee. He said:

“I very much appreciate the advice that Mencap provided on the various techniques that could be used to explain a sentence to people with learning difficulties. That will be used in the training of judges and magistrates, and I intend to pass that on to the bodies responsible for that training”.—[Official Report, 1/2/12; col. 1660.]

I would be grateful therefore if the Minister could update us on progress in that regard.

Let me now turn briefly to supervision requirements. Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill outlines the requirements which may be imposed upon a person under supervision. I am concerned about the impact that some of these requirements may have on people with communication and comprehension difficulties, such as people with learning disabilities. In setting the licence and supervision requirements, the particular care and support needs of the individual should be both assessed and taken into account. One example is good behaviour. In Schedule 1, proposed new subsection (1)(a) to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires a person,

“to be of good behaviour and not to behave in a way which undermines the purpose of the supervision period”.

I, together with organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust, am concerned at the extent to which this requirement is open to interpretation. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill explicitly recognise this, stating:

“In relation to the requirement to be of good behaviour etc, there is a certain degree of imprecision in the requirement, but it is considered that it would be clear to offenders and the court what conduct would be prohibited under the requirement”.

The Government provide some clarity in referring to conditions outlined in Prison Service Instruction 2012/20 (licence conditions and temporary travelling abroad), stating that,

“clear policy guidance will be issued in relation to this topic”.

Good behaviour is highly subjective and can be used to describe many different types of behaviour. What may appear to be common sense to many people is unlikely to be explicit enough for certain vulnerable adults, such as people with learning disabilities or difficulties. It will therefore be important to ensure that any guidance recognises the intellectual ability and understanding of the individual under supervision and explicitly states and restates where necessary what would constitute a breach.

I would therefore be grateful if the Minister, when he responds, would give the House some assurances about the proposed guidance, including when it will be issued, who will issue it, how it will be disseminated and to whom, and what additional training will be provided.

Secondly, I turn to receiving visits. Proposed new subsection (1)(d) in Schedule 1 specifies that a person must,

“receive visits from the supervisor in accordance with instructions given by the supervisor”.

Again, it will be important for safeguarding issues to be fully taken into account when supervisors visit vulnerable people under their supervision, especially—for example—women and people with learning disabilities. Will the Minister give the House assurances that supervisors will be required to undertake appropriate safeguarding training work with vulnerable people?

--- Later in debate ---

With the assurances I have given, including an assurance to make available the easy-read versions of the different sets of guidance we will be issuing, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bradley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed response. When you move an amendment you do not expect a debate around the wording of the Bill; that was an unforeseen consequence, but I am grateful to noble Lords for enlightening us with their contributions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for his support for this amendment.

It is clear that the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that people with communication and learning disabilities are fully informed and understand the requirements, and that the supervisors should be properly trained in this respect. I am pleased that the guidance which we have identified is to be issued as soon as possible; indeed, it is hoped before the Report stage so that we can be confident that that part of the process will be properly administered.

I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has given and I am sure that he will look at Hansard to check whether there are any other points that have not been picked up. That will give him an opportunity to respond, perhaps in writing, to me and to other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. We will then have a clear understanding of how we are to ensure absolutely that people with learning disabilities are able to complete their rehabilitation successfully.

Finally, I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their kind words about my report on mental health, learning disabilities and the criminal justice system. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bradley]

4: After Clause 29, insert the following new Clause—
“Provide assistance for vulnerable defendants through intermediaries
(1) An accused person in criminal proceedings is eligible for assistance by virtue of this section if the courts considers that the quality of that person’s participation in and understanding of court proceedings or of the evidence given by that person is likely to be diminished by reason of any circumstances falling within subsection (2).
(2) The circumstances falling within this subsection are that the accused person—
(a) suffers from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, or(b) otherwise has a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning.(3) Where the court determines that the accused person is eligible for assistance by virtue of this section, the court may then give a direction under this section providing for—
(a) assistance of the accused in preparing for court proceedings and in instructing the accused person’s legal representative to be provided by a person approved by the court for the purposes of this section (“an intermediary”),(b) assistance of the accused person in understanding and participating in court proceedings to be provided by the intermediary, and(c) the examination of the accused person to be conducted through the intermediary. (4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision about the recruitment, accreditation, training and appraisal of intermediaries approved by courts under this section.”

[Lord Bradley]

My Lords, I will not detain the House long on this new clause, as there was a good debate on the issue on Report, led admirably by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, who I am pleased to see in her place this evening. However, it is appropriate at Third Reading to press the Government again, briefly, on this overall matter, and particularly on the use of intermediaries in the court.

The issue of vulnerable defendants is well laid out in the report Fair Access to Justice from the Prison Reform Trust—I declare an interest as a trustee—and from my own independent report to the Government in 2009 on mental health, learning disabilities and the criminal justice system. The latter highlighted the need for vulnerable people to be supported in the criminal justice system along the criminal justice pathway; to be sure, among other things, that judges, magistrates and court staff are aware of the problems of the defendant at their first appearance in court; and that the defendant has the best opportunity for a fair trial. I add briefly that I am pleased that the current Government are in the process of implementing the 82 recommendations in my report. I praise the excellent work of the offender health division in the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice through the cross-government National Programme Board. I hope that there will be no new barriers to the national rollout of liaison diversion services when the NHS Commissioning Board is fully established.

The new clause would ensure that, where necessary, vulnerable defendants are provided with the appropriate support to enable them to participate effectively in court proceedings, and in preparing for their own trial. One such measure is support provided by an intermediary, whose role is to facilitate two-way communication between the vulnerable individual and other participants in the court proceedings; and to ensure that their communication is as complete, accurate and coherent as possible.

Intermediaries are appointed for vulnerable witnesses, are registered, and are subject to a stringent selection, training and accreditation process, as well as quality assurance, regulation and monitoring procedures. Although vulnerable defendants do not have the same statutory rights to special measures as vulnerable witnesses do, intermediaries can be appointed at the discretion of the court. However, intermediaries who are appointed to support vulnerable defendants are not registered or regulated. The practice of registered and non-registered intermediaries being potentially in the same trial and paid different fees is clearly an anomaly in the Act.

My noble friend Lord Beecham spoke in support of the amendments to support vulnerable defendants, urging the Minister to take the time to take the amendment back so that he could report further at Third Reading. I can do no better than to quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who also supported the amendment:

“It is the judge’s most important duty to ensure the fairness of the trial. However, the problem identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, is one that the judge simply cannot tackle himself. There needs to be hands-on assistance of the sort she indicates”.—[Official Report, 10/12/12; col. 878.]

Responding on behalf of the Government, the Justice Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, agreed to take the amendment away and to write to Peers who had supported the amendment,

“to explain why I cannot do so and what we are doing to keep this matter under review”.—[Official Report, 10/12/12; col. 879.]

I know that the Minister has written to the appropriate noble Lords on this matter. I understand that one of the key issues in that letter, which was sent earlier this month, is about resources. I hope that the Minister has taken the opportunity between Report and today to reflect further on the matter.

I realise that some eminent judges are present, so I am reluctant to be too certain on these matters, but when I was doing my review I went around many courts, and saw that when vulnerable defendants appeared for the first time there was a huge cost to the court in delays because of lack of support for that defendant. That often meant that the court process was delayed or adjourned to enable the issues around mental health and learning disabilities to be properly identified and assessed before the trial could continue.

The resource implication, therefore, is well offset by ensuring that vulnerable defendants at the first court appearance have that support in place. That would be cost-effective and, most importantly, would ensure that the person who is identified as vulnerable has as fair a trial as possible. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment for two reasons. The first was that earlier in the work on this Bill, my noble friend Lord Rix, who unfortunately cannot be in his place tonight, and I, together spoke with the president of the Queen’s Bench Division; he in his capacity as chairman of the All-Party Group on Learning Disabilities, and I as chairman of the All-Party Group on Speech and Language Difficulties. We were very concerned at the implications of people not being able to be properly represented, and, therefore, not being able to understand the court processes that they were likely to go through.

One reason why I have added my name to this amendment is because I have since learnt, from the chairman of the Magistrates’ Association, that there has been a very large increase in the number of out-of-court settlements. He quoted to me the fact that 50% of crimes of violence are now dealt with out of court. This worries me, as it worried my noble friend and I when we spoke to the president of the Queen’s Bench Division, because it is just as important that people are represented during those out-of-court engagements with the police as it is that they are in court.

I know that there is a resource issue, but like the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, I have to ask whether this is not a resource issue that we cannot afford not to tackle because of the resulting cost of not taking appropriate action on behalf of these defendants, who otherwise cannot take part properly in the court and out-of-court processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord raises an important point and, with the permission of the House, the Minister will write to him directly on that point. With the amendment as it stands, this issue may not have a direct impact, but the noble Lord raises an important point and the Minister will write to him.

[Lord Bradley]

It is disappointing that between Report and Third Reading the Government have not reached the conclusion that they should immediately implement Section 104, but I assure the Minister, as he would expect, that we will continue to pursue this matter with the implementation of the National Liaison and Diversion Programme, which fits neatly with the provisions for vulnerable defendants in court, to ensure that there is fairness of approach between witnesses and defendants in court proceedings. However, in the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 4 withdrawn.