Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Restoration of Powers and Responsibilities) Bill [HL]

Lord Oates Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Oates]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. So many brought their unique perspectives to the discussion. I reiterate my thanks to the Minister and his colleague for having met with me and the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. I admit to being a little disappointed by his response from the Dispatch Box, because I had hoped that the Government would have taken on more of the arguments that were made at that meeting and which have been made by almost everybody in the Chamber.

I take on board the Minister’s point about custody and the complexities of the system. He talked about more complexity, as many of us did. Many noble Lords talked about the need to improve the system and I do not think any of us said that it should just stay the same. The noble Baroness, Lady Sater, certainly mentioned this and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, talked about bringing new skills to the Youth Justice Board.

Our principal thought is that, if those powers are taken back to the Ministry of Justice, youth justice will be forgotten just as it was before. Noble Lords in that department have so much on their plate already that youth justice will suffer. The youth justice reforms of 1998 were a jewel in the crown of the then Labour Government. It is a huge mistake to tear them up. Of course, we can improve them—everybody in the House would agree with that—but not by going back to the system that we had before. That is what is being suggested by shifting oversight.

I am sorry that the Conservative Front Bench does not support us, although I am not terribly surprised. I slightly caution the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, against claiming some partisan success on this. Actually, although custody reduced during the Labour Government, the Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition and the Conservative Government, most of the credit has to go to the youth justice reforms of that Government. The one thing that people must recall is that it takes a long time for reforms to work through the system and deliver the sort of success that they did. That is why I am so worried about tearing up those reforms just at the point that they are having an effect. However, I thank everybody for taking part in this debate.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Youth Offending

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Oates]

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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

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.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

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?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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.

Youth Justice

Lord Oates Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. In March, we committed to devolving youth, remand and turnaround funding to the Welsh Government for 2027 and 2028. This is part of a broader commitment, as the noble Baroness knows, between the UK and the Welsh Government to establish a clearer and stronger role for the Welsh Government in the delivery of youth justice. It is definitely the intention of this Government to try not to, as it were, empire-build by bringing more things into the centre, but to ensure that we can pool funding and expertise in regional areas, as well as in Wales, in order to ensure that local areas can deliver things for the communities that they serve.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Does the Minister recognise that the Youth Justice Board was a jewel in the crown of the 1997 Labour Government, dramatically reducing the number of young people in the juvenile secure estate while reducing youth offending and recidivism? Does she also recognise that the powers and responsibilities given to the Youth Justice Board were removed from the Home Office because the youth cohort was relatively small and often ignored, and there was a real danger in going back into the Ministry of Justice that it would be again? Finally, will she explain why the Government, having commissioned a review of the Youth Justice Service by Steve Crocker, have chosen to largely ignore the outcome of that review?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I think he and I are looking forward to speaking to each other about this tomorrow, as I shall be answering a Question on pretty much the same subject. I repeat that there is no intention to abolish the Youth Justice Board, but there is a policy, following a Cabinet Office review of arm’s-length bodies, not just the Youth Justice Board, of ensuring that matters that we believe should be retained within various Ministries and departments in order to ensure democratic accountability are returned there. That is the reason we have taken the view that we have. As the noble Lord rightly says, the review was commissioned. Our view was that we needed to go further than the recommendations that were made.

Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. We consider that the UK’s three national human rights institutions, each with specific jurisdictions and functions, have a role in this. They are the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Human Rights Commission. Each has an “A” status, as rated by the UN, and a role in promoting human rights and awareness of human rights within the United Kingdom.

My noble friend’s original Question went wider than that, to include reinvigorating an appreciation of human rights. While the bodies I have just described have a statutory responsibility, there is nothing to stop central government doing that as well. As I think I pointed out in my initial Answer, both the Lord Chancellor and Attorney-General take this matter extremely seriously and see it as central to what they are doing.

My noble friend also referred to today’s press reports. Tom Tugendhat MP said in his pitch to be leader of the Conservative Party that he is ready to leave the ECHR. That is in marked contrast to what the leadership of the Government are saying.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that respect for human rights and the rule of law are key pillars of any free society, both at home and abroad? The Government will be aware of the brutal arrest and detention of Zimbabwe opposition leader Jameson Timba and 78 of his supporters, including a mother with a one year-old child. They have now been detained for 39 days in appalling conditions and denied their constitutional right to bail by a captured judiciary. Will the Minister make it clear that the new Government stand with all people standing up for their fundamental rights? Will he ask his ministerial colleagues to convey this message strongly to the Government of Zimbabwe?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am not sighted on that issue, but I will absolutely take up his suggestion that the relevant Ministers make clear their position regarding the importance of human rights in all parts of the world, and in the example he gave as well.

European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016

Lord Oates Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the setting of a date for the referendum and I support the case for remaining in the European Union set out in the White Paper. I hesitated before putting my name on this rather long speakers list but I am glad that I did because I just do not recognise the European Union that so many noble Lords have described—where apparently we have no friends, can win no votes and have no influence.

I thought it was Britain that had led the way in creating the single market, in securing admission of the members of the former communist bloc, in opposing Putin and securing a united approach to Iran, in pushing a free trade agenda and in living up to all of General de Gaulle’s worst nightmares. Of course the EU is not perfect. Of course it needs continuing reform. But we are not alone in thinking that. If we would for once drop the grumpy old man act and seek out our allies, we would find them. But for now our focus has to be on the referendum. I hope that the positive case for our membership will be made in this campaign and that it will not descend into an unrelenting diet of negativity.

I want us to convince the British people of the benefits of the European Union, as I have done since I rather proudly had my first and indeed only letter published in a national newspaper in 1993, calling for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. I wanted then—and I want us now—to show why, despite all the inevitable frustrations of any multinational organisation, the EU is a massive force for good in the world, that Britain is a massive force for good within the EU, and that British exit would be very bad not only for Britain but for the European Union.

My case for the European Union is a simple one. It is about peace, prosperity and solidarity in the face of the many challenges that confront our world. It is about the benefits of working together rather than drifting apart in antagonism and misunderstanding. It is about avoiding a descent into the nationalist competition and conflict that have afflicted our continent so many times in the past.

While I want a campaign that focuses on the positive, I am not persuaded by those who object when the facts are pointed out to them—the Brexiters who cry, “Project Fear” every time someone puts a point to them that they cannot or will not answer. This was the tactic of the nationalists in the Scottish referendum. Unable to answer some of the most basic questions about their future outside our union, they shouted, “Project Fear” to distract attention. So let us not be distracted by those Brexiters who have decided to take a lesson straight out of the nationalists’ playbook. Let us be relentless in reminding them of reality and challenging them to deal with it.

On the day that the referendum date was announced, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, spoke on BBC radio. He was asked what life would look like after Britain had left the European Union. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, he said, “That’s simple; it will be like it was before the EU”. The noble Lord went on to describe, in some detail, his pride in Britain as a country that had intervened on numerous occasions to rescue Europe from war and domination. He catalogued the occasions over many centuries, from the days of, in his words, “the dictator Philip of Spain”, through the Napoleonic Wars and into the First and Second World Wars. I do not know exactly how many millions of lives were lost in those conflicts but I do know that arrangements that bring people together to work in partnership for peace and prosperity are better than the arrangements we have had in the past and may, if some Brexiters get their way, end up with in the future.

This is not some tired historical discussion. Today the external pressures on Europe are greater than they have been for decades and the internal threat from nationalists selling divisive politics and beggar-my-neighbour economics is higher than it has been since the 1930s. In such circumstances, I am sorry to see distinguished former Cabinet Ministers, who I feel I grew up with, drinking the elixir of Brexit. Many of them played important roles in the development and success of the European Union and the single market. All of them have had the privilege of living the majority of their lives free from the threat of European war, as part of a European project which has helped nurture democracy in the former fascist and communist states of southern and eastern Europe and has contributed to delivering peace and prosperity to our continent.

So I say to the noble Lords, Lord Lamont, Lord Lawson, Lord Howard, and others: I want my generation and the generations that follow to continue to share in the privilege that they themselves have enjoyed. I want them to continue to work, study and holiday throughout Europe. I want them never again to fight their way across it. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, in declaring his support for Brexit today, described the referendum as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. I hope that it will not be a one-off opportunity for his generation to screw up the world for my generation and the generations to come.