Youth Justice

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome any measures that genuinely and effectively prevent young people falling into a life of crime. Every young person diverted away from violence and offending is welcome. The continued reduction in the number of children held in custody is welcome. The fall from around 2,800 children in custody in 2003 to approximately 1,400 today reflects significant progress across successive Governments. We also recognise that the nature of offending has changed. Cases involving county lines, online exploitation, organised gangs and serious violence are often more complex than those faced by the justice system a generation ago.

However, while some of the Government’s individual proposals in this White Paper may sound reasonable in isolation, a deeper concern runs through the paper. Once again, the Government are at risk of confusing rehabilitation with the dilution of accountability. The White Paper is right to identify young people not in education, employment or training as being at heightened risk of offending. But, if the Government are serious about prevention, they must confront the economic conditions affecting young people across the country. The most effective intervention for many young people is not another review, another pilot scheme or another bureaucratic framework; it is to deliver an economy that can provide them and their families with stability.

There is a reference in the White Paper to reshaping the justice system. The paper records the Government’s proposal to undertake what they describe as a “fundamental look” at the role and purpose of the criminal courts for child defendants. This work will consider whether entirely different court processes should apply not only to children but potentially also to vulnerable adults and young adults. This raises material concerns. If the Government wish to reform sentencing policy to reduce reoffending, that is one debate, but gradually reshaping the philosophical foundations of our criminal justice system itself is quite another.

The Government appear to be intent on treating long-standing justice structures not as constitutional safeguards but as obstacles to be removed or redesigned. We have already seen proposals to weaken jury trial and other proposals designed to keep offenders out of prison. Now Ministers appear to be questioning whether traditional criminal courts themselves remain appropriate for wider categories of offenders. But where does such a process end? Accountability and punishment are being steadily downgraded within a system increasingly defined through the lens of vulnerability.

At this point, I turn to the issue of victims and public confidence. The Government proposed further consultation on the victims’ code, including consideration of a separate code for children. Once again, this Government are drawn towards creating new frameworks and pursuing new consultations rather than improving the operation of an existing system. If there are gaps in protections for child victims, strengthen the existing code. If the Minister believes the current code is unfit for purpose, why was that not addressed during the passage of the Victims and Courts Act just a matter of weeks ago? We must break from a constant cycle of consultation and restructuring. Improving outcomes is not synonymous with endless consultation and the expansion of bureaucracy.

The Government’s underlying philosophy of justice is perhaps laid bare in the sentencing proposals in this paper. For example, they explicitly reject vehicle theft as deserving of a custodial sentence, no matter how many vehicles an individual may have stolen. We do not argue that custody should follow in every case, but sentencing in all cases, youth and otherwise, must reflect individual circumstances. The issue before your Lordships is whether the Government still believe that custody serves any meaningful deterrent or punitive function. The message increasingly appears to be that more or less all young offenders should remain in the community. Once they remain in the community, the Government now stipulate in their White Paper that they

“do not intend on making electronic whereabouts monitoring mandatory”.

So offenders are not to be placed in custody, but nor are they to be monitored. The public are right to ask in these circumstances where the balance is between rehabilitation and public protection.

The White Paper also touches on the issue of remand in respect of young offenders. But the average number of children on remand in England and Wales at any time is now about 183, and some of those may be on remand for their own protection, so I wonder to what extent it is really a major or material issue for consultation at this stage.

The White Paper then turns to the age of criminal responsibility, and it is a concern to see that there is a specific section in the proposals on this issue and the idea that it should be a raised age. The Government state that they will consider a wide evidence base before making a decision on this important issue.

I wonder whether the intended consultation will consider the opinion of the Minister, who declared less than two months ago: “Raising the age risks removing an important safeguard in those exceptional cases where serious offending does occur”, and “setting the threshold too high may have unintended consequences, including the potential for older offenders to exploit younger children who fall below the age of responsibility”. We look forward to considering the scope of the consultation that is to follow.

The fact that this issue now appears in the White Paper inevitably raises questions about the Government’s intention. Ministers may try to present this as a neutral review of evidence, but many may recognise that this is the soft launch of yet another policy reversal. Once again, under the veil of consultation, the Government are moving further away from the important issue of accountability within the justice system.

In conclusion, of course we support the objective of reducing youth offending and preventing young people entering a life of crime—early intervention and diversion have important roles to play within any functioning justice system—but rehabilitation cannot come at the expense of accountability. This Government appear to view punishment, deterrence and public protection as outdated concepts to be eroded, rather than as essential pillars of a justice system. A system in which offenders are neither placed in custody nor monitored when out in the community, where courts themselves are the subject of constant redesign and where accountability is repeatedly softened under the language of reform is not a system in which the public will be able to retain confidence.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the success in reducing the number of children in custody has been a great achievement, and we should still be concentrating on further bringing down that number. That success has been largely achieved through the work of the Youth Justice Board, in which my noble friend Lord McNally played a major part during the coalition. We note the commitment to reform of the Youth Justice Board, but such reform should be constructive and committed to rehabilitation and reform, turning lives around, whether or not the youth justice service is at some stage in the future housed within the MoJ.

The Statement rightly emphasises how often the criminal conduct of children and young people is the result of instability, trauma and neglect, accompanying violence, addiction and abuse among those around them. But we must also address those factors that lead to Black children being so much more vulnerable to ending up in the criminal justice system. The Statement is right about that, as David Lammy was when he did his review in 2017.

On these Benches we have long sought to address these issues, but the Government now rightly highlight new hazards facing children and young people and leading to crime: online harms, criminal grooming through social media and exposure to extremist content. The £46 million to be invested in the turnaround programme is of course welcome, and the Statement is also right to call for early and effective intervention. But the likely success of new and recent measures—including parenting orders, youth diversion orders, youth intervention courts or reforms to the out-of-court resolution service—cannot yet be assessed. All these measures will take resources, and the amount is difficult to quantify. Can the Minister say a little more about the resourcing of the reforms promised? How, for example, was the £46 million figure assessed?

In proceedings on the Sentencing Bill, now Act, we discussed the extra resources needed for the Probation Service and others, not only for extra handling of early release, tagging and post-release supervision but to improve both the quantity and quality of the supervision of offenders and the help that the Probation Service necessarily provides to the courts.

So how, we would ask, is the need for resources to be kept under review, and what extra resources may there be to meet a need that is currently unforeseen? Is there sufficient flexibility to avoid the increases in offending that inevitably follow from underresourcing? Spending in this area is largely spending to save, given the massive direct and social cost of crime, and particularly of reoffending. Annexe A to the White Paper rightly sets out eleven “golden questions” for further research, saying there are “key evidence gaps”. What plans have the Government to fill those key evidence gaps?

Finally, the age of criminal responsibility is at last to be reconsidered. I remember the noble Baroness defending the present age of criminal responsibility— I disagreed with her then, and I do now—and I note the endorsement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, of her former views. There is also to be reform of the childhood criminal records regime, or that too is mooted and is welcome. We have long argued that to criminalise a child at the age of 10 flies in the face of all the evidence on developmental reform, and that it is inhumane and wrong. I ask, because this is an all-party and an all-public issue, how will this consideration proceed? Will there be formal public or all-party consideration? I certainly look forward to discussing these issues in depth, as I know others do.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the points they have made on this important issue. I will turn to the specifics of some of them towards the end of this short address.

On Monday, the Deputy Prime Minister set out in the other place a bold new approach to youth justice. We intend to build a system that intervenes early, responds more effectively and does more to turn young lives around. By doing all these things, we are fulfilling the first duty of government, which is to protect the public.

The evidence is compelling. About 80% of prolific adult offenders began committing crime when they were children. Cycles of criminal behaviour can start early, become entrenched and, if left unchallenged, become harder to break. If we fail to tackle them, we fail not only those children but the victims and communities who suffer the consequences. Every child we divert from criminal behaviour now not only saves a victim next week, next year, but possibly in our grandchildren’s generation.

Diversion for lower-level offences remains the most effective response, and we will set out plans to reform the out-of-court resolution framework later this year. This is most emphatically not us being soft on crime; rather, it is a firm, fair and consistent approach that steps in sooner and addresses the underlying causes of offending before the behaviour escalates. Where children offend, there must of course be swift and meaningful intervention. That said, short custodial sentences for children are associated with high reoffending rates. More than two-thirds of those given a short sentence offend again. Basically, by repeatedly locking these children up, we are locking them into a cycle of repeat offending, and they are highly likely to become the prolific offenders of the future.

Protection of the public is very much at the forefront of our minds. Custody will always be necessary for the most serious and dangerous offences and offenders. However, it is not just about sentencing but about where children are placed while they await trial. We know that for many children, even a short period in custody can deepen the problems that led them to offend in the first place. It breaks their contact with education, and it can break their contact with their families and cause all sorts of problems. That is why it is our ambition to cut the number of children who are remanded in custody by 25% over this Parliament.

To do that while keeping the public safe, we will invest £5 million in intensive community placements and stronger bail support. These measures are designed to protect the public and give children a genuine chance of changing course. We will also pilot youth intervention courts. We intend these to take a problem-solving approach, looking at the causes of offending by tailoring the approach to individual circumstances. These will be focused on the children who are most at risk of reoffending.

Early evidence from the similar intensive supervision courts in the adult system, upon which these are loosely based, is encouraging. We will draw on this while continuing to adopt an approach that reflects children’s needs. This will include judge-led reviews as part of a child’s sentence. Judges will play a key role in monitoring their progress. The Government appreciate that this will place additional pressure on the courts. As your Lordships are aware, we are taking action to address capacity through the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

The criminal records review is about ensuring that the system strikes the right balance between protecting the public and supporting rehabilitation. Stable employment is a crucial factor, and where individuals who have committed crimes as children have demonstrably turned their lives around, it serves neither them nor the wider public to impose unnecessary barriers to opportunity. This will be a targeted package of reforms. These may include considering how long childhood offences should be disclosed on basic checks and whether certain offences should remain disclosable for life—for example, when applying for roles working with vulnerable people.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised the issue of the age of criminal responsibility. My words were quoted back at me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. I do not resile from them. I used words such as “may” and “risk” and made the point that we would always listen and keep this under review. The review of the age of criminal responsibility is not our review but the Bar Council’s review. Nobody is suggesting that, once that review has reported, we should not look at it. We will look at it and then make a decision. We are evaluating it.

On the question of resources, the Government are committed to putting money into these matters. That is why this is a bold reform. The Government have committed a further £15 million a year for three years to the turnaround programme, which seeks to intervene upstream of criminal justice interventions. On the funding issues concerning the youth justice system and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, I notice that in their places are the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Clarke, both of whom have had a great deal to do with these issues over the years. I am grateful to see them both.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has ranged far and wide in his criticisms of the Government’s approach to many matters across criminal justice and other areas. We are criticised for consulting on this, but I am not going to apologise for that. This Government take an incremental approach to the reforms we are bringing in, introducing them cautiously and acting on evidence rather than on ideology or whim, so that we know that what we are doing will work before rolling it out nationally.

Regarding consulting on wider issues, I stood at this Dispatch Box on Monday and was criticised from the Opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for introducing too much legislation. This is not legislation: it is consultation and reform, and that is why we are doing it. The bold approach this Government are taking on youth justice is about ensuring that the system intervenes earlier and more effectively. We want to get children and young people back on track so that we can protect the public. To achieve that, we are following the evidence on what works. I look forward to engaging with your Lordships over the coming months as the Government finalise their plans.