HC Deb 21 January 1998 vol 304 cc578-82W
Mr. Clappison

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children, aged(a) 10 and (b) 11 were convicted of offences which would be punishable with imprisonment in the case of a person aged 21 years or over in (i) the last year for which figures are available and (ii) each of the preceding 10 years. [23966]

Mr. Michael

The information is given in the table.

Number of children aged 10 and 11 respectively, convicted at all

courts of an offence which is punishable with a custodial penalty1

by type of offence, 1986–1996

England and Wales
Convictions by type of offence carrying a custodial penalty1
Year Age Indictable offences2 Summary non-motoring offences Summary motoring offences Total all offences
1986 10 142 33 13 188
11 590 59 33 682
1987 10 76 17 3 96
11 445 53 2 500
1988 10 78 13 3 94
11 345 41 6 392
1989 10 67 12 1 80
11 263 52 315
1990 10 61 14 5 80
11 276 52 8 336
1991 10 32 12 2 46
11 237 54 4 295
1992 10 48 12 100
11 266 62 4 332
1993 10 45 9 54
11 271 56 327
1994 10 41 6 49
11 242 40 3 285
1995 10 40 10 1 51
11 259 80 1 340
1996 10 25 14 39
11 221 60 281
1 Under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 custodial penalties are available from the common minimum age of 15 for both boys and girls (previously the minimum age was 14 for boys and 15 for girls).
2 Children aged 10 and 11 convicted at the Crown Court may be sentenced to be detained for up to the adult maximum, including life,under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Mr. Clappison

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of the respondents to his Tackling Youth Crime consultation paper who(a) were in favour of the local child curfew scheme, (b) were against the local child curfew scheme and (c) commented that the age range for the scheme should not be limited to those below 10 years of age. [23971]

Mr. Michael

In responding to the consultation paper, "Tackling Youth Crime" by 8 December 1997, organisations commented on the nature and details of proposals to introduce local child curfew schemes. Overall, the responses from the following organisations and individuals(a) were broadly in favour of the principle of introducing local child curfews schemes.

  • Salford City Council
  • Stockton on Tees Borough Council
  • Leicestershire County Council
  • Adhocracy Ltd.
  • 580
  • Rossendale Council
  • Berkshire Youth Justice Service
  • Berkshire Probation Service
  • Canterbury City Council
  • Lancashire Police Authority
  • Rugby Borough Council
  • North Tyneside Council
  • Inner London Magistrates Youth Panel
  • West Sussex County Council
  • Hereford and Worcester County Council
  • Sheffield Social Services
  • Stockton on Tees Borough Council
  • National Association of Social Workers in Education
  • Newark and Sherwood District Council
  • Tendring District Council
  • West Yorkshire Magistrates' Association
  • Lee Westlake
  • Torfaen County Borough
  • South Shropshire District Council
  • North Hertfordshire District Council
  • Surrey Police Authority
  • Pembrokeshire County Council
  • Dartford Borough Council
  • North East Derbyshire District Council
  • Harrogate and Ripon Magistrates' Courts
  • Cheshire County Council
  • Warwickshire Probation Service
  • Nottinghamshire Magistrates' Courts Service
  • Middlesbrough Borough Council
  • West Yorkshire Probation Service
  • Justices' Clerk's Society
  • NCH Action for Children
  • City and County of Swansea
  • Forest of Dean District Council
  • Sheffield Magistrates' Court
  • K. Lucy
  • Slough Borough Council
  • Kent County Council
  • Hyndburn Borough Council
  • North Somerset County Council
  • Standing Conference of Principal Youth and Community
  • H. Morgan
  • Erewash Borough Council
  • Inner London Probation Service
  • Bristol City Council
  • Bromsgrove District Council
  • East Hampshire District Council
  • Ryedale District Council
  • New Forest District Council
  • Church of England
  • City of Westminster London Borough
  • Children's Society
  • Vale of Glamorgan Council
  • Walsall Social Services
  • Public Constituency Consultation by Lorna Fitzsimmon.
(b) were largely against the principle of introducing local child curfew schemes.
  • Manchester Youth Justice Service
  • Hertfordshire Police Authority
  • National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisation
  • City of Coventry
  • Dudley Metropolitan Borough
  • Hampshire Youth Justice Committee
  • Cheshire County Council Youth Justice Team
  • Children's Play Council
  • National Children's Bureau
  • Crime Concern
  • London Association for Youth Justice
  • Brighton and Hove Council
  • Corporation of London
  • Legal Committee of Council of Her Majesty's Stipendiary Magistrates
  • London Borough of Harrow
  • Association of Teachers and Lecturers
  • Birmingham City Council
  • 581
  • Gwent County Borough Council
  • British Youth Council
  • Inner London Magistrates' Court Service
  • Wandsworth London Borough
  • National Association of Probation Officers
  • East Riding of Yorkshire Council
  • D. Parish
  • Merton Borough Management Team for Youth Justice
  • Society of Education Officers
  • Sunderland Social Services
  • Somerset County Council
  • Halton Intermediate Treatment Scheme
  • Save the Children
  • Divert Trust
  • Dorset Police
  • Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
  • Hackney London Borough
  • Derby City Council
  • Kingston upon Hull City Council
  • North East Lincolnshire Council
  • Standing Committee for Youth Justice
  • Redcar and Cleveland Council
  • Hertfordshire County Council
  • University College of London
  • Royal Philanthropic Society
  • Surrey Youth Justice Team
  • Nottinghamshire County Council
  • North West Surrey Youth Panel
  • Redbridge Youth Justice Team
  • Bolton Social Services
  • Criminal Bar Association
  • Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council
  • Association of Chief Officers of Probation.
(c) commented that the age for the scheme should not be limited to those below 10 years of age.
  • Rugby Borough Council
  • Labour Lawyers (Crime)
  • Adhocracy Ltd.
  • City of Coventry
  • NCH Action for Children
  • Chelmsford Borough Council
  • Nottinghamshire County Council
  • Dartford Borough Council
  • West Sussex County Council
  • Harrogate and Ripon Magistrates' Courts
  • Nottinghamshire Magistrates' Courts Service
  • West Sussex County Council
  • Sussex Police Authority
  • Aylesbury Vale District Council
  • Rossendale Council
  • Slough Borough Council
  • Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council
  • Merton Borough Management Team for Youth Justice
  • London Borough of Hounslow
  • Middlesbrough Borough Council.

Mr. Clappison

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research has been carried out or commissioned by his Department into(a) the need for, and (b) the effects of the imposition of custodial sentences on children aged (a) 10 and (b) 11 years; [23967]

(2) what representations he has received in favour of the introduction of custodial sentences for children aged (a) 10 and (b) 11 years. [23968]

Mr. Michael

The Government's proposals to reform custodial arrangements for 10 to 17–year-olds are set out in the White Paper, "No More Excuses—A new approach to tackling youth crime in England and Wales" (Cmnd 3809). These proposals will provide for a more coherent and effective custodial framework for the sentencing and remand of young offenders, where this is necessary and appropriate.

The proposals include a new constructive and more flexible custodial sentence for 10 to 17–year-olds, the Detention and Training Order, which will replace the Sentences of Detention in a Young Offender Institution (for 15 to 17–year-olds) and the Secure Training Order. The Government do not propose to change the existing provisions under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to impose custodial sentences on 10 to 17–year-olds convicted of "grave crimes". The new Order will be introduced only for 12 to 17–year-olds in the first place. The Government will introduce the Detention and Training Order for 10 and 11–year-olds only should it prove necessary or desirable to do so; this will be subject to Parliamentary approval. The new Detention and Training Order will provide a clear focus on preventing offending in line with proposed new statutory aim for the youth justice system. It will allow young offenders to be placed in secure accommodation appropriate to their age and maturity.

In developing their proposals on the Detention and Training Order, the Government have taken advice from my right hon. Friend's Task Force on Youth Justice, which is composed of experts with experience of youth justice. A summary of the Task Force's advice was placed in the Library on 2 December.

There is no Home Office research on the effect of custodial sentences on children of 10 and 11 years old, partly because of the very small number of children in this age group who are sentenced to custody under the existing provisions.