| Juvenile Justice Centre Estate
|
|
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 21 on page 6 of the document ``Statements of Standards and Criteria for Juvenile Justice Centres in Northern Ireland'', which sets out sensible guidelines for assessing youngsters when they are first admitted. It states that a young person's initial physical needs will be assessed. I stress the need also to assess the mental well-being of such youngsters—for example, their propensity to inflict injuries on themselves. My question is prompted by the distressingly high incidence of suicide among young men in Scottish prisons, which reflects the growing number of suicides among young men in society at large. Mr. Ingram: I want to explain the range of issues that we have to take into account; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that important aspect of the assessment of these young people, many of whom are disturbed. They have not just committed crimes; some of them are disturbed, for a wide variety of reasons, when they enter the custodial system. That is why I say that those who have carried out the work should be applauded. It is a never-ending and thankless task. I know that my hon. Friend does not fall into the category of people who do that, but the finger of blame is all too readily pointed at those carrying out that caring role in such institutions, in very difficult circumstances, if something goes wrong. A multi-agency approach is required, and that is what we have put in place. I shall highlight some of the issues that we have to address. I have set out the background to our progressive movement over the past four years to a much more sensitive and compassionate approach. Because the nature of the work and the facilities have changed significantly in recent years, I ordered a review of the juvenile justice estate. Before expanding on that, I want first to set out my vision for the juvenile justice custodial system. Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim): In the information that was made available, constant reference is made to provision for boys and young people. Can the Minister give us a breakdown of the numbers of males and females among those deemed juvenile young offenders? Will the proposed new provision make separate arrangements for the two groups, or will they be treated as one? Mr. Ingram: I will write to all members of the Committee with a detailed breakdown. At present, there are about five girls in the system. That could change at any time. The judgment on provision is made on the basis of not only gender but the seriousness of the crime committed, which can vary between the genders. We have to take account of that mix in the new centre. I shall elaborate on our approach and why I have concluded that it is the best way forward. Custody is the most serious option open to the youth court and it should not be imposed lightly. It is now reserved for only the most serious and persistent offenders. Those young people are in great need and it is imperative that while they are in custody and under supervision they are given effective corrective support, including the psychiatric assessment and support to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred. We need to work with such young people to help them to address the causes of their offending behaviour. That is done through the development of the innovative split custody and community sentence, which has the aim of ensuring that young people make the transition from custody effectively, with a minimal risk of relapse. The focus of the system is the development of a child-centred approach. From the moment the young person enters the juvenile justice centre, work commences to ensure that on release he or she has the best opportunity to reintegrate into the community. That involves a multi-discipline assessment of the young person's needs. An individual programme is prepared based on that assessment, which seeks to stabilise what is often a chaotic life style and to address the causes of offending behaviour and educational needs. Sadly, the young person may all too often not have participated in formal education for a number of years. Innovative programmes such as cognitive skills behaviour therapy have already been introduced and will be further developed to give young people the best opportunity to address the problems that they will face in custody and afterwards. It is also essential to have in place good links between those responsible for custodial provision and those with responsibility for delivering services in the community. Links have been established with the education and social services, so that they can become involved in the planning process as soon as the young person enters the system. In that way, the community supervision element of the sentence will provide the young person with the support necessary to make the transition to the community. In that context, the role of the family assumes particular importance. Families have a responsibility to support the young person through that difficult period, but they usually need help and encouragement to meet the challenge. Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand that when the education service was ready to take over, it was told by the Northern Ireland Office to put the move on hold. What steps have been taken since to involve the education service in the education of those young people? Mr. Ingram: It is not quite as the hon. Gentleman says. Those who deliver educational services under the remit of the Northern Ireland Office are paid by the Northern Ireland Office, not by the Education Department. I have had had a meeting with the Education Minister of the devolved Administration to find ways of ensuring proper educational resources for the new institution and the institutions put in place in advance of the new building being ready for use. That will require further discussion between the Departments. It is not one Department saying that it is not interested; the Departments are working together to ensure that we have strong educational resources in the centres. That what we seek to achieve. The assessment process must begin early in the custodial element of the sentence, and it will necessarily require investment in arrangements that facilitate and strengthen family links and empower parents to play their part in addressing the factors associated with the young person's offending behaviour. Regrettably, the comfort of loving family support is not available to many of the young people who enter custody. A substantial number—about 30 per cent.—are committed to juvenile justice centres direct from the care system, often for the most minor of offences, which further marginalises that already disadvantaged group. That unsatisfactory situation needs to be addressed with appropriate urgency by the devolved Administration. I am aware that the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee of the Assembly is undertaking an inquiry into residential care provisions for children in Northern Ireland, and that a task force has been established to deal with matters arising from the inquiry. We in the Northern Ireland Office will do what we can to help, as it is important to avoid criminalising those young people and to divert them away from the juvenile justice system. However, a key element of today's debate is about the accommodation in which those services are provided. The existing juvenile justice estate consists of two open juvenile justice centres and one closed site. The open centres need major enhancement to house the young people in the system, and the closed site, although it provides secure accommodation, is built to a prison design and is not considered appropriate for juveniles. The three sites have capacity for a total of 115 juveniles. The present population is about 30, and it is estimated that provision should be made for a total of 50. From the outset, there was a mismatch, with many more places available than would be required. More important, however, is the fact that what is in place now is not suitable to meet future needs. Before deciding on the way forward, I wanted to hear the views of others. In April 2000, I launched a consultation document on the future size and location of the juvenile justice estate. It focused entirely on accommodation. It set out the issues that needed to be considered, and sought views. I thank those who took the time and trouble to respond. It was extremely important that I should hear the views of a wide range of interested parties to help me to formulate my conclusions. We received 28 responses to the consultation document. The 24 people who expressed a firm opinion were divided almost equally between wanting one or two centres, and only one argued for a multiple site. The arguments offered in favour of two centres were that the numbers would be more manageable; that it would be more child-centred, by providing community-based facilities that were less institutionalised; and that it would better meet human rights requirements by providing greater flexibility and an element of choice. The vital question of how young people would be allocated in two centres was either ignored or not answered in detail. The advocates of a single centre advanced a series of benefits, including the capacity to develop more effective regimes; better use of resources in providing a range of services to a critical mass of young people; and the release of more resources for the provision of community-based services. As ever, it was not a unanimous view upon which I could base my decision or move forward without criticism. The accommodation in the juvenile justice system has to meet a number of needs. First, it is essential to provide a safe and secure environment. Custody is reserved for the most serious and persistent offenders, so it is imperative that security is such as to contain those young people for their own safety and for the protection of the public, but it is also important that the security should not be oppressive. For example, our experience is that the use of fences merely presents a challenge for young people, and that is counterproductive. We need to maintain security and control without being forbidding. Although the population may be small, the permutations of needs are endless. I had to give close consideration to the diverse needs of the different groups of juveniles who come into custody. We need to cater for males and females. Those on remand have different needs from those who have been sentenced. Vulnerable juveniles and those who represent a significant challenge to authority have differing needs. Those with basic educational needs and those for whom participation in formal examinations is a real option must be taken into account. Training opportunities should be available to the older age group. The religious needs of juveniles are equally important and cannot be ignored. Accommodation units must be small in order to reduce the opportunity for control problems. Most of all, the accommodation needs to be child-friendly and unthreatening. Those were the multi-faceted aspects that I had to take into consideration. They seemed to point towards the provision of small, independent units that would cater for the specific needs of their young residents. Unfortunately, such a provision would make it difficult to meet changing needs or to provide a progressive system without disruptive transfers between sites. It would also lack flexibility and could result in the isolation of young people. Experience also shows that it is important to have a critical mass of people so as to ensure the effective provision of opportunities such as education and recreation. I concluded that, for an estimated maximum population of 50 juveniles—in reality, the population would be less than that—the most appropriate option would be a single site that offered comprehensive educational and recreational provisions but that housed the population in small living units. A modern construction would allow the best design features to be included, delivering intrinsic security in a safe and relatively welcoming environment. None of the existing facilities meets those criteria. Lisnevin provides the necessary security, but it suffers from a prison-style environment. Rathgael and St. Patrick's both provide relatively modern and bright living accommodation, but both are open and the necessary level of security could be delivered only through the provision of substantial fencing. In addition, they would provide a campus-type environment that would be difficult to control, which would make it difficult to deliver the full potential of the sites. The buildings are not reflective of modern design in the provision of secure facilities for juveniles. Both of the existing open facilities could be developed to provide improved security and an opportunity for a progressive and differential regime. However, they would remain open facilities that have been made secure and would not represent the best opportunity to meet the needs of the population. I concluded that the best option is to make provision for a purpose-built modern facility on a single site. I gave consideration to a greenfield site in a neutral location that has no ties with the past, but concluded that the difficulty in locating a suitable site would be prohibitive, and it would have attracted additional costs. I considered using the Prison Service site at Hydebank Wood but, although that site has advantages associated with its location, a site so closely associated with the Prison Service is not suitable for the long-term provision of facilities for juveniles. It could create a continuum mentality when we are seeking to break that approach. Similarly, I considered a new build at the Lisnevin site, but that is both the least attractive option in terms of location and a Prison Service site. I considered the site currently owned by the voluntary sector at St. Patrick's in west Belfast. While that is in a central location, the area is closely associated with one section of the community, and the perception—I stress that it is a perception—is that it would not be fully accessible by the Protestant community. In addition, the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland is precluded by law from the provision of secure care. In those circumstances it is more appropriate to have secure custody also delivered within the statutory sector. The St. Patrick's site is therefore not in my view the best option for the new centre. However, I am currently funding the delivery of community-based diversionary projects at St. Patrick's and I intend to continue to do so and to discuss with management how those might be further developed to meet the needs of local young people.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2000 | Prepared 29 November 2000 |
