As the Green Peers are not part of the usual channels, we were not able to give our views on the fact that this very important piece of legislation is being bullied through this House by the Government. It is absolutely outrageous that we do not have another day for Report. I hold both Members of the Front Bench accountable for this. It is not acceptable. This is no way to make good law, when we are going to be very tired in the later hours and possibly in the early hours.

My first intervention and amendments on the 6th day of Report:

On group 1, my Amendments 409H and 409J on youth diversion orders are supported by a wide range of organisations, including the Alliance for Youth Justice, the Centre for Justice Innovation, MLegal, the National Youth Advocacy Service, Sheffield Hallam University, INQUEST, the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, Just for Kids Law and the Runnymede Trust. That is quite a lot of very experienced organisations that support these amendments. Their collective expertise in youth justice, children’s rights and legal practice adds considerable weight to the concerns that underpin these proposals.

There are broader and very serious questions about the suitability of youth diversion orders themselves. Amendment 409G in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, rightly asks whether a youth diversion order is necessary in the first place. This amendment addresses the equally important question of what happens next. It aims to take a practical approach to working with what we have in the Bill. If such orders are to be introduced, the framework governing them must be rooted in what we know actually works for children. As drafted, Clause 185 gives the courts extremely broad discretion to impose conditions, without any clear duty to consider whether those requirements are suitable or achievable in practice. This amendment intends to address that gap. Proposed new subsection (4A) would require courts to consider evidence of suitability, taking into account a child’s

“age, maturity, and individual circumstances”.

It would also require consideration of whether conditions are practically available, whether they can realistically be enforced, and whether multiple requirements are compatible with one another.

This reflects what evidence from youth justice practice already tells us. Evaluation of diversion programmes, including work by the Suffolk Youth Justice Service, shows clearly that outcomes improve when conditions are tailored to the individual child, realistically enforceable and do not interfere with education or access to support services. Without those things, there is an obvious risk of children being set up to fail. When failure leads to breach and a breach is a criminal offence, we are not diverting children from the justice system; we are actually drawing them further into it.

Proposed new subsection (4B) reinforces another essential principle: that orders should not disrupt education, health appointments or support services. This is based on the fact that they are factors that help prevent harm and reduce reoffending. Undermining them could be damaging.

The amendment would also introduce a requirement for the terms of the order to be explained in language that the child can understand. Again, this is strongly supported by evidence. Studies of diversion programmes show that children are far more likely to engage when they understand what is required of them and why. Youth offending teams that take the time to explain decisions in accessible language achieve significantly better outcomes. By contrast, many children struggle to recall or understand formal processes. As one 10 year-old boy said of a formal warning, “I forgot it straightaway”.

This issue is particularly acute for children with additional needs. Evidence suggests that a significant proportion of children in the youth justice system have speech, language and communication difficulties, and many have special educational needs or mental health challenges. Research presented to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children highlights how such difficulties can affect a child’s ability to understand instructions, regulate behaviour and engage with processes. Crucially, many of these children will not ask for clarification because they simply do not understand what they have heard. They may appear compliant but, in reality, be confused and unsupported. If we do not take that into account, we risk further criminalising vulnerability.

Taken together, these amendments would introduce basic, evidence-based safeguards. They are about ensuring that youth diversion orders, if they are to exist, are tailored, workable and fair to the child.

 

I intervened again later to say: I will speak to Amendments 420 and 422B, both of which I have supported. I go to a lot of events where the right to protest is debated, and people are quite shocked when I describe how this Government bundled three organisations together so that they could push through the proscription of Palestine Action. It does not look just or fair. They do not even have to be similar or connected, as these three were not. It was interesting to listen to the entertaining Lord Blencathra, running through the debate on whether to proscribe Palestine Action.

These amendments are about the process: about how it is done and whether it is done in a proper way. It is not proper scrutiny and it is not what this House is for when we have a blunt choice to accept or reject all three. That is not a sensible system. Proscription is a really serious step: it criminalises people for association, for support and even for what they say. Such decisions deserve to be looked at carefully, case by case, and not rushed through or passed in a job lot. If the Government are confident in their decisions about what is and is not a terrorist organisation—I assume they were confident about Palestine Action—they should have no problem with each one being judged on its own, not in a job lot.

The amendment from Lord Hailsham, comes down to something quite simple. These are very big decisions that can criminalise association, affect livelihoods and follow someone for years. If we are being asked to approve that, we should be properly informed—but we were not; we had to take the Minister’s word for it and we did not have the information. We are asked to nod things through without seeing the full picture. I do not think that is a very comfortable position for your Lordships’ House to be in.

Ensuring that Parliament has a clear and well-informed picture is the whole point of this. It also adds a bit more balance. At the moment, these decisions are taken by Ministers. It need not get in the way of a fair decision, or allowing things to move quickly. If there is urgency the Government can act, but they still have to come back and justify that decision properly afterwards. It is about making sure that when we take serious decisions, they are justified on the facts, not just on suppositions.

Hansard record here