Equality and Social Justice Committee

Thank you very much, Chair. Good afternoon, sir. It's good to see you.

It's good to see you too.

My question is about the blueprint. The blueprint was published in 2019. Can you outline what measurements have been used to determine if this has been successful, what is working well and not well, and what has been its most notable achievement? Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to start off by saying, as I think some of your other witnesses have said, that the blueprint is to be commended for its succinctness and its clarity, and taking a whole-person approach to the issue of female offenders. Obviously, the bit of the blueprint that is particularly relevant to magistrates is the section on courts and sentences, which is of particular interest to me and to the Magistrates Association, where it refers to the importance of increasing knowledge and the confidence of courts through training and awareness.

In preparation for today, we did a small snapshot survey of our members in Wales, to find out what they thought about some of the issues that you're looking at. That was quite interesting, actually, in terms of some of the things that they came back and said. The first thing to say is that only about 50 per cent of the magistrates who responded said that they knew about the blueprint—so, half did and half didn't. And I think that shows that there's still some way to go in really communicating what the blueprint is about to the whole of the magistracy in Wales. There's some distance to go with that. And I have to say, even talking at fairly senior levels within the Magistrates Association, the level of knowledge about it is not what I think you would probably hope, and I do wonder whether there's more that needs to be done in terms of involving our representatives in the work on the blueprint. We're certainly more involved—. There's work that's going on around looking at youth justice, for instance, and we feel that we're more involved there than we've been involved with the blueprint in terms of women offenders, and I think that may be something that needs to be addressed, to make sure that all the channels are being used to get the information across to magistrates about what it's about.

Having said that, I think there is some positive news that's coming through. Firstly, if we look at the issue of pre-sentences reports, there was a strong feeling that these have improved in recent times, with two thirds of those coming back saying that they thought that they were either 'good' or 'very good', and some of the comments that we had were, 'There's been a vast improvement in PSRs across all offender areas over recent months, which was long overdue.' Having been a magistrate for some 25 years, the quality and standard of these reports has vastly improved. Over the past few years, we've seen much more detailed PSRs, which give a clearer understanding of the issues that the offender may have, or are experiencing. It's no longer a cut-and-paste report that we now see, and the detail, in my view, assists the bench when we discuss sentencing options. Now, obviously, I don't know whether that's all to do with the work that's come out of the blueprint, but it's certainly in line with what was wanted with the blueprint, which is very good.

Having said that, when asked about the pre-sentence reports specifically to do with female offender specific services, the feeling there was less positive: about a third rated them as 'good' or 'very good' and two thirds 'okay' or 'poor'. It's clear that there's still an issue there about provision. There were comments about 'little provision', 'not aware of anything in my local area', which were very frequent as far as the detail of the feedback. And around about three quarters were unaware of any local women's centre in their local area as well. So, it shows that there's still room to go. Having said that, it shows that there have been some improvements over the last few years, which is encouraging.

Thank you very much, and I'm sure that the other Members will have many questions about the blueprint. Could you say whether enough is being done to intercept and divert women away from the criminal justice system in Wales? For example, the women's pathfinder whole-system approach, out-of-court disposals and revolving door pilots. What are your thoughts about those?

I think that, for some of those areas, we're not necessarily the best people to ask, because we're very much—. Our members are sitting in court, and they are hearing cases that come before them, and they are dealing with the sentences and so on, so I think that there some elements there that aren't so relevant, insofar as we are not qualified to speak on them.

Out-of-court disposals do play a useful role, and they have been around for quite a long time, and there have been moves to try and improve the way that they are working. What I would say with them is that it is very important that there is consistency in the way that they are used, as far as the offences that they are used for, and also the nature of the out-of-court disposals as well.

We have some evidence that that hasn't been happening as much as it should do, and also that there needs to be proper scrutiny of out-of-court disposals as well—that there should be a consistent way of them being monitored and scrutinised to make sure that they are working well with other parts of the justice system. We actually have a report coming out on out-of-court disposals, based on some research that we have done, in December, and I'd be happy to send the committee a copy of that report when we publish it as well, if that would be helpful.

The area that, for us, is absolutely key in diverting women offenders from custodial sentences is to have viable options that sentencers have confidence in. That, I think, is the area, above all else, that I would like to say is absolutely key—to make sure that that is the case. The information that we have is that that is patchy, depending on the locality.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Sioned Williams.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Do you have your headphones on? Can you hear? I can't see.

I'm not getting a translation yet.

Can you go and just—? One second, Sioned. I think that the interpretation may not be set up correctly.

Ah, I was on the wrong channel.

Go ahead, Sioned. I think it's working now.

Okay. Thank you very much. You did respond there in a way—. I wanted to ask whether the blueprint has led to an improved confidence among sentencers, in terms of alternatives to short-term custody and remand. You suggested in your response to Altaf Hussain that there has been some improvement in terms of the blueprint, but that there's a long way to go. We've obviously heard evidence that these short-term sentences are still being given. We went on a visit to Eastwood Park, for example, and there were sentences of 42 days on average, and we heard some evidence that some people's sentences were for less than a week on arrival in prison. So, there clearly needs to be more done, so I’d like to ask you to confirm that the blueprint hasn’t led to that increase in confidence. What more should be done?

I repeat, really, in a sense, the key is through the pre-sentence report, both in terms of what it contains, understanding the needs and the particular circumstances of the offender, and of the options that are available. The more that is there on both of those counts, then the more that can be done to make sure that the sentence is as suitable as possible to the particular context of the offence and the offender. Magistrates work within very strict guidelines that are set down by statute, and there are detailed guidelines from the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, and they set out for each case how to go through it in terms of deciding the sentence, and that is looking at the nature of the crime, the impacts, the culpability of the offender, and then looking for mitigating or aggravating circumstances in that particular case. So, each case is dealt with very much as an individual case and the pre-sentence report is absolutely crucial to make sure that magistrates are able to get a sentence that is right. So, the best way to ensure that we can move forward with non-custodial sentences is to make sure that there are appropriate alternatives to custodial sentences, and we’ve come some way with that, but there’s quite a way to go.

It seems as if, on the issue of the needs of the offender, there have been significant improvements, but the area where things are weaker is what’s available as realistic alternatives, and that’s the area that could be strengthened. I think one area that I would mention is community sentence rehabilitation treatment orders as one area where the availability is very patchy. Some of the other non-custodial options are more limited, and there are factors there that I think particularly affect women. So, for instance, unpaid work in a situation where all that’s available would mean that women would be going into a situation where it is largely men in a particular group doing unpaid work, then that can be a particular challenge, and it can also be a challenge with some other areas of non-custodial sentences as well, and the options available there. Fines are also an issue very often in relation to the situation that many women offenders are in as well, and so it’s just thinking about how the number of options can be extended so that there are those alternatives to the custodial sentence as well. And I think it’s also about making sure that we’re doing everything we can to provide training and awareness to magistrates, so that they know the different options and they’re asking the right sorts of questions in court.

Okay. Can I next bring in Jane Dodds and then I’ll come back to you? Jane.

Just a follow-up question to those that Sioned asked, if that’s okay, Sioned. We’ve heard data that 60 per cent of women from Wales are going to prison for less than six months. I just want to hear your response, if that’s okay. Do you think that’s a problem, or what kind of situation, in your opinion, could be an improvement on that? That is, that women from Wales—that's who we're talking about in this committee—don’t have the experience of going to prison for less than six months. Thank you very much.

I mean, custodial sentences should be only passed when they are unavoidable, and that is something that is in the guidelines that magistrates have to follow. And in so many cases, short sentences and also sentences for women don't help the situation in the long run. So, we know that prison generally has poorer outcomes for people who are more vulnerable. The more vulnerable they are, the poorer the outcomes. And we know that, for women offenders, they are very often vulnerable in multiple ways as well. So, in multiple ways, they're in a situation where prison will very often lead to poor outcomes, and so we are very much supportive of the general move to reduce short custodial sentences and reduce custodial sentences as well. That's why we're very much in favour of more options being available and more information being available to the bench, so that there are other options other than custodial sentences that are available.

Can I just follow up on what Jane was saying, because when we went to Styal prison, the governor told us that she was astonished that a magistrate had sent a woman to prison for seven days, which included Christmas day—a mother? So, could you describe why it was not possible to provide an alternative to that very, very harsh sentence, which would have had, obviously, very severe consequences for the family? What was the purpose of that?

It's very hard for me to comment on that, and it wouldn't really be appropriate for me to comment on an individual case, an individual situation, because I wasn't there and I don't know the details of that. I do take your point, and, as I say, it is about working to ensure that there are those alternatives, that magistrates are aware of those alternatives, that they're recommended in the pre-sentence reports as well, so that we can do everything we can to reduce the situation where women are sent into custody for short periods of time.

Okay, thank you. Sioned, back to you.

Thank you. You mentioned in one of your responses about the importance of consistency. So, I just wanted to ask, in terms of what you know, what actions are being taken to ensure there's a consistent approach to sentencing across Wales. We heard figures from the Prison Reform Trust that said that in the number of cases in which women have been sentenced for less than six months, there was a variation of 55 per cent in the South Wales Police area, compared with 93 per cent in Dyfed-Powys. So, those figures suggest that there is quite a variation. So, could you just shed some light on how this is being looked at to ensure that there is consistency across Wales?

Again, it will come back to the problem that, in different localities, there will be different options that are available and that that makes a very big difference. I just want to stress that custody should always be the last resort. It should always come last, and we recognise that short sentences do little to prevent further reoffending as well, and the outcomes are very often poor as far as custodial sentences are concerned. So, there are those discrepancies, but the more that is done as far as making sure that there are those alternatives locally, the better the situation will be.

Okay. I just wanted to come back to pre-sentencing reports, which you mentioned in your initial comments. Under what circumstances would a magistrate sentence a woman without having a pre-sentence report?

Generally, that should not happen, and there should be a pre-sentence report in all cases. There are some exceptions to that. For instance, if a pre-sentence report had been done fairly recently and there was agreement that things hadn't really changed from that time, but generally there should be and, if need be, there would be a delay in the sentencing until one was produced. If a pre-sentence report is produced and there are questions that are unanswered, then the bench is able to, and does, ask for those questions to be filled in. Very often, that might be, for instance, by—. There might be a probation officer that's there in the court and can be asked verbally to fill those in, or it might be that there's a probation officer within the building and actually they're able to then contact the probation officer who wrote the report and fill in the gaps from there. But, essentially, the sentencing should happen with the pre-sentence report. I hope this is where things have improved, and what our members say is that those pre-sentence reports are coming through in a more timely way than was the case in the past, and that's very good. It's more about making sure that they have all of the information that should be there. But we do everything as well to emphasise with magistrates the importance of those pre-sentence reports and understanding them.

You mentioned the variability of the quality in the pre-sentence reports. You're presumably able to push back on—. You presumably can have discussions with the Probation Service if there are consistently poor reports being provided to the courts, and you can adjourn the sentencing until you've had a satisfactory report, can you not?

Yes, that's right, and that does happen as well. But, as I say, sometimes it is possible to answer the questions there and then, but other times that's not the case. I also think there is something about—. In terms of what is available and the different options, sometimes there may be things that are available that magistrates don't know about as well, so there's only a certain—. In terms of pushing back, it's partly to do with the knowledge that is there in the bench, as far as pushing back for further information as well. But it is possible to delay. I think one of the swings and roundabouts of the greater work being done in the pre-sentence reports is that, sometimes, when information is needed in a short time span, that can be harder to access. I'm thinking particularly about remand hearings and so on, as well, which may have suffered a bit because of the work that's going into producing more comprehensive pre-sentence reports for the hearing, the sentencing stage.

So, are you saying that these pilots, the 12-month pilots that have been instituted by HM Prison and Probation Service, which include Swansea and Cardiff, that there have been no additional resources provided to focus on these particular pilots?

I'm not sure about that and I'd need to have a look and come back to you on that one. I'm not sure about whether there are additional resources, but I can try and find out, and come back to you.

Okay. So, what impact do you think these pilots have made, from your observations?

I don't know; I will need to come back to you as far as those are concerned.

Fine. Okay. Thank you very much. Back to you, Sioned.

Thank you, Chair. So, one final question: I just wanted to ask your opinion on the impact of UK Government legislation on the numbers of women being sent to prison. We've had written evidence on this, mentioning factors such as increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates and also, of course, the recent Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. The Howard League says that increasing the powers of magistrates to go from six months to a year, for example, is going to affect women disproportionately. So, I wanted to hear you opinion on those elements and their effect on the number of women being sent to prison.

We don't believe that the increase in the sentencing powers for magistrates should have any impact as far as the numbers of women and, more generally, of offenders receiving custodial sentences. In effect, what's happened is that there are certain cases that would have gone to the Crown Court that now may stay within the magistrates' court. But, in terms of the sentencing guidelines, they stay the same through both. The new powers have been introduced and they're now in place, and it will take a while before we see whether there have been any long-term trends or changes to that. But what I can say is that, so far, as far as I can see, according to our members, there doesn't seem to have been much impact in terms of the sentences being handed out and any changes as far as that's concerned. What it should do is, because there is less of a severe problem with backlog in the magistrates' court compared to the Crown Court, it should mean that it will help with the backlogs in the Crown Court. And I think that will help as far as justice is concerned, because we know about the very, very long delays in the Crown Court, including on cases involving crimes against women and girls as well, where there are quite horrific delays in some of those cases being heard as well. So, so far, we're pleased with the way that that change has come about and been introduced, and I think magistrates are very pleased to be able to play their part in helping with the situation with the backlogs.

Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Thank you very much. Can I bring in Sarah Murphy now?

Thank you very much, and thank you for being here today as well; I know it's not always easy being on a panel on your own. I want to ask a few more questions about the community sentences and the alternatives to custody. We've touched on this a little bit in terms of needing more alternatives to be able to offer, for women, but I just wanted to get your view as well on whether or not you think that it's affecting magistrates across Wales differently as well, like the actual locations and services that are available across the whole of Wales. Is that having an impact on this, do you think?

Can you say a bit more about what you mean?

Yes, of course. So, in the assessment, the planning and design of the evaluation for the women's justice blueprint, it found that the availability of alternatives to custody was improving, but it also raised the issue of how sentences vary across Wales and questioned whether this is affected by the availability of community alternatives or sentences—awareness of them. So, are you seeing a difference, I suppose, in the different locations, different parts of Wales, different areas of Wales? Is it better in some parts and not in others?

Yes, I think there is a difference in different parts, and I think, as a very general comment, I would say that the situation in north Wales seems to be worse than in south Wales, and that's both in terms of the options that are available but also as far as the involvement of the level of training, for instance, that's taken place as well. So, I think that that is the general pattern. But, in a sense, I come back to the thing that custody is that last resort, and if the options aren't available, then, in more cases, the last resort will be resorted to. And I think that that is what we see as to the differences, the discrepancies between different areas, when it comes to what happens with sentences. So, the one thing that would make a big difference to that is making sure that there are those viable alternatives as well across the board. Somehow, there needs to be that mapping exercise done to make sure that there aren't those gaps in the geography—that they are all covered. And I know that's very difficult in a country like Wales with the geography that's here as well, to make sure that that happens, but that is the thing that I believe will make the biggest difference as far as outcomes for this.

That's very helpful. Thank you very much. So, speaking of something that has been suggested, then, are you aware of the planned provision of a residential women's centre in Swansea, and do you have a view on this, really, in terms of whether there is a value to this model as an alternative to custodial prison sentences, and what difference you think this could have on sentencing? So, exploring concerns that, potentially, some people think it could ramp up community sentences. What actions need to be in place to ensure that it will have a positive impact on sentencing and reduce the number of women going to prison? Sorry, I know that that's a lot, but, overall, it's what your awareness is, I suppose, of the purpose of it, and how you think that will be viewed by magistrates when they are making these decisions.

My understanding is that there are still a lot of unanswered questions as far as the residential proposal is concerned, so there is a lot that we don't know about the impact that it will have. What I would say, and I think I probably indicated it, is that I'm a big fan of the concept of the women's centres as a way of diverting potential offenders but also helping offenders as well to get to the core issues, the pathways into offending, in that collected, holistic way. But, what I also know is that the patchy nature of the provision and also the precariousness of the funding for some of these centres has an impact on what is on offer. I know that some, for instance, have crèche facilities, but for others it's very difficult, and it's been withdrawn in some cases because of funding and so on, and that, obviously, has an impact on the confidence of sentencers with regard to the model.

I think it's for others to decide—it's not for us to say, but it's for others to decide whether the best use of the funding that is planned for the residential centre is best for that or is best to be used on more traditional women's centres. Obviously, every opportunity for non-custodial options would be welcomed, and I'm sure would be used, but it's really for others to decide whether that's the best option or whether the money might be spent in other ways.

Thank you. That's really helpful. It kind of brings me on to the question I was going to ask next, which is, what further options do you think are available to Welsh Government and partners to enhance the community options? The women's centres is one of the things that has come through very strongly. So, it would be helpful for us, from the magistrate's perspective, really, what is the view of the women's centres and what is the best practice? And any further opportunities that you could share with us, like the problem-solving court model, for example, if you have any insight into that.

Again, I think, from our perspective, there are probably other people who might be better at talking about the particular model for women's centres and the best way that they can work. I think there are so many pilots that are ongoing within the justice system, and there's a very good case for pilots. What it does mean is that the pattern is very confused and confusing in terms of what is out there and so on, and that is an issue, I think, and it comes back to the thing about the postcode lottery about what is available as well. But, in terms of the concept of the women's centres, and certainly as far as the outcomes are concerned, I think there is a lot of consensus around the importance of them.

We're also very much in favour of promoting, in a sense, trying out things like problem-solving courts. I believe that Manchester is the furthest forward as far as these are concerned, and they've been up and running for a while, and have been shown to be successful. Again, it's dealing with issues in that different way, which, I think, fits with the issues that many of the women who find themselves in the criminal justice system are facing, and it is also the collaborative approach and looking at issues in that different way, which is very welcome. So, we would be very much in favour of that.

But, as I say, I think the other area is about treatment requirements and making sure that those are consistently available. There have been promises about extending those; that hasn't been our experience in that, in so many areas, members tell us that they're not available and they're not recommended, and that's something else that could make a very, very big difference.

The other thing that came through from our survey was on criminal justice liaison services as well, and we asked about those. And, actually, the figures there were very low: more than half either didn't really know about them, or considered them very poor as well, and only 14 per cent thought that they were good or very good, as well. And, again, it's an issue that affects England and Wales, but it clearly affects Wales as well. So, I think there is a lot that could be done. There's a sort of consensus about the need to do everything that we can to move away from custodial sentences and particularly short-term ones, but, actually, there's a lot that could be done to improve the options that are available instead and make it easier for those alternatives to be taken.

I agree. I think you've answered my next question, so, just to end, I wanted to ask, you said at the beginning that it would be good if you could be more involved, on behalf of your members, with the blueprint, for example. Do you think that it would be helpful as well if you were involved in more of these discussions around the alternatives and the substance misuse and the rehab facilities and all of these different community sentences that would be helpful?

I think we certainly do everything that we can. I think, in a sense, it's playing to our expertise, and so there are certain elements of that that will be outside of our particular expertise as well. I also think it's really important that, wherever possible, there is feedback to magistrates about what works and what doesn't as well, and the context of this, because the more that magistrates understand, the better job they will do when it comes to sentencing. And we see ourselves as playing a big role in helping magistrates understand that context. So, we have a magazine that goes out every other month, and I've just signed off the latest version, and there's an article in there, actually, about sentencing women as well, which is talking about many of the things that we've talked about today. We've had all sorts of other articles, which impact on women offenders as well. So, the more that we can help magistrates understand what's happening, what initiatives are going on, what's working and what's not working, I think the better job that magistrates will do, and also the more that we're involved, the better job we can do in then communicating with our members.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Before we move on to focus on speech and language difficulties for young people, and their involvement in the criminal justice system, I just wanted to pick up on the issue of consistency in sentencing. When you look at the Prison Reform Trust statistics on different areas, 88 per cent of people in Gwent get short sentences compared with 55 per cent in South Wales. Now, these are adjacent areas, so how does the provision of alternative services inform that? Or is it just simply that people in Gwent are making more use of short sentences? How would you describe what is a statistically significant difference?

I don't know, actually. It's the first time I've heard these specific statistics, and I think that it does need more looking into to understand. Hold on one second. It may be that there are other factors in terms of demographics that might make a difference—I don't know. But it certainly does need to understand—. I think the other thing that would be very helpful is more Wales-specific data as well, in terms of understanding the situation. Very often, we find that some data is aggregated as a whole across England and Wales, and it would be useful to have more data that was disaggregated as well. I think that would help.

In a sense, it's all part of an issue that we feel very strongly about, which is open justice. Open justice isn't just about being able to go into a local court and see what's going on—that's a very, very important part of it—but it's also about being able to study the data at a meta level that come through and see where those discrepancies are, and then be able to provide an answer to those as well. The concept is open data as part of open justice. And the more we have on that, I think the more that we can understand what is happening at a local level.

Okay. Perhaps you could write to us about the disparity between those two areas. That would be useful.

Moving on now, Jane Dodds, would you like to come in on our second area of interest, which is communication and language difficulties with young people?

Thank you very much, and thank you for answering the questions on young people who have experience of the justice system, who have problems in terms of language and communication needs. There is another figure and data that shows that 60 per cent of young people who have experience of the justice system suffer from speech, language and communication difficulties—that's very high in my opinion. So, the question is: are you confident that people like yourself do recognise or identify and understand young people who have these speech and language problems who appear in your courts? How does that happen, and in what way are you confident that people like you do understand young people with those problems?

So, I think the first thing to say is that magistrates who sit in the youth courts are experienced magistrates. So, they need to sit within the adult court to start with for a period of time before going into youth courts. And then they receive very, very specific training in terms of children and young people. And, in particular, that training highlights the fact that children are inherently vulnerable because they are children, let alone with other issues as well. And they're also, within that, taught on communicating with children and really placing children at the heart of that system. So, there's good training that happens, and there's also training that takes place, both that the Judicial College does, but also that we do at the MA with the Judicial College, on children who face particular issues around exploitation, being care experienced, et cetera.

I do wonder, though, whether there may be a gap as far as the training that is provided on this particular issue of children with communication needs, and I'd be interested in the report that you produce, and that may help as far as identifying that gap and what we need to do to take that forward and to fill it. I think your inquiry is raising questions that we need to look at.

Thank you very much, that is very helpful. Could I ask you, is the training that you've mentioned mandatory? Does everybody have to have that training when they are in the young people's courts?

Yes, it is mandatory. So, there's mandatory training that takes place for magistrates when they want to sit in the youth courts, and then, there is also a mandatory requirement for continuous training as well. In addition to that, there's also a lot of work—and this is particularly, I think, at the MA level rather than the Judicial College level—that's done around the context of issues that magistrates will come across in the courts, both the adult court and the youth courts as well. I mentioned some of that previously, but that's also the case as far as young people are concerned as well. Again, we had an article in the last magazine that we produced for our members around how to increase the voice of children in courts as well and the way to do that. And, so many magistrates actually take part in that sort of non-mandatory training and learning and development as well, and that's very heartening.

Thank you very much. And the final question that I have is: from the other side, that is the experiences of the children and young people who do go into the court system, what kind of support do you know about that is available for young people who have court experience and who do suffer with speech and language problems? What kind of support is available for them?

Well, as I say, I don't know so much in terms of the specifics of children with speech and language difficulties and communication difficulties, and that may be something we need to look at specifically with that. In terms of for children in general, as I say, I've explained the work that's done as far as ensuring that magistrates are better able to communicate and hear children in courts.

I think there is an issue about legal professionals in courts as well. It's something that we have argued for for quite a long time, because at the moment advocates in youth court aren't required to undertake any specific training on communicating with young people, and we see that as a gap, and our members say that that can be an issue at times, and it's something that we have argued for, and we would be very supportive of developing standards for advocates in youth court. I think that is a gap.

There are also some examples of—. We were talking about problem-solving courts, and there are some examples of those sorts of things in the youth court as well, including getting the young people and magistrates and others together after sentencing to discuss what happened as well, and I think that sort of thing is a really interesting approach. We would be very interested in more of those sorts of things being tried out, to bring the young people and magistrates together to discuss what happened and what the experiences of children and young people were. There is nothing like, I think, the magistrates hearing the lived experience of young people, as far as them understanding what it's like.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Okay. Can I just quickly ask what involvement would you expect your magistrates to have with the Children's Commissioner for Wales, obviously whose job it is to articulate the wishes and needs of children in Wales?

I'm not aware of anything specifically in terms of the children's commissioner. The partner that we work closest with in this regard is the Youth Justice Board Cymru, and they are a very good partner and they help us out a lot, and we're in very, very close contact with them, and actually there is an all-Wales grouping looking at youth courts and youth court issues that we sit on, and that's chaired by the director from the Youth Justice Board Cymru as well. So, they are our key partner as far as this is concerned in terms of understanding, and they help us a lot with training and understanding.

Thank you for that clarification. Can I bring in Ken Skates now?

Thank you, Chair. So, by law, custody should be reserved for those children whose offending is just so serious that no other sentence can be justified and it should be the sentence of last resort. Do you think that we've got the balance right in terms of punishment and support, particularly for children and young people with speech, language and communication needs?

Well, I think the thing to emphasise to start with is that it's different in youth courts from adult courts. In youth courts it is about two things in particular: the welfare of the child and the prevention of offending by children. The punitive element—it's not that it's not there at all, but it is very, very much down the pecking order in terms of the priority of what happens in court. It's a very, very different set-up and philosophy from the adult courts in those sorts of ways, really. So, I do think the balance is right, and it is very clear that, for all children, that that is the case, that it is about looking at what can be done in the best interests of the welfare of the child as well. As I say, on the specific issue of children with communication needs, I think that is something to explore, to see whether there is more that needs to be done particularly for that group.

Okay, thanks. Sometimes, judges and magistrates are criticised for giving custodial sentences for repeat offending, rather than for the seriousness of the specific offences, and that's because there's a belief sometimes—or at least the criticism is that there is a belief—that a custodial sentence for repeat offending will somehow deal with the persistence of a young person's offending. Do you think that it's a fair criticism?

I think we should always be open to reflection on what magistrates do. I think never say that, actually, practice can't be improved and that we shouldn't take what people are saying and look at that very carefully as well. But what I would say is I would just come back to the thing that, in all cases, the priority is the welfare of the child, whether that's for the first offence, or whether that's for the umpteenth offence, and that is what is drummed into magistrates who sit in youth court, that that is the philosophy and the way that they should work.

Okay, thanks. To what extent do you think information about a young person's speech, language and communication needs influences the options for sentencing for a particular young person? Do you think information is available about a young person in every instance?

Again, that should be provided in terms of, again, it's about the individual needs of that child, and it's certainly the case that that is provided when we're talking about all sorts of issues around neurodiversity, issues to do with ADHD, autism and so on. I'm not aware of any specific issues to do with children with communication difficulties, and it's something that hasn't been raised, but, as I say, I'm interested in this inquiry and to see what comes out of this, as to whether there is more that we need to look at with that, which might be around training, it might be around awareness and understanding, or it might be to do with the information that the court is getting as far as those children are concerned. But I'm open to hear more about that and we can then follow up in terms of your report.

Thanks for that. And do you think that some young people with speech, language and communications needs may struggle to understand the requirements of their community sentence, and do courts actually take this into account when making decisions on custodial sentences for any breaches of orders?

What courts should do, and good practice, is to absolutely make sure that the children are understanding the process and what is happening all the way through, and to make sure that it's also going at a pace that is right for the child as well. That may include factoring in consistent breaks as well to make sure that there's enough time for the child to have a break, to go away from it, and then to understand as well. So, that should be the case in every case, as far as children in youth courts are concerned.

It should apply equally to children with communication needs. There is a thing called the Equal Treatment Bench Book, which is basically about ensuring that there is equality of treatment right the way across the courts system, but that doesn't mean that everybody is treated equally, because, again, it comes down to each case; each person is an individual, and their individual needs need to be considered. And that's true right the way across, and it is absolutely true as far as youth courts are concerned as well.

So, again, the more that there is that understanding of the issues, the more that we can make sure that things are tailored for those particular young people as well. And it's right at the core of what the youth court system is all about, which is about the welfare of the child and stopping reoffending—intervening to stop reoffending.

Excellent. Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

I think, just finally, I want to follow up on the—. I think at least twice you've used the words 'should be provided', and a lot of this depends on who is supporting that young person. The team around the child—some of them are more assiduous than others. Sometimes, you'll hear instances of teachers coming to court to give evidence on behalf of the child; they're not obliged to do that, but, if they are committed to that child or young person, they do that. The same would apply to all the other professionals who may get involved if a young person is accused of breaking the law. I just wondered how much effort is put into ensuring that inequity isn't just being burnt into the system. The person who's got a family with resources behind them is obviously going to have the very best legal representation, whereas the individual with no resources is going to have the solicitor on the taxi rank. So, how do the magistrates take this into account when they're assessing the level of the seriousness of what the child is found guilty of?

So, I would say our key partner with this is the youth offending services, and the experience of magistrates generally is that they are very, very good as well, and extremely helpful in terms of providing information and supporting both the magistrates, but also the children and young people as well. I think that they are absolutely key as far as this process is concerned in making sure that there is that team around the young person as well, and that there is that equity as far as the support that they're given, and that it is not just favouring some and not others.

As I say, I think there is more that can be done, particularly around advocates as well, to make sure that they are also of an equal standard as far as that's concerned, but, actually, what we get from our members is that there is, because of the youth offending services in particular, actually a lot of confidence as far as that's concerned and the support that they're giving the whole system.

Jane Dodds wanted to just come back in. Jane.

Yes, thank you. I'll ask a question in English. Just to follow up on that, as well, yes, youth offending teams, that's their job, in essence, and it's good to hear that, in your experience in Wales, they are doing a good job. I just wondered if you had any really good practice, or any organisations, particularly voluntary organisations, that might be in a pilot or an exemplar court that provide that support to young people who, for example, are in the care system or are particularly disenfranchised or have a number of other issues or problems. Is there anything that we should be looking at that helps us see good practice in relation to young people in the court system, particularly those with language and speech needs?

If it's okay, I'll take that away and give it some thought and then write to you with—. I'll see if I can find some examples that would be helpful to you. The other thing that I would mention is the 10-point plan for children in the care system—that's used a lot, as far as courts are concerned. It's used by magistrates, but used more widely through the justice system for children and young people, and I can, again, send you a link to that for you to look at. But, again, that is something that helps to ensure good practice across the board for children with care experiences.

There's plenty that needs to be done—. Sorry, Jane, go ahead. Go ahead, Jane.

Final question. A final question, honestly. It all sounds really good and encouraging. I suppose my only question is: how do you measure and how do you ensure that your magistrates are meeting those statutory requirements, like the 10-point plan, like focusing in on children first, et cetera? What are the quality standards that make you confident that magistrates across Wales are actually coming up to that level?

So, magistrates have to go through quite a rigorous process, firstly, as far as becoming a magistrate and then becoming a youth magistrate as well, and that involves having a mentor, it involves being observed in courts. That's then when you become a presiding justice. So, there's a bench of three, and there are the two wingers and then there's the presiding justice. And, again, there is that same rigorous process in terms of making sure that you are up to the standard. That also is continuous as well, so there's continuous assessment as far as that is concerned, with observations.

The other thing I'd say is that, because it's a panel of three, that is really important, because it means it's not a magistrate on their own, just working on their own. It's always that there are three, and it's about reaching agreement and making sure that there is that sort of triangulation, if you like, between the three. Magistrates will sit with different benches of three at different times as well. So, again, all that time, there's peer work going on there for checks and balances between the three.

Can I ask quickly—? Sorry to interrupt, but I know we're running out of time. Can I just ask how often are they assessed? I get there's a rigorous process at the beginning, but how often after that are they assessed and monitored? Is it every three years, every five years? What's the time span?

I'll have to come back to you on that. I think it's different for different types of magistrates as well. Regular appraisals take place for magistrates to ensure there is that consistency as well. I'll come back on exactly, for different types of magistrates, how long.

Thank you. Thanks, Chair.

We have run out of time. Thank you for agreeing to come back on the few points that you've indicated. In that shopping list of things that you're going to come back on—. There's plenty of work to be done on ensuring that all public services are trauma informed, particularly when it comes to young people; I just wondered if you could reflect on what would be the one innovation that magistrates would like to see to improve the way we support and handle young people, particularly with communication difficulties, who come before the criminal justice system. Because I appreciate that it's not something you can just pull out of a hat.

I would say that it is ensuring that there is awareness training available specifically on the issue in terms of communication issues for young people. There is already very good training, but again I think there's more work to do to understand, because there's a lot that—. As I say, I think it's quite groundbreaking, the report you're doing here, because I don't think there's anything similar that's been done before on this. But I think that there is something there around ensuring that there is that level of awareness for magistrates across, in terms of specifically the issues faced by children with communication difficulties.

Thank you very much indeed. We will send you a transcript of your evidence. Please use the opportunity to correct anything that has been misheard or misinterpreted. Otherwise, thank you very much for your evidence today, and we'll obviously ensure that you get a copy of our report.

Thank you.

Both our reports, in due course. Thank you.