Lord Davies of Gower (Con)

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for tabling Amendment 441, which would raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. This issue was debated at some length in Committee. As I set out then, the question before the House is not whether children should be protected but whether raising the age of criminal responsibility would deliver better outcomes for children and the wider public. We on these Benches remain unconvinced that that would be the case. The current framework under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 does not exist to criminalise children unnecessarily. It exists to ensure that, in those rare but serious cases where harm is caused, the state retains the ability to intervene early and proportionately. Crucially, that intervention takes place within a youth justice system that is distinct from the adult system, with rehabilitation at its core. As has been previously noted, the evidence shows that this power is used sparingly, with the vast majority of children diverted away from formal proceedings. Raising the age risks removing an important safeguard in those exceptional cases where serious offending does occur, and would create a gap in our ability to respond effectively to harmful behaviour, including serious violence and exploitation, among 10 to 12 year-olds. There is wider concern that 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. For those reasons, while I recognise the intent behind the amendment, it does not strike the right balance between protecting children and protecting the public. We therefore cannot support it.