Question: The government believes the measures outlined in the Criminal Justice Bill will cut crime. Why is The Children's Society so critical of some of the proposals?

Patricia Durr: The Children's Society recognises the impact that crime has on everyone's lives and we are committed, along with the government, to developing safe communities for our children.

Children are one of the largest groups affected by crime. Children who are in trouble with the law are children first and should be treated as such. We don't believe that the current youth justice system s achieving that at the moment.

The main focus of the criminal justice bill is on adults and adult provision. However, many of the measures will have a significant impact on the lives of children. What we need to develop is a distinct system for children, wholly separate from that of adult criminal justice to reflect the requirement under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This bill is doing nothing to achieve that.

Some of the proposals in the bill, such as to allow the police to charge and bail children at a police station, contain risks and potentially undermine the current safeguards that are in place. How will parents or carers be informed and will an appropriate adult be present? There is also a proposal to reduce the age for mandatory drug testing and treatment from 18 to 14. This demonstrates a further blurring of the system in relation to adults and children.

One of the key areas that we are particularly concerned about is the proposal to introduce new custodial sentences for children that extend and increase the current mandatory sentences available to the courts for certain offences. From our point of view this represents another erosion of the principle that detention should only be used as a measure of last resort and for the shortest time possible, which is something that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recently called the government to account on. We lock up many more children than the vast majority of our European neighbours.

On top of this the Home Secretary has also recently announced that he will attempt to establish in this Bill a minimum tariff of 15 years for children who receive life sentences. Currently sentencing is left to the discretion of the judiciary. We are concerned that this will lead to more children being locked up for longer periods. Sentencing needs to reflect children's developing maturity and capacity for change.

Question: I'm sure The Children's Society made clear its views to the government as they were drawing up the Bill. Why do you think they didn't take on board your views?

The government has made some improvements to the system with the development of the Youth Justice Board and Youth Offending Teams. However, The Children's Society believes that there is a need to address the problems inherent across the whole of the youth justice system so it's not just about the provisions in this bill. The system itself needs to reflect those hard won principles contained within our welfare legislation where the welfare and best interests of the child are always considered in any decisions made. This is also about effectiveness; dealing with causes not just symptoms.

At the moment, a lot of the children's policy agenda seems to be dictated by the view that children are first and foremost problematic and in need of control and punitive approaches. What we want to see are policies across government being harmonized around the needs and rights of children - including children in trouble with the law.

This is why The Children's Society along with a coalition of children's organisations are supporting an amendment, tabled by Hilton Dawson MP. It says that along with its current aim of preventing offending, the youth justice system should also, as a matter of principle, put the welfare of children first, ensure that children's best interests are the primary consideration in all decisions taken and that custody is only used as a matter of last resort.

From our point of view, the bill is an opportunity to put children's welfare at the centre of the youth justice system and it is fundamental to ensure that these principles are reflected across the whole of the system. The government doesn't share this view.

Question: Why are you calling for a complete overhaul of the youth justice system?

Patricia Durr: The UK government has been continuously criticised by the UN Committee about its record on human rights in the current youth justice system and for the UK's failure to integrate the principles of the Convention within the current system of youth justice in England and Wales . The government has also come under fire from the joint chief inspector's report on safeguarding children, which pointed out the weaknesses of the current system with regard to the welfare of children particularly n Young Offenders Institutions.

What we want to see a system that is separate to that of adults. At the moment a child of ten will be treated as criminally responsible as an adult. This is one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in western Europe and we need to change this. From our experience children and young people do not understand the over complicated system - they fail to engage with it because it's designed for adults.What we've got before us is a legislative programme that includes an overhaul of criminal justice legislation but without highlighting the needs of children and young people.

Question: What is your view on how children should be dealt with?

Patricia Durr: I think we always need to look at alternatives to custody and ways of preventing children from entering the criminal justice system. The Children's Society is in daily contact with children who are in trouble with the law and we have been working very hard to develop alternative approaches with a focus on rehabilitation and community approaches.The Children's Society is working with a coalition of organisations to make the case for different approaches. Obviously we don't want children and young people to get away with crime but there are more effective ways of dealing with them.

We could learn a lot from the approach of the family courts in this country and the panel system in Scotland, along with the situation in other European countries.

Question: What is your response to the anti-social behaviour bill?

Patricia Durr: We are very concerned about some of the proposals in the bill that seem to stereotype and stigmatise children. It seeks to criminalise children for non-criminal behaviour and places an undue emphasis on enforcement. The current debate about young people, crime and anti-social behaviour seems to separate children from their communities and views them in the first instance as the root cause of problems.

Children should be viewed as equal members of the community who need all the support that we can give them. We are particularly concerned about proposals to disperse children and young people and the extension of the powers of the police to impose curfew orders, which we see as a fundamental attack on children's rights. What is more, we don't think that this is going to solve the very real problems within communities. Many organisations, such as the Local Government Association and the Association of Police Authorities also believe that the proposals will result in shifting the problem elsewhere and are unenforceable.

There has been a whole shift away from providing services to children and young people. Generic youth services have been sidelined in favour of a focus on the prevention of offending behaviour . The government needs to focus on providing more universal support for all children and families so that they can get help early on and when they need it.

We're working with the NSPCC, National Children's Bureau, Barnardo's and NCH, in a coalition called SHAPE, which is going to be launched in July and the main reason for this is to move on the debate on youth crime and to recognise that young offenders are children too.

This is a critical issue for us: Children in trouble with the law need to be seen as children first and foremost.