In September, a group of specialist organisations in the field and experts, under our banner, sent a detailed letter to the political parties urging the raising of the age of criminal responsibility to at least 14., bringing us into line with the rest of Europe.  We received a reply to that letter from the Minister concerned David Hanson, the Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice responsible for youth justice, though we understand that youth justice is a joint responsibility, between the Department of Children, Education and families and the Department of Justice.  I have recently replied on behalf of the group to that letter.  .
we have received a reply and the correspondence is now complete.summary.
The group’s original letter emphasised that we had the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Western Europe, passed far more children through the criminal justice system and locked up more children per hundred thousand population than any other country in Europe and that the criminal justice system was inappropriate for the very young.
The Minister’s reply, essentially, stated.  “We believe that children of this age generally can differentiate between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing and that it is not in the interests of justice, victim or the young people themselves to prevent offending being challenged. The government is concerned about 10 and 11-year-olds being drawn into offending believes that having criminal responsibility from the age of 10 helps young people to develop a sense of personal responsibility for their behaviour.  However, interventions with young children are intended to be rehabilitative rather than punitive.”
The response pointed out “Where we have common ground is that even children as young as 10 can usually differentiate between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing. Unfortunately, current criminal statute and case law as applied to the very young does not.    Further, we would not dissent from your proposition that the offence should be challenged.  Where we differ is in the belief that the interests of justice is an appropriate consideration in dealing with very young children. We would also assert that this has nothing to do with the true interests of both society and victims that offending children should be treated in such a way that they do not grow up to become violent adult criminals creating many more victims on the way.
Whilst we note your position that interventions with young children are intended to be rehabilitative rather than punitive the effect of current legislation at the top end of the scale, that is to say, very young children in custody, would appear to be the opposite. . In 1992 only 100 children under I5 were sentenced to penal custody and  sentences were all awarded under the ‘grave crimes’ provision (Section 53 of the 1933 Children and Young Persons Act) for children who had committed serious offences such as robbery or violent offences. In 2005 - 2006, 824 children under 15 were incarcerated but only 48 of these came into the same grave crimes sentencing framework (now Section 90/91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.)
It  is noted that you did not deal with the main arguments and evidence in the original letter relating to European comparisons….

The general impression given to us by your letter is that of a Minister and  Department who understand the problems, but are handicapped by the constraints of a system essentially devised over 70 years ago requiring major  legislation to bring into line with current international standards. I understand that the last time the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales was  examined was in 1965 when a white paper was published and the age of criminal responsibility was raised from 8 to 10.  There must be very few such serious social problems that have not been examined for 40 years.  Proper consideration is surely overdue.”