HC Deb 12 April 1961 vol 638 cc299-319

6.15 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 12 to 17.

The Amendment, as is known to the House, and especially to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, repeals an Amendment passed during the Committee stage, about which there has been a certain degree of controversy. I wish to express to the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) my regrets that as there was this Division in the Committee and the Amendment passed as it did, she and her hon. Friends were in that way apparently deprived of the opportunity of voting against the Clause. However, the hon. Lady has made her position clear, and I gather that if we take out this proviso, which is what I now recommend that we should do, she will then wish to take more objection to the Clause than she would otherwise have done. I sympathise about that, but that is a little error which has arisen in the course of these general interchanges.

The position is that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends would prefer to retain the proviso because they do not wish a person under 16 to be committed to quarter sessions for a borstal sentence, until adequate remand centres are available to the courts.

Under the proviso to subsection (2) of the Clause as drafted, as applied by subsection (4), a magistrates' court may not commit a person under 17 for a borstal sentence unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate. The provision that the Amendment would delete applies only to offenders for whom borstal provides the only suitable form of training.

Therefore, we are faced with the difficulty that, if we leave the Bill as it is, any convicted offenders of this age for whom in the opinion of the court borstal provides the only suitable form of training would not be able to be sent to borstal and might have to be sent to some other institution which was not suitable. Because the Government think that that issue is more important than the question of remand centres being ready, they have decided to remove this proviso, with the approval of the House, and to restore the Bill as it was originally, regardless of the question of remand centres. It is essential if the Bill is to operate that we should have this proviso out. Although I know that the motive of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is that children should not go to prison, the fact that Clause I has this particular objective makes me feel that we should stick to the original form.

I want to take the opportunity in moving the Amendment, to which we attach importance, to give the latest news about the remand centre programme, which has not yet been made public. There is no doubt—it is no good burking the fact—that owing to the big drive that we made over the prison building programme and particularly the detention centre programme, the remand centre programme has not gone forward as quickly as it should have done. Under "Penal Practice in a Changing Society", which I had the honour to produce for the benefit of the House and the country, giving an idea of our methods of penal reform, we have a 31-institution building programme, one of the biggest prison building programmes in recent times. We have a terrible leeway to make up, not only in respect of detention centres, about which I spoke yesterday, but also in relation to 7,000 people who are still sleeping three in a cell.

I shall during the next month be laying the foundation stone for our new prison at Blundeston, the most up-to-date prison in the world. We are definitely making progress. We have given more priority to some other things and not sufficient to the remand centres, but, with the aid of the Prison Commissioners and their new chairman, we have now framed a complete programme for the remand centres. Not only are we proceeding with Risley, which is to remain an all-purpose adult and juvenile centre, rather like an immense battleship in the north-west of England, which will be very valuable for the courts in the north-west—it will be one of the most up-to-date buildings of its type in the world, and it is going ahead apace—but we have decided as a matter of policy to provide in the first place centres for young offenders only.

The first of these, covering the London area, will be opened at Ashford. I regret that the name "Ashford" comes so often into our debates, but this is Ashford, Middlesex, and the centre is for the purposes of the London area. We intended to use this as a borstal allocation centre, but it will be used now as a remand centre. It will be opened about next July. This is a start for the London area. A further seven centres will be required. These will be purpose-built. So much of a drive have we had—[Interruption.]—the hon. Lady may well say "at last"—that sites for all seven of these are in view, five on Prison Commissioners' property and two on other Government land.

This building programme cannot be completed in less than three years—it is no good saying it can—because of the time that it takes to prepare contracts for the work and everything else. Three of the centres will adjoin, but be entirely segregated from, prisons. They are simply there for the purpose of being in the neighbourhood, and they will be segregated. In the four other cases it is the intention to site and design the centres in such a way that they can be extended later for adult offenders if that is thought desirable. All of that relates to male offenders under the age of 21.

Women and girls on remand outside London will probably be accommodated at Risley and in probably three other centres to be built as annexes to the proposed young offenders' centres. The accommodation of women and girls in London depends on the future of Holloway, which we have actively in mind. It depends on the success and progress we are at present making in setting up a women's security prison outside London. Probably Holloway will be used for this new purpose when it ceases to be a women's security prison.

When the centres are completed, there will be centres in Middlesex and Lancashire, near Durham, Leeds, Birmingham, and Bristol, and at Exeter and Cardiff. It is also proposed to have one at Winchester, so that we are covering the whole country and are getting on with the job. It is a fleet building programme.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

What is the total cost?

Mr. Butler

I cannot give the figures now, but perhaps I can do so before the debate ends. We are doing all this on purpose, because we think it time that the programme for remand centres was brought to the front.

The motive for the Amendment which was carried in Standing Committee was to prevent young people from going to prison and to see that the remand centre programme was hurried up. We have hurried it up, and think that the primary purpose of Clause 1 is essential and that, therefore, the proviso should be taken out by the House with the approval of the House, if we can achieve it. The hon. Lady can be satisfied in that her adventure has at least had some success, for it has hurried on the Government's programme.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

The Question is, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.

Mr. MacColl

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I want to protect the next Amendment on the Order Paper, in page 1, line 14 to leave out from "subsection" to "which" in line 15 and to insert (4) of section twenty-eight of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952". It is a drafting Amendment. I am not certain, in view of the form in which you have just put the Question, whether that Amendment would be protected.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

As I understand it, I am proceeding correctly in putting the Government Amendment. I think that the next Amendment is bound to fall whatever the result. Either these words stand or they do not stand.

Mr. MacColl

Further to that point of order. I do not attempt to rival you and your advisers in matters of procedure. I presume that the object of our exercise is to produce intelligible legislation. It happens that the drafting Amendment is essential for the Bill, because it is an alteration in the Act which is referred to. Therefore, it would merely make the House look ludicrous if it were not able to approve that Amendment.

It would surely be wrong if it were assumed by the Chair that something proposed by the Government will automatically go through and that the House will not have an opportunity of expressing its view. If, as we hope, the House rejects the view of the Government on this matter, it is most important that the drafting Amendment should then be put.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Perhaps I can simplify the matter by saying that my understanding was that the second Amendment was not to be called. The whole debate can be covered on the Government Amendment, so any consideration of the second Amendment is irrelevant because the Government Amendment only is being selected.

Mr. MacColl

Further to that point of order, with even greater respect than my previous submissions. The Chair is presumably being impartial between the two sides in this discussion. The Government wish to alter the decision of the Standing Committee. If it happens that the House has enough independence of mind to accept the views of the Standing Committee and not to alter what the Standing Committee put into the Bill, it would be a ludicrous situation not to be able to make a drafting Amendment, which is on the Order Paper, and which is necessary to make the Clause intelligible. Surely the whole point of a Report stage is to tidy up drafting errors.

The Government are constantly putting whole strings of drafting Amendments into Bills, and they have all the expert advice behind them in avoiding mistakes. It is not unnatural that a Standing Committee, which does not have a phalanx of expert advice behind it, has to make a drafting Amendment, following the Government's admirable precedent. I cannot believe that a rule of order would prevent the House from making a drafting improvement which is necessary if the Bill is to keep its present form.

Mr. R. A. Butler

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If the Government fail to carry their Amendment, you would presumably wish to put the second Amendment so that the Bill would be correctly drafted. We should not wish to stand in the way of that if order permitted.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think that we had better go as far as we have gone, which is that I have put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill". We should debate that Question and decide it. The future is in the future.

Miss Bacon

We were very pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said about remand centres, but I believe that he has been rather clever in the way in which he has moved his Amendment, because, by outlining the programme for remand centres, he will inevitably get the Press tomorrow morning. He has, however, rather hidden the main purpose behind the Amendment.

I want to get back to the Amendment before I say anything about remand centres. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman on several occasions that the main purpose of the Bill is eventually to keep young people out of prison. The Amendment will mean that in the next few years many young children at 15 years of age will go into prison. That is the purpose at the back of the Amendment.

For the benefit of those hon. Members who were not present at the Standing Committee proceedings, perhaps I can recall what happened about this Clause. The Clause reduces the borstal age from 16 to 15. Many Members on both sides had considerable misgivings about reducing that age. We thought that it was acceptable only if we put certain safeguards into the Clause, and we moved an Amendment, which was debated for over two hours, and was supported by three Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) and was carried by sixteen votes to fifteen. Because the Amendment was carried, we did not proceed to vote against the Clause as a whole, while we would otherwise have done, and as. I think, probably the hon. Member for Ayr and his hon. Friends would have done.

It has been said that the proposal of the Clause to reduce the borstal age was made because there are some 15-year-olds who are unsuitable for approved schools. If that is so, we should do something about the whole set-up and organisation of the approved schools. However, that is, at the moment, another matter A magistrates' court cannot commit initially a young person to borstal. It can only recommend that he be committed to a higher court with a view to going to borstal. It is this intervening period between his appearance at a magistrates' court and his appearance at the higher court which gives us very great misgivings.

6.30 p.m.

The Criminal Justice Act, 1948, re-enacted a provision of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952—and this is a provision which we would like to alter if the Amendment is defeated. That provision says that the intervening period between the appearance of a boy or girl at a magistrates' court and his appearance in the higher court for sentence must be spent either in a remand centre—not to be confused with a remand home—or in prison.

Even today, not one remand centre has yet been built, in spite of what we have heard about the building programme, so that the intervening period on remand must be spent in prison. That is bad enough for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds, but the effect of reducing the borstal age from 16 to 15 is that 15-year-olds waiting to appear at a higher court will have to spend the remand period in prison. The words which the right hon. Gentleman is now seeking to delete are: Provided that a magistrates' court shall not commit a person under the age of sixteen years with a view to a sentence of borstal training under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section twenty-seven of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948"— which should be the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952— (which provides for the notification of the availability of remand centres), applies to him. In other words, unless a remand centre is available, no 15-year-old shall be remanded in prison while waiting to go to a higher court with a view to being committed to borstal.

That was a perfectly reasonable Amendment and it was passed by the Committee. Its effect would have been to postpone the operation of the Clause, but it would have been better for that to be done until the remand centres were ready. Now the right hon. Gentleman has told us that some will be ready in the very near future.

Although the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, provided for remand centres, none has been built in the twelve years and more since the Act was passed. While we have been very pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the building programme, he himself admitted that it was rather belated progress, because he said that I would probably say, "And about time, too."

Time spent on remand can be anything from a week to three months. We are told that our prisons are overcrowded and that hundreds of prisoners are sleeping three in a cell. If the right hon. Gentleman has his way and takes out these words, many 15-year-olds will be sleeping three in a cell, and by the time the Bill is passed it will probably have to be four in a cell. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his attitude, for it would be much better to postpone the operation of the Clause than to have hundreds of 15-year-olds in prisons in present conditions. I hope that he will withdraw the Amendment.

Sir T. Moore

As one of those who helped to defeat the Government on this subject in Committee, I again join forces with the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon). I should like some clarification of what my right hon. Friend means. He has announced a glowing programme of future building of remand homes. As the hon. Lady said, there is now none.

In Committee I related the case of a boy of 16 in my constituency who had undoubtedly misbehaved himself—he had broken into a grocer's shop and had stolen something—who had been committed to borstal. Unfortunately, as frequently happens, there was not a vacancy in the local borstal in Scotland and so he was sent to Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow, which is well known for the hardened criminal class which its inmates compose. Worse still, he was there for two months. How could we expect that boy to emerge from that place without being defiled in both body and character?

Only ten days ago, in my constituency, I was approached by a bus driver who told me a similar tale about his son. I think that his son was a "bit of a lad" and probably deserved something of what he got. He, too, was sentenced to borstal, but again there was no vacancy and he was sent to Barlinnie. Fortunately in time, something was done and he was there for only nine days, but he afterwards boasted to his parents that he was now on practically equal terms with a murderer who had recently raped and killed a young girl in Greenock.

That is the terrible danger of sending these children to prison, first giving them a sentence of a term in borstal which cannot be implemented and, as an alternative, making them spend their time among the most hardened and sophisticated criminals in Scotland. That is why I join with the hon. Lady in asking my right hon. Friend to reconsider.

My right hon. Friend gave us a comforting picture for the future, but where are these children to go now? It is about that that I want the clarification which I mentioned. Where are the places to which they can be sent without having their lives ruined and destroyed from the contacts which they will make in places like Barlinnie? If my right hon. Friend can reassure me about that, I will support him, but if not I shall again vote against the Government.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

It is no good carrying anything in Committee against the wishes of the Government, for they will put it right when the Bill comes back to the House. That is what they are trying to do now. It is true that they are putting the Bill right, but they are not putting the service right.

It is appalling to sit in quarter sessions and to have a youth brought up who has been sent to quarter sessions by the magistrates' court to be considered for borstal, only to find that in the intervening period, which may be a considerable time, probably not more than three months, he has been in prison. After all, three weeks is long enough in the circumstances which the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) related for a great deal of harm to be done.

However, by getting the Amendment carried in Committee, with the help of the hon. Member for Ayr, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) has at least compelled the Home Secretary to tell us what he hopes to do in the not-too-distant future. But while that programme is being undertaken, the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for Ayr will continue. That would be undesirable.

I notice that in Clause 42 (2) the right hon. Gentleman has taken steps to ensure that different dates may be appointed by order for different purposes of the Act. Can he go as far as saying that he will not bring in this Clause until the accommodation which he has mentioned has been built, so that these difficulties will not arise? That would be one way of lessening the damage which undoubtedly will be done to many young people if he strikes out these words and some day in the not-too-distant future brings in this part of the Act, as it will then be, with the result that many of these children—that is what they really are—will go to prison at as early an age as 15 and may be there for a considerable time.

At any rate, for the time being, such a course of action with regard to these children of 15 and 16 would defeat what he claims—I have no doubt sincerely—to be the main purpose of the Bill, for it will mean children at almost the youngest age mentioned going into prison at a time when prison conditions are not good, even for much older people who go into prison for the first time.

Mr. MacColl

I welcome the programme which the right hon. Gentleman has given us for the provision of these remand centres. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said, perhaps our labours have not been altogether in vain if, because of what we decided at the beginning of December, after an extremely perfunctory and unhelpful programme put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, we have been given a precise programme. That at least is something we have managed to do.

Perhaps I might make a personal remark, having a certain personal interest in this matter. For nine years I was chairman of the managers of the institution which occupied the Ashford premises before they were taken over by the Prison Commissioners. I spent many happy hours in Ashford, not because of the beauty of the building, but because of the delightful character of the boys and girls in it. It has been empty for some time, and it is comforting to know that it is to be brought into some kind of use.

The right hon. Gentleman has shot from underneath himself the basis of his resistance to our proviso, because if he now sees the clear daylight and has a programme laid out the proviso is a reasonable one to operate. The only ground for resisting it in Committee upstairs was that the Government had no programme and did not believe that they were ever going to get any remand centres.

There are two misconceptions about this argument. One is that we are saying that nobody should go to borstal until there are remand centres. We are not saying that. We are saying that nobody of the age of 15 should go to borstal until there are remand centres. The second point is that we are saying that nobody of the age of 15 should ever go to borstal. We are not even saying that at this stage. We are saying that before this change is made there should be provision for remand centres.

It is not we who are trying to alter the law. For a long time the law has been that children of 15 should not go to borstal. We are not trying to bring in some reform. It is the Government who are trying to produce what I think most people, whether they accept it with some reluctance or not, would agree was a reactionary step and a terrible condemnation of our treatment of delinquency that after all these years we have shamefacedly to say that children of 15 will go into borstal institutions although since they were founded they have been reserved for people of an older age. The Government have come forward with that proposal, and it is for the Government, who want to introduce the change, not to introduce it until they can do so in a balanced way.

6.45 p.m.

An essential part of the idea of reducing the borstal age to 15 is that children of that age should not have to go to borstal, but that remand centres should be available for them. Is it not reasonable to say that before this change is introduced we must implement what has been the law for twelve years, that there should be remand centres? The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not prepared to agree to that, because he thinks it is necessary to have this age for borstal lowered. He has not given any reasons why he takes that view so strongly, but we all recognise that there are difficult children of this young age. We dealt with that in Committee upstairs. We said that until there were closed units in approved schools we would not know the need for borstal for young children.

The reason why the courts are flummoxed and do not know what to do with the youngsters is because all approved schools are open, and it is fortunate that they are, because the atmosphere and training in approved schools should be open. But everybody agrees that closed units in approved schools are necessary for a small minority of children. People have been saying that for years. This is not something which is being said because of the Bill. This is something which everybody who has had experience of the work has said for a long time.

The Government have done nothing about it. It is because they have done nothing that they are in this desperate dilemma. Because they have no closed units in approved schools they have to put 15-year-olds in borstal, and because they have no remand centres they have to put 15-year-olds in prison. That is the point we resisted and objected to in Committee upstairs. Because of the reasonableness of our arguments we persuaded the Committee that that was right, but the Government in their obstinacy will not accept that. This has no party or political current. Something which marries the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) with my hon. Friend has obviously no party line about it. This is simply a matter of common sense and humanity.

I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General is not here. I am sure that he is busy and will not mind my commenting on what he said in Committee upstairs. He rather implied that remanding people in custody was not as dreadful as sentencing them to prison, and therefore it was not really as serious a matter; that it was far more important to keep people out of prison in detention centres than to worry about remand homes.

That is wrong for two reasons. First, quite a substantial proportion of the boys who are remanded for borstal may never go there. They are sometimes remanded to a higher court for a borstal sentence but the appeal committee of quarter sessions may not send them to borstal. The appeal committee may place them on probation, or make some other disposal. Therefore, many of these youngsters who are in prison may not go to borstal.

The second point—and this has not been denied; I asserted this in Committee upstairs and I think it is unchallengeable—is that it is much more difficult to segregate people on remand than convicted people. In the remand wings of prisons there is much less segregation and more likelihood that a young boy or girl who is on remand will be in touch with elderly people, some of whom will have long records. It is less likely to happen if they are under sentence. Young people who are waiting, under sentence, to be sent to a borstal institution, will generally be segregated, but if they are on remand, the fact that they have not yet been sentenced means that they might be rubbing shoulders with people who have a long string of convictions.

I cannot understand how the Home Secretary can fail to see how wrong he is about this, and how fantastic the position is. We have this small problem, which will exist only for a few months, until his programme for remand centres is produced. This problem has faced us for some time, and it is only now that the Government are attempting to deal with it; so it cannot be all that urgent. The right hon. Gentleman is prepared to create a situation in which young people of 15 years of age, who eventually may never go to borstal or even be sentenced to serve in a penal institution of any sort—they may be placed on probation—can be contaminated by being remanded and placed in a wing of a prison and talk to and associate with prisoners—not other young persons or similar borstal candidates, but people with very long records who are also on remand.

I cannot believe that, simply to preserve the authority of the Government and to stop the nonsense of Members in Committee thinking for themselves, the right hon. Gentleman will direct his Whips to see that this proviso is not included and ensure that young boys and girls may still be sent to prison. It is a disgrace.

Mr. V. Yates

I apologise for not having been present when the Home Secretary made his announcement, but I am sure that we all welcome his decision to announce a programme which will avoid keeping young persons waiting in prison. The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) asked what we were going to do now about those who are in prison awaiting trial. In Committee I referred to some figures which showed that there were 268 young persons between the ages of 17 and 21 awaiting trial and 555 awaiting transfer to borstal institutions. It is not fair that large numbers of young persons should be placed in this position pending the erection of some new buildings next year, the year after, or some other time in the future. Is it really worth while for the right hon. Gentleman to oppose the opinion expressed by my hon. Friends in Committee, who presented their arguments very carefully?

I have naturally observed the conditions in the local prison in Birmingham. The Home Secretary is well aware that overcrowding in that prison is unprecedented. Recently I found just outside the prison something which I had never known to occur previously. There was a queue of persons outside waiting to visit their relatives, and inside the prison, in any available place where a table could be set up, people were sitting speaking to prisoners. There are still young persons in that prison who are awaiting trial or awaiting a vacancy in a borstal institution.

On 24th February I wrote to the Home Secretary about two persons in this category, and I received his reply only today. One was a boy, aged 15, who was put into Winson Green Prison to await a report. He had to go to the local Dudley Road hospital and back again. I do not understand why he should have been sent to prison. His case has caused consternation and anxiety not only to his parents but to all those in Birmingham who have read about the case. I am still waiting for the right hon. Gentleman's reply to the question I asked him in my letter, namely, why this action was necessary, apart from any question of accommodation. I am told that he is writing to me separately about that part of my letter. We ought to receive replies more promptly on matters of such importance.

The other example also concerned a boy of 15, who had apparently escaped from an approved school. I do not know the full facts, but somebody who knew the boy told me in a letter that he is paralysed down one side and that one hand and arm are withered. This may account for his fear of approved schools. He would undoubtedly have to undress before other boys, who might be unsympathetic. Most of his trouble may be caused through his trying to escape. Why should he have to wait in prison if the Home Secretary is not prepared to take the necessary action?

I also raised the question of a boy of 19, and the answer I have received in respect of him is that he was put into a cell, in Winson Green Prison, with two other persons who had been involved in difficulty. Eventually this boy had to go on a bread and water diet for two days. He should never have been there. How long must this sort of thing go on? Permanent damage may be done to children of 15, 16 or even 19 years of age who are either waiting for a vacancy to occur in a borstal institution or are on remand, awaiting trial, some of whom may be put in probation in the end.

It is totally wrong. It is not enough to say that we do not have sufficient borstal accommodation. The Home Secretary should not be prepared to put these children in prison, and for that reason I must ask for an assurance from him that this kind of treatment will not continue, because it helps to turn young persons into criminals by influencing them in an absolutely wrong way. I am disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman. Even now I express the hope that he will reconsider his decision.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I want to make one or two observations of an interrogatory character. The first is in regard to the announcement about remand centres, and particularly the one at Risley. Is this the one that was proposed to be built at Hinley Green, about which there was a public inquiry? Is the local authority now completely satisfied with the new site? Can we be told where the new site is and when building will commence?

Mr. R. A. Butler

It may be convenient if I were to say a word or two now in reply to the points that have been raised.

I am not surprised that we have had a certain amount of feeling on this subject, because it is repugnant to most of us that there has to be any question of remanding young people to prison at all. As one of the main objects of this Bill is to avoid sending people to prison, it is a strange irony that a certain amount of this will have to continue for a short time. I said in my original remarks that this Clause was dealing with offenders for whom borstal provides the only suitable form of training, and we must face that fact. It seems grim that people between the ages of 15 and 16 should have to be sent to borstal, but the fact is that that is the best treatment for them. If there is no other treatment that the court can find, we are in this dilemma: either we say that they should not go where the court thinks they ought to go, but should go to approved schools—in which case we might well have a recurrence of what happened at an approved school not long ago—or we accept that this is the best thing for children of that age.

Mr. MacColl

I did not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman so early, because I know that he wants to meet my case, but my case was that, until he provides closed units in approved schools, he cannot say that there are no alternative methods of dealing with them. The courts are still faced with the dilemma which he is creating by not providing closed units.

Mr. Butler

It is not so difficult to provide closed units in approved schools as it is to finish the remand centre programme. One is a comparatively small unit of engineering or building and the other is a big one. I do not think we want to treat approved schools as the only places to which people should go. We must differentiate between borstal and approved schools, even if we are to have security units in approved schools.

My hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary and I have visited as many approved schools as we could in the past three years, and we have covered a great number of them. My experience is that we do not want to treat the closed unit within the school as different from the other forms of incarceration and imprisonment. We must try to keep it so. We feel that borstal is the best place for some people of that age who are not suitable for approved schools, and we think that it is a lesser evil to continue to send them to prison on remand for a short time.

We are not trying to restore this for prestige or for any party reason, but simply because we think that it corresponds best with Clause 1 of the Bill in its original form. The hon. Gentleman said that very often remanded children are less segregated than others. I had already made my own inquiries before moving this Amendment, and have since made further inquiries, and the plans which I have discussed with the Prison Commissioners for segregating these children are being most strictly carried out. If it is any consolation to the House, I can give a strict assurance that when children of this age have to be remanded to prison, the plans for segregation will continually be kept in mind and improved from day to day. It is absolutely essential that that should be so, and in my visits to prisons I have been seeing to that myself. I can give a further pledge, as a result of this debate, that while this situation has to continue for the next year or two, segregation shall be real and effective.

The hon. Lady gave the impression that there were going to be hundreds of these cases. We must get this into proportion. I have made inquiries since she spoke, and it appears that at the age of 16 there are only about 240 cases. I should be very surprised if there were 100 cases with which we are dealing here, and there may well be less, between the ages of 15 and 16. If that be sort of statistic following on recent practice, it will be seen that it is a relatively minor issue. It is not a minor issue if one child goes wrong, as the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) pointed out, and he has brought forward further cases from the prison which he knows best, and which are very unsatisfactory. Even if one case is wrong, it is extremely bad.

We are not dealing with a very big problem, but with a comparatively small one, and we think that it is essentially these thugs who are precisely the type of young people for whom this type of establishment is not suited. It is not a case of hundreds a year, or, to use the hon. Lady's expression, of four in a cell. It will be a case, in answer to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), of proper segregation, which we shall undertake.

A very important point was raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who referred to Clause 42 regarding the time factor under which we can operate the introduction of parts of this Bill. I have considered carefully what he said, but I think that my original answer must govern my present answer; namely, we think that children suited to borstal should go that way before we carry on with the operation of the Bill as it is. I will, in return, push on with the remand centre programme as fast as I can.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) asked me particularly about Risley. I will get the latest facts, and either he will agree to put a Question down or I will write to him on the subject. Risley is now progressing, and the cost will be £1 million. It is a very big venture. The cost of adapting Ashford will be something between £2 million and £3 million, which illustrates the size of the programme we have in mind. I am sorry that this programme was not brought in earlier, but we are bringing it up to the level of the detention centre and other programmes. I think that the hon. Member for Widnes was right in saying that some credit must go to the House as a whole, and not only to the Government, for the general interest taken in the subject and the pressure that has been exerted. Those are the answers I wanted to give to the points raised, and I hope we may now come to a decision.

Miss Bacon

I find that reply particularly unconvincing. It seems to me that if only a hundred young people under 15 are put in prison, it is a hundred too many. As the right hon. Gentleman says, this is not just a small problem; even if one, two or even more—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Lady requires leave of the House to speak again.

Miss Bacon

With the leave of the House, I was saying that this is completely unacceptable. If only one or two go wrong, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that is very bad indeed; and if it is such a small problem, as he suggested, I do not see why he has to move this Amendment today. He is doing something completely unnecessary if he thinks that it is a small problem. I was rather distressed to hear him saying that these are borstal boys and boys suitable for borstal. How do we know that they are borstal boys or suitable for borstal?

Mr. R. A. Butler

I should like to correct any impression that I might have given. I was basing it on the decision of the court. I do not want to stigmatise anyone; I was saying only if the court so decides.

Miss Bacon

Even if the court so decides, one of the problems at present is that without remand centres, where these young people can be observed, it is very difficult for the court to decide whether they should go to approved school or to borstal.

Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick)

They are in prison.

Miss Bacon

As my right hon. Friend says, they are in prison, before even the higher court can decide whether they

should go to borstal or not, and it seems that the whole position is extremely unsatisfactory.

With regard to approved schools, we have had many communications from headmasters of approved schools to the effect that they would rather have provision in their schools for dealing with their type of person rather than have this position of transfer to borstal, which comes under a later Clause in the bill.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I feel that we must vote against this Amendment, because we feel very strongly about it. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is persisting with the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 205.

Division No. 133.] AYES [7.12 p.m.
Abse, Leo Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Ainsley, William Hamilton, William (West Fife) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hart, Mrs. Judith Pentland, Norman
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hayman, F. H. Popplewell, Ernest
Awbery, Stan Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bacon, Miss Alice Herbison, Miss Margaret Proctor, W. T.
Benson, Sir George Hill, J. (Midlothian) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Boyden, James Holman, Percy Randall, Harry
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Holt, Arthur Rankin, John
Brockway, A. Fenner Houghton, Douglas Reid, William
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Howell, Charles A. Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Callaghan, James Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Chetwynd, George Hunter, A. E. Ross, William
Cliffe, Michael Hynd, H. (Accrington) Short, Edward
Collick, Percy Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Crosland, Anthony, Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Crossman, R. H. S. Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, s.) Small, William
Cullen. Mrs. Alice Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Spriggs, Leslie
Deer, George Lee, Frederick (Newton) Steele, Thomas
Dempsey, James Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Swingler, Stephen
Diamond, John Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Dodds, Norman Lipton, Marcus Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Loughlin, Charles Wade, Donald
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) MacColl, James Warbey, William
Evans, Albert McInnes, James Weitzman, David
Fitch, Alan MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Fletcher, Eric Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Manuel, A. C. White, Mrs. Eirene
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Whitlock, William
Forman, J. C. Millan, Bruce Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mitchison, G. R. Wilkins, W. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Moody, A. S. Willey, Frederick
George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn) Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Moyle, Arthur Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Gourlay, Harry Mulley, Frederick Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Greenwood, Anthony Neal, Harold Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Grey, Charles Oliver, G. H. Zilliacus, K.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Oram, A. E.
Grimond, J. Oswald, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Owen, Will Mr. Lawson and Mr. Redhead
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Gough, Frederick Peel, John
Allason, James Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. Peyton, John
Arbuthnot, John Green, Alan Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Balniel, Lord Gresham Cooke, R. Pike, Miss Mervyn
Barber, Anthony Grimston, Sir Robert Pitt, Miss Edith
Barlow, Sir John Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Pott, Percivall
Batsford, Brian Gurden, Harold Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bell, Ronald Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Prior, J. M. L.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye) Prior-Palmer, Brig, Sir Otho
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth) Hastings, Stephen Pym, Francis
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Henderson, John (Cathcart) Rawlinson, Peter
Bishop, F. P. Hlley, Joseph Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Black, Sir Cyril Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Rees, Hugh
Bourne-Arton, A Hirst, Geoffrey Rees-Davies, W. R.
Box, Donald Hobson, John Renton, David
Boyle, Sir Edward Hocking, Philip N. Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Holland, Philip Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Bryan, Paul Hollingworth, John Roots, William
Buck, Antony Hopkins, Alan Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Bullard, Denys Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Russell, Ronald
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hughes-Young, Michael Shaw, M.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hulbert, Sir Norman Shepherd, William
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) Hurd, Sir Anthony Skeet, T. H. H.
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Hutchison, Michael Clark Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Iremonger, T. L. Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Cary, Sir Robert Jackson, John Spearman, Sir Alexander
Channon, H. P. G, James, David Speir, Rupert
Chichester-Clark, R. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Stevens, Geoffrey
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Kaberry, Sir Donald Stodart, J. A.
Cleaver, Leonard Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Cole, Norman Kershaw, Anthony Storey, Sir Samuel
Cooke, Robert Leburn, Gilmour Studholme, Sir Henry
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Cordle, John Lindsay, Martin Talbot, John E.
Corfield, F. V. Linstead, Sir Hugh Tapsell, Peter
Costain, A. P. Litchfield, Capt. John Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Coulson, J. M. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Teeling, William
Craddock, Sir Beresford McAdden, Stephen Temple, John M.
Critchley, Julian MacArthur, Ian Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Crowder, F. P. McLaren, Martin Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Cunningham, Knox Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.) Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Currie, G. B. H. Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Dalkeith, Earl of McMaster, Stanley R. Turner, Colin
Dance, James Maginnis, John E. Turton, Rt. Hon R. H.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. van Straubenzee, W. R.
de Ferranti, Basil Markham, Major Sir Frank Vane, W. M. F.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Marten, Neil Vickers, Miss Joan
Drayson, G. B. Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
du Cann, Edward Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Duncan, Sir James Mawby, Ray Walder, David
Eden, John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Walker, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Ward, Dame Irene
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.) Mills, Stratton Watts, James
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Montgomery, Fergus Webster, David
Errington, Sir Eric More, Jasper (Ludlow) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Morrison, John Whitelaw, William
Farr, John Nabarro, Gerald Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Finlay, Graeme Neave, Airey Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fisher, Nigel Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Wise, A. R.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Woodhouse, C. M.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Osborn, John (Hallam) Woodnutt, Mark
Gammans, Lady Osborne, Cyril (Louth) Woollam. John
Gibson-Watt, David Page, John (Harrow, West) Worsley, Marcus
Glover, Sir Douglas Page, Graham (Crosby) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Goodhart, Philip Partridge, E.
Goodhew, Victor Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Noble.