HC Deb 23 October 1968 vol 770 cc1539-47

2.40 a.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

I beg to move, That the Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1014), dated 27th June, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be withdrawn. The purpose of these Rules is to increase the existing period of remission in a detention centre order from one-sixth of the period to one-third of that period. I say at once to the Parliamentary Secretary—whom I am glad to see here this evening—that this is purely an exploratory Motion. I have no intention of inviting the House to oppose the Rules. I merely put down the Prayer—as it originally was—to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why the Home Office has decided to make these Rules at this time.

The Rules refer to detention centres sentences of periods of over one month, but the Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that in practice all sentences of detention in detention centres are for either three months or six months, and the practical effect of the Rules is to reduce the present three months' sentence —which, in effect, is a sentence of 10 weeks—to one of eight weeks, and to reduce the present six months' sentence—which is now five months—to a period of four months.

It would be churlish of me if, at this hour in the morning, I did not assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I propose to be short in my remarks and to apologise to him and to any members of his Office who may be here for the fact that, due to no fault of either himself or myself what was at first put down as a Prayer should eventually end up by being taken at nearly a quarter to Three o'clock in the morning.

There are five points that I wish to make. The first is I am a member of the Home Office Advisory Committee on the Penal System, and also a member of the sub-committee which is inquiring into detention centres. What I say I say purely as an individual and in no way committing either that Committee or any member of it to agree with the views I express. But there is no doubt that one matter which is before and in the remit of that Committee is the question of a suitable length for the period of remission in a detention centre.

It is only right that I should say that the Committee on which I serve was informed in advance by the Home Secretary of his intention to make these Rules. It is equally right that I should say that the Committee at that stage said that it could see no reason why this change in the period of remission should not be made while its review was still in progress. I find it somewhat surprising that the Home Office, having put the whole problem of detention centres to the Advisory Committee and having invited it to set up the sub-committee on this issue, should decide, while the Committee is in process of making its decisions, to increase the period of remission in this way.

It is some time since that Committee was set up. It is probably right to say that it is about half way through its discussion and its consideration and, speaking purely for myself and in no way committing the Committee, I think it unfortunate that the Ministry should have decided to increase the period of remission while the inquiry is still going on.

One must comment that this is the second decision of this kind which the Home Office has made, the first being the decision to abolish the junior detention centres at a time when it had asked the Advisory Committee to inquiry into all the problems of detention centres.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am being ultra-critical in what I say. The point which I want to make on that issue is that the period of remission to any sentence cannot be looked at on its own. Of necessity, the Advisory Committee is considering the suitable length of sentence at detention centres, whether the present period is the correct one, whether there is room for a shorter sentence, or whether the sentence should be of an indeterminate length. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that all those issues are ones on which the period of remission is dependent. If the Committee came down in favour, for example, of an indeterminate sentence or something of that nature, the whole question of remission would have to be looked at again.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain to me why it is that the Home Office has felt it necessary to make this change at the present time. If there were urgent causes for it, one could understand the reason why they chose to do it now, but, for myself, I can see no possible urgency in any such change. Again speaking purely as an individual member of the Committee, my impression is that the weight or majority of the evidence that we have so far received is against the alteration which the Home Office is making.

That is the first point that I wish to make. My second point is that, in one's visits to detention centres, it is clear that the present regime in them is geared to a 10-week period. The effect of the Order is to reduce that to an eight-week period. To that extent, I believe that that move will disrupt the present regime in those centres.

Much discussion has taken place on the theory and basis of the detention centre. According to the White Paper which set them up, they started with the idea of providing "a short, sharp shock". Over the years since, as well as retaining the aim of a short, sharp shock, they have also taken on a training element.

If the only purpose of detention was to provide a deterrent, many people would argue that the effect of one or two weeks in a centre would probably be sufficient. If it has now become the concept in a detention centre that, on top of the deterrent, an attempt should be made to provide some basic form of training and remedial work, it seems to me that the existing 10-week period is the minimum time in which this could be done and that to reduce it to eight weeks would be reducing the opportunity of putting a training element into the sentence. My own impression, both from what I have seen and from what I have read in the evidence provided, tends to support that view.

Thirdly, I wish to raise with the Parliamentary Secretary the whole question of the purpose of having any remission at all in a detention centre order. The only possible reason, I suggest, is that it is a means of discipline and a means of imposing punishment within the centre by the ability to withdraw the remission which would otherwise be earned. If so—and I see the Parliamentary Secretary nod, so it must be so, and it is accepted as such—I suggest that the present period of two weeks on a three months sentence, or four weeks on a six months sentence, is adequate for that period.

I am fortified in that view by the Written Answer which I got from the Parliamentary Secretary to a Question which I put down very shortly after this Order had been published. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary how many youths at senior detention centres lost the whole period of 14 days remission whilst undergoing their sentence …". The Parliamentary Secretary, in reply, gave me the figures of the initial receptions and the figures of the awards of loss of remission that had been granted. But, concerning how many had actually used up, if that is the right word, the whole of their 14 days remission by bad conduct in the centre, the hon. Gentleman said: The information is not available in the form requested by the hon. Member but I am able to confirm that the number of boys who lose the whole period of remission is very small."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1968; Vol. 769, c. 87–88.] I suggest that this confirmed the view that I had taken, that it is indeed seldom that the needs of discipline are such that they require a greater period than 14 days of remission which could possibly be lost.

Fourthly, the other argument for increasing the period of remission is that at present the period of remission is related to the period of recall. The maximum for which a person can be recalled at present on a three months sentence is 14 days—I stick to a three months sentence, because the Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that the majority of sentences imposed are of that duration—but one argument is that that period of recall is not sufficient to be a deterrent for someone, having been released, not to misbehave in a way which might lead to his recall. That might be a relevant argument if one could say that within the concept of detention sentences recall had any effective part to play.

I query whether recall basically does any good or whether it works in any way. Again, I am confirmed in that view by another Written Answer which I got on the same date, the 23rd July this year, to another Question that I put down to the Home Office on this matter. I asked how many youths at detention centres were in fact returned to detention centres on recall. The Answer was that in the year 1964, out of 4,500 initial receptions, only two were recalled. In 1965, out of roughly 5½ thousand, 28 were recalled. In 1966, out of 5,810, 16 were recalled. Finally, in 1967, out of a similar number of receptions, 22 were recalled. I think this confirms the view one had arrived at, that the powers to recall people to detention centres for any offence, or for any breach of probation whilst on remission from detention centres, are very little used. I very much doubt that the power to recall for 21 days rather than 14 days will be more widely used, or indeed have any greater or better effect.

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if the purpose of the Order is merely to extend the period of recall to which a person should be subject, it might be better to scrap the idea of the recall being related to the period of remission and replace it by a definite period of recall which would have to be served, and which would not necessarily have any relationship to the period of remission which had been gained.

I am conscious of the hour, and I have one final point to make. What concerns me most of all is a feeling, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to refute, that the reason for this Order is not penal policy, but administrative necessity. The reason for it is that by increasing the period of remission so that we reduce the period that people stay in detention centres it is possible to increase the numbers of people who go through these centres in any one year. If, at the moment, detention centres are full and people are there for 10 weeks, there are roughly five turn-overs during the year. If the period is reduced to eight weeks, there will be roughly six and a half turn-overs during a year.

I hope that that is not the reason, because it will be unfortunate if any clear decision on penal policy is made on the grounds of administrative necessity. If it is a shortage of centres which has led to this Order, it would be far better to extend the number of centres rather than play with the remission period in this way.

I remain probing on this Order. I wish to know the reasons behind the Home Secretary's decision. I remain somewhat sceptical and critical about the decisions which have been taken, but I hope that I am not going to fall into the trap which I accused the Home Office of being in danger of falling into, that of making up my mind and making my decisions whilst the Committee of which I am a member is in the middle of its deliberations, and in the process of making its recommendations to the Home Office. I conclude by asking again to be told the reasons why this Order has been brought in at this time. I shall listen with interest to the hon. Gentleman's explanation of the need for it.

2.58 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan)

The hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has come to the House as an agnostic, as one who does not now believe, but is open to conviction, and I hope that very briefly, at this early hour of the morning, I might be able to say a few things which might assist him.

My right hon. Friend announced his intention to make this change in his Answer to a Written Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) on 4th July last. The period of remission which could be earned by a young person subject to a detention order before 1st August, as we have heard from the hon. Gentleman, when this Instrument came into effect, was one-sixth of the sentence. This was governed by Rule 26 of the Detention Centres Rules, 1952, which was amended by the Order made on 27th June of this year to enable remission to be increased to one-third of the term of detention subject to any forfeiture which might result from a disciplinary award.

When this period of remission was originally decided upon in 1952 it was considered that this would provide a sufficient incentive to good behaviour and, futhermore, that on such sentences a greater proportion would be unjustified. Subsequent experience has cast serious doubt on this. It was found that the then existing period of two weeks remission on a three-month sentence was not in practice a very substantial incentive to good behaviour in the centre. Further, after release from a detention centre a young person is subject to statutory after care for a period of 12 months during which he can, if in breach of the requirements for his good behaviour laid down in the supervision order, be recalled for a period equivalent to the unexpired portion of his sentence. Thus the doubling of this liability, which is one effect of the increase in remission to one-third, serves not only as a sanction in respect of supervision but would provide a more adequate period for further training in the event of recall becoming necessary. Thus the principal benefit from the change was to discipline, since the young persons in detention centres would have more to gain or lose than at present.

The hon. Gentleman has said that it would not appear from the statistics that more than a small fraction of those attending detention centres lose the whole of their remission. I do not challenge this. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is not in itself a fact which proves that an extension of the remission period would not have a beneficial effect. It might well mean that there would be a substantial improvement in behaviour.

Conversely, with regard to the question of supervision after release, there would be a greater incentive to good behaviour on account of the longer period. I agree that it would appear from the statistics quoted that it may well be that the change would be of only marginal consequence and benefit in this situation. It is, after all, a secondary consideration and it is unlikely that we could look to anything more than a marginal change and benefit in that connection.

My right hon. Friend was satisfied that these advantages would of themselves justify the change in the period of remission, but he naturally satisfied himself that there would be no prejudicial effect on training or regimes in detention centres. Those who were consulted advised that there would be no noticeable difference in the effects of training by a relatively short reduction of the period in custody from ten to eight weeks in the case of a 3-month sentence and from twenty to sixteen weeks in the case of those sentenced to six months' detention.

In view of the advantages, therefore, my right hon. Friend considered that, although the operation of detention centres was currently under review by a Sub-Committee of the Advisory Council on the Penal System it would be desirable to proceed with this change.

The hon. Member who has put his name to this Motion is a member of both of the Advisory Council and this subcommittee. Although my right hon. Friend had concluded before the committee was set up that it was desirable to make this change, he took no action to implement it until the matter had been brought to the notice of the subcommittee, since it was clear that it lay within its terms of reference. The subcommittee, therefore, was informed in advance as long ago as March this year of my right hon. Friend's intention. The committee raised no objection to this being done while its inquiry was being carried out. Furthermore, the committee did not give any hint that there was any dissent from the course of action proposed to be taken by my right hon. Friend.

I must disagree with the hon. Member in so far as he contends that once the committee had been set up with a wide remit in this connection it should have the inevitable consequence of putting a moratorium upon any further decision by the Home Office in this connection. I am sure he will agree that the decision of the Home Office in scope covers only a very small part of the field of study of the advisory committee.

A consequence of increasing the period of remission to one-third was expected to be the creation of a number of additional places available at the existing detention centres. In fact, since the change in the period of remission, the number of young men in detention centres has fallen by about 250, thus relieving the pressure on the centres and lowering the rate of refusal of places to courts making application for them. While we expected that this would happen, it was not the reason for the change but a consequence of it and we were satisfied that the change could be made without detriment to treatment and training.

For these reasons, I invite the House to reject the Motion

Question put and negatived.