REMAND CENTRES (Hansard, 12 June 2000)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 32 to 39, 63 to 96, 100, 103 to 107 and 117.

§ Jane Kennedy
In Standing Committee, a new clause—now clause 55—was introduced to abolish the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution. Following the abolition of that sentence, all convicted defendants over the age of 18 will be sentenced as adults. The Government consulted on those proposals last year and there was broad agreement on them. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that further minor amendments would be tabled around the clause. We are now considering those amendments.
Despite the number of amendments—that may have caused a few raised eyebrows among Conservative Members—I assure hon. Members that they are minor and consequential. We are also considering an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to provide a power for the police to authorise a young person's release on bail for administering a reprimand or a final warning. If I take a few moments to explain the amendments and answer one or two questions about them, it may save later interventions. I am conscious that there is a great deal of interest in the next group of amendments.
New clause 11 and one set of amendments in the group deal with the repeal of the power to set up remand centres. No remand centres have ever been set up under that power. Clause 55 is founded on an acceptance of the age of majority as the best sentencing threshold. That removed the principal rationale for the existence of remand centres.
Another set of amendments in the group relates to the repeal of section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The amendments will ensure that all persons aged 18 or over who are detained for default in the payment of a fine, or for contempt of court, are treated in the same way.
A further set of amendments in the group will ensure that the legislation governing sentences issued by courts martial reflects as far as possible the changes that clause 55 makes to the civilian sentencing regime.
The main principle of abolishing the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution has not changed. The amendments, together with consequential changes to other legislation, make no substantive changes. They simply complete the legislative picture.
I am conscious of the interest in the next group of amendments. I therefore invite the House to give these amendments a fair wind.

§ Mr. Hawkins
The Parliamentary Secretary is right to say that there was some discussion in Standing Committee 674 of the way in which the original provisions would apply to young offenders. We also accept that the Government's proposals were fairly trailed in Standing Committee. We divined that many amendments in the group were consequential.
All parties share a special concern about the treatment of young offenders. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows from our debate in Committee, before becoming Members of Parliament, many members of the Committee in differing professional capacities had experience of dealing with young offenders. I prosecuted and defended in juvenile courts over several years. It is fair to say that hon. Members are united in wanting to ensure a proper regime for young offenders.
We acknowledge the accuracy of the Parliamentary Secretary's comments on the relevant clause of the Prison Act 1952. It has not been used, and there is no reason for it to remain on the statute book. We are not therefore considering a matter of enormous division between the parties. However, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as I asked the Minister of State, Home Office on an earlier group of amendments, to confirm whether the Government have consulted the National Association of Probation Officers, the Council for Circuit Judges and others about the further amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) stressed, we think it important that those who are sentencing are clear about what the Government are doing.
In his helpful and considered contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which the Minister of State has repeatedly prayed in aid on Second Reading, in Committee and in his remarks today. He and the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that a substantial part of that report relates directly to young offenders.
I reject some of the more specious arguments used by the Minister of State in our earlier debate. Indeed, to use his own word, he was disingenuous. In examining the whole Select Committee report which, as he said repeatedly, is unanimous, one must look especially carefully at the sections relating to young offenders. I am sure that we are not divided on that. As the Government arrange the passage of the Bill through its remaining parliamentary stages, I hope that they will examine carefully what is contributed by experts in various professional fields dealing with young offenders, and that they will take into account further submissions.
In Committee, both Ministers said, fairly, that they had an open mind about looking at the treatment of young offenders and ideas that may be brought forward. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up the short debate on this group, confirmed that the Government's mind remains open to further suggestions. Clearly, this is an area in which there can be great scope for expert opinion to put forward new ideas all the time. In the light of concerns expressed about the disposal of young offenders in serious cases, arising from the treatment of Thompson and Venables in the James Bulger case, which we debated extensively in Committee, the Government must be careful to bear in mind the views of the European Court on such matters.
In relation to what was said about treating all those over 18 as adult offenders, in the past and under Governments of both parties it has been an article of faith in the criminal 675 justice system that there are special factors affecting those between 18 and 21. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that, in Committee, we debated the tragic history of suicides of young adults remanded to adult prisons, and of those in places such as Feltham and Armley. The Government take that suicide rate very seriously indeed, but I am earnest in urging the Parliamentary Secretary to say again that the Government recognise the particular vulnerabilities of those aged 18 to 21 who are serving sentences. In Committee, we had quite a lot of debate about whether 21 was a crucial age. The Government take such matters seriously, as both we and the Liberal Democrats sought to do in Committee, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that they will continue to do so.

§ Jane Kennedy
I have sat through many hours of interesting debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House and have listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on many occasions. I cannot recall an occasion on which one could have accused him of being disingenuous. I assure the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that my right hon. Friend has an open mind and will continue to have an open mind. I genuinely hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman on his point about the expert opinion expressed to the House on these serious matters. We bring an open mind to the issue.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about young offenders who may currently he sentenced to a period in a young offenders institution, those who may be subject to custody for life, and those whose sentences will continue to run in the period immediately following the Bill's implementation. There will clearly be an immediate impact on the prison estate as a result of the amendments which will require management. It may be worth noting that those young offenders whom I have just mentioned and to whom the hon. Gentleman drew attention will not be disadvantaged by the change, as they will remain subject only to the maximum punishments currently available for 18 to 20-year-olds, as opposed to those currently available for prisoners aged 21 and over.
Issues such as ensuring that vulnerable young adult prisoners will not be put at risk and making sure that movement of young adult offenders between young offenders institutions and prisons takes account of their regime needs will be addressed before the changes are implemented. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that reassurance in response to his serious point.