Lords Sitting of 22 June 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

The Prince and Princess of Wales: Birth of a Son
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to say a very brief word, on behalf of the House, about the very happy news which we heard last night and which the nation has been celebrating this morning. The whole House will have a proper opportunity in a few days' time to express its congratulations to Her Majesty The Queen when, as Leader of the House, I shall move a Motion for an humble Address. But I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me today in congratulating their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales and in sending the young Prince our very warmest wishes for a long and happy life.

The Markham Case: Legal Implications
2.37 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice or instructions they will now give to trading standards officers in the light of the judgment in the case brought by the West Yorkshire Trading Standards Office against Mr. Dennis Markham which appears to cast doubt on the legal definition of a pint of beer.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to give advice or instructions on such matters to trading standards officers, who, as the noble Lord is aware, are employed by local authorities. It is for the courts to decide what is the legal definition of a pint of draught beer and for local weights and measures authorities to enforce that law.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that somewhat grudging reply, may I ask him whether, as he is apparently unmoved by the consumer argument against serving beer in short measure, he would bear in mind that whenever a barman serves beer in short measure, he defrauds not only the customer but also—because of the way by which duty is levied on beer—the Customs and Excise? Does the Minister find that argument sufficiently compelling to require beer to be served in an oversized marked glass instead of by the brimful measure from which it pours over the sides, which is not really an entirely appropriate vessel from which
908
noble Lords could drink a toast to the new Royal baby?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord first asked me about short measure. I would draw to his attention the fact that duty on beer is paid at the brewery on the volume of the beer brewed; and if the publican, barkeeper or employee were to give short measure, the publican pays more VAT on the same volume of beer simply because the amount of VAT is determined by his income from sales. I hope therefore, even at this time, that the noble Lord will see that the Revenue is not defrauded in that respect.
The noble Lord then mentioned the question of differing sizes of glass, be they with a line or a brim measure. Perhaps the House should not be reminded that when the noble Lord last mentioned this subject, in December 1976, he said:
" Beer can also be served in a plant pot, flower vase or such ".
The noble Lord is a doctor, so I wonder whether he has also considered other receptacles which are used in hospitals, but I do not know whether they have measurements for liquids.
Lord Winstanley: Perhaps I might clarify the supplementary I asked in relation to duty, my Lords. I was referring to duty and not to VAT, and the duty is levied on the barrel at so much per percentage point of specific gravity. If a landlord is able to extract more pints of beer from a barrel than there are actually in the barrel—which he can do by serving short measure—he then collects more duty than he pays and he pockets it.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I think the noble Lord and I are on the same line in that I do not believe the landlord is able to pocket the difference because he will pay more VAT, as I pointed out. Secondly—I am sure noble Lords are aware of this—a pint of beer varies from one part of the country to another according to custom. I understand that in the region where there is at present a law case outstanding, the custom is that a pint of beer should have a certain collar or head on it, whereas in other parts of the country that is not necessarily the custom. I am sure noble Lords do not need me to tell them that a pint of beer contains the liquid together with the head or collar or whatever else goes with the beer.

Diplomatic Service: Personnel
2.41 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many members of the ethnic minorities and how many women are being trained for the Diplomatic Service.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is not our practice nor has it been that of previous Governments, to keep records of ethnic minorities within the Diplomatic Service. There are 1,251 women currently working

909
in the Diplomatic Service, rather less than one-third of the total staff.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him two supplementaries. First, would he agree that it would be of great benefit to the reputation of this country as a multi-racial nation to be seen to appoint members of the ethnic minorities, black or brown, as ambassadors and high commissioners to represent Britain in the world? Secondly, would it not reinforce the nation's anti-sexist development if there were women in similar positions? Can the Minister say how many women, for example, are either high commissioners or ambassadors representing this country?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, to take the noble Lord's supplementary questions in order, I would say, first, that I think that the House will accept that diplomats must be seen to represent Britain, and because of that fact in some countries neither women nor the ethnic minorities would be acceptable as ambassadors or high commissioners; the Moslem world, for example, readily springs to mind. With regard to women in senior positions in the Diplomatic Service, to the best of my knowledge there are no women high commissioners, and currently there are three women ambassadors in post, in Oslo, Copenhagen, and Montevideo.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that some of the best diplomats in our service have in fact come from the ethnic minority represented by the nation of Scotland?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Government believe in integration of all sorts, and I would not accept that the Scottish nation is an ethnic minority.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that while we should all like to see more women in higher positions, those of us who have worked in the Foreign Service would not have wanted our appointments on the basis of statutory women, on grounds of sex. We look forward to many more opportunities. I hope that the noble Lord agrees that that is the most constructive approach.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I quite agree. I do not approve of statutory women in any activity.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the promotion and career prospects of a female member of a Diplomatic Service are affected by her marriage?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, recently the position in the Diplomatic Service has changed and there is now no restriction at all on married women. So I would say, no, her prospects are not now affected.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, for the purpose of answering this Question what definition do Her Majesty's Government use of the term "ethnic minority"?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it would include any member of society who is of a creed and a racial origin different from that of the general population.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the first part of the answer that he gave to my supplementary question is quite unsatisfactory? I appreciate that he has a point in suggesting that women ambassadors might not be acceptable in all parts of the Moslem world, but it is certainly not the case that any part of the Moslem world would refuse an ambassador or a high commissioner from the ethnic minorities. May I ask the noble Lord whether he will bring to the attention of his right honourable friend the importance for the reputation of this country over the years of bringing forward members of the ethnic minorities as representatives in our Diplomatic Service?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord took my point. Perhaps I may give him a further illustration in that it would not, at any rate in my view, be appropriate to have a senior diplomat of the Jewish faith in a Moslem country, or indeed perhaps vice versa—in Israel a diplomat of the Moslem faith, whether the diplomat be a man or woman; and that I would include, as I told my noble friend, among the ethnic minorities. Further to that, I can say with authority that there is absolutely no discrimination of any kind within the Diplomatic Service.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people would be very sad if the criteria for these appointments were anything other than ability and experience?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords; I agree entirely with my noble friend.

UN Covenant: Compensation and Ex Gratia Payments
2.48 p.m.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what basis they contend that our obligations to comply with the requirements in Article 14(6) of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to provide "compensation according to law" in the cases there specified is met by providing ex gratia payments in some cases.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, the present Government, like their predecessors, take the view that the existing procedure, coupled with the right that an aggrieved person may have to bring a civil action, constitutes an adequate compliance with our obligations.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware

911
that according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the meanings of the words ex gratia are:
" of, or by favour, done as a favour and not under compulsion".
Then the dictionary states:
" especially implying the absence of any legal right ".
Does the noble Lord agree that those are the meanings of the words?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would not seek to join issue with the noble and learned Lord in the pages of the dictionary. But the point that I wish to make is that the effect of the existence of the ex gratia system of payments gives the necessary flexibility for dealing with a very wide range of circumstances which could give rise to a miscarriage of justice and that in practice no really meritorious case is rejected.
Lord Gardiner: My Lords, is it not really very difficult to contend that we satisfied our obligations under this convenant of the United Nations, which we have ratified, to provide compensation according to law, by making ex gratia payments when the latter are not only inconsistent with the former but are their direct opposite?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would not accept that they were the direct opposite, and I feel that they discharge what the United Nations wished to achieve. My argument would be more difficult to sustain had not a senior Government official given evidence before the United Nations Committee on Human Rights in 1978 and 1979 on this and other matters, and had it not been the case that the committee has not reported unfavourably on the matter.

Information Technology Year
2.50 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been achieved so far in Information Technology Year.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, the acceleration of Government encouragement for information technology continues; but the main purpose of the Year is to increase awareness of information technology, and that is not easily measured. Many events and exhibitions have been organised nationally and regionally, and these have attracted large numbers of visitors. Her Majesty's Government believe that most visitors gain a clearer understanding of the nature and importance of information technology from their visits, which should lead to an increasing determination to seek the benefits of information technology.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that useful reply, may I ask him whether it is not very encouraging that the Government, the
912
Manpower Services Commission and the industry are all co-operating to train the young of age and the young of heart in these new technologies; and could he tell me how the money spent is shared as between industry and the taxpayer? Secondly, can he tell me what progress has been made in providing microcomputers in every secondary school in this country?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, as far as Information Technology Year 1982 is concerned, there is a joint committee of the private sector of industry and Government that has funded a budget of £3¾
million for the awareness part of Information Technology Year. The expenditure of the Government in this financial year on schemes, some of which started some time ago but many of which have started very recently, will be £134 million. As far as the accent on youth is concerned, yes, indeed, I would say to my noble friend, this is certainly a primary objective of my honourable friend the Minister of Information Technology, and during the Year there is an exhibition at the Science Museum from April to August to which we hope a million people, possibly many of them children, will go. The scheme to provide micro-computers in schools has reached nearly two-thirds of schools, and by the end of 1982 my honourable friend hopes that every secondary school will have a micro-computer. Training at the new information technology centres is another plank of the youth scheme, together with a scheme that he is now developing for summer camps.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Minister for what he has said. I believe it is an important statement, and could well provide the basis for a White Paper. Is he aware that we have always agreed on the importance of micro-technology? I remember that I brought into being ACARD, which was very successful. I should like to know if ACARD is still progressing, and I hope the noble Viscount will be able to give me a positive answer. May I say to the noble Lord who asked the Question—
A noble Lord: Order! "Ask", not "say".
Lord Peart: My Lords, I was going to refer to the noble Lord who asked the Question, and say that for the first time I agreed with him.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I deliberately mentioned that many of the schemes had been started before but my honourable friend has accelerated them, as I mentioned in the Answer, and has started many new ones as well. ACARD is in existence, and the continued response to the last ACARD report in this area goes on.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether, before 1982 disappears as Information Technology Year, the Government will perhaps consider producing a Green Paper on technology and all that is associated with it, with particular reference to the National Health Service?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, that is a wider question, but as far as the National Health Service is concerned it gives me the opportunity to say that one

913
of the new applications of my honourable friend is to encourage the use of micro-computers in surgeries throughout the health service, and that this, too, is showing an encouraging start.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, would the Minister confirm that a course is already running for Members of both Houses of Parliament, and is advertised in the House Magazine?
Viscount Trenchard: I am terribly sorry, my Lords, but I was trying to listen to two questions at the same time. Will the noble Baroness repeat what she said, please?
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, would the noble Viscount the Minister confirm that a course is now running, or is just about to be opened, for 15 Members only at present, but Members of either House of Parliament; and that an advertisement is appearing in the House Magazine and, I believe, is being circulated with the Whips? There is also a notice on the all-party notice board.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am told that this is correct information but, personally, I have no information on the subject.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, as British technology is an important export earner for this country, may I ask my noble friend what is being done to promote British technology overseas in this important endeavour?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, mainly this is of course left to our industry, whose efforts are being supported to a very considerable degree. For instance, some of the new schemes following the need for the development of fibre optics are deliberately designed to put our industry in a stronger position. I think another area where the Government are strengthening the base of industry is in the teletext and viewdata area, where progress is being made and where the Government are making essential co-ordinating and promotion effort and are endeavouring to help exports.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, will the noble Viscount the Minister not agree with me that his honourable friend in the other place, the Minister in charge of technology, should be congratulated on the initiative he has taken and his enthusiasm in bringing to the notice of British industry the great importance of information technology? In asking this question I should declare an interest in that I am a founder member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Information Technology.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I will convey that sentiment to my honourable friend, and it is all the more important for the fact that it is expressed by a Member who has studied the subject.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether in every other respect our achievements in the recent Falklands affair, and the efforts of our forces, backed by the Ministry of Defence, are worthy
914
of the highest praise, but would the Minister not agree that as regards technological skill we did not seem to reach complete perfection?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think the noble Lord tempts me to go wider than the Question, but certainly one of the most important fields for the application of electronics is the defence field, and I think I would say to him that when we are able to give a full report, after a post-mortem of the campaign, it will be seen that while perfection is perhaps an elusive objective, nevertheless the vast majority of our equipment and our weapons systems performed extremely well.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware that the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee is arranging an exhibition for the Telecommunication Engineering and Manufacturing Association in the Upper Waiting Hall of the Palace of Westminster between 12th and 16th July?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I know the House will be pleased to have had that announcement.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that one of the most useful by-products of the Information Technology Year has been the great increase in industrial studies in secondary schools? By that I mean studies aimed at enabling pupils to understand industry, its methods, its structure and so on. But there is a great need to train teachers for this work. The Oxford Delegacy have instituted an 0-level in industrial studies, I understand, but there are very few teachers who have such training. The College of Preceptors is leading the way by instituting a diploma in industrial studies, but would the noble Viscount encourage colleges of education and university departments of education to institute diplomas for teachers, taken after they have completed their normal training, in industrial studies?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I know that under previous Administrations and under this one much encouragement has been given to the objective which the noble Lord has outlined. I will draw his further and specific remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on Mr. Pym's visit to Luxembourg.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I were to announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. The Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period, during which the Pilotage Commission (Additional Function) Order 1982 and the Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 will be taken.

Children's Homes Bill
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In moving this Third Reading, it is perhaps not inappropriate that, following the Statement made by my noble friend the Leader of the House and Lord Privy Seal, I draw attention to the fact that this is the first Bill to go through your Lordships' House since the birth of the Royal child and it concerns the wellbeing of children. This Bill is concerned with the protection of those children in the care of local authorities who are sent to live in privately run children's homes. At present these homes are not required to be registered and this Bill redresses this anomaly. There are some 2,000 children in privately run homes in this country, and if this Bill passes through this House these homes will be registered and inspected. I should say that the Association of Independent Householders, who represent privately run children's homes, are in agreement with the Bill.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a third time.— (Baroness Faithfull.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, may I say briefly, before the noble Lord the Deputy Speaker puts the Question on the Third Reading, how much the Government appreciate the efforts not only of my noble friend in bringing this Bill to this stage but also of the honourable gentleman, the Member for Hartlepool in another place, who initiated this Bill and got it through the other place so that it could be presented to your Lordships, and now it happily approaches the statute book. My noble friend refers to the fact that this is the first measure to do with children that we are passing following the happy event of yesterday. I suppose that it is worth saying that it is unlikely that the new Prince will end up in one of these homes.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I am happy to associate myself and my noble friends with this Bill. The honourable Member in the other place and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, have put the House in their debt and have rendered a service to Parliament by drawing attention to what was an omission in the protective legislation. Also they have put the social services of this country in their debt. We are glad to join in the support for this Bill and hope that its implementation will be effectively carried out.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Planning Inquiries (Attendance of Public) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Gaming (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General restriction on custodial sentences]:
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 8, leave out (" Subject to subsection (2) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the first amendment on this long Bill with a great number of amendments, I want to explain that the purpose of these amendments—which I think are important amendments as they get to the root of the problems in the Bill: that is, who should be in prison, how many should be in prison and what should be the different categories—if enacted, is to ensure that young offenders are not remanded or committed into custody with adult prisoners. Clause 10 gives the Home Secretary power to provide remand centres for young offenders aged 14 to 21, but, as Clause 1 stands at present, young people can and will continue to be remanded in adult prisons. I cannot believe that anyone considers this to be right for young people. On the contrary, an adult prison, however carefully segregation is attempted, is an evil finishing school for youngsters and an introduction to adult crime and to a series of antiheroes.
I remember many years ago, when I was a prison visitor at Holloway Prison, finding there a number of young people—and I was also lecturing there at the same time and so had considerable personal contact with them. Although there was a very brave attempt to try to segregate them, and the officials and warders wore plain clothes, contact with the adults in the adult prison and the amount that was speedily learned from one category to the other was nevertheless very considerable.
Such contact means also that the deterrent effect of prison is quickly lost. Several of those young women told to me that for the first day or so the idea of being sent to prison is terrible but after a few days people get used to it and then the whole deterrent effect has gone. I find it sad that I am now talking of something like 10 to 15 years ago and still the situation remains the same: that it is still not only possible but is happening all the time that young people are sent to adult prisons.
Secondly, it adds to what is one of the central points running through this Bill; and that is the question of prison overcrowding. By sending young people to prison, one is adding to the strain upon the population in that particular prison. In another place, in Committee, the Minister conceded that the object of the amendment (a similar amendment was moved there) was desirable but argued that practicalities prevented any real progress. The National Association of Probation Officers feel very strongly about this and

917
about the particular amendment. They are naturally well able to judge the disastrous effects of the continuation of the present system. 1 agree that all Governments have been dilatory over this, and that this is not something which has suddenly happened. However, it is about time that it was brought to an end. The critical overcrowding of prisons, together with the recognition of the importance of young offenders being treated in a way which will not help to turn them into recidivists, should certainly give an impetus of urgency to what we are trying to achieve by means of this amendment.
I do not for one moment expect the Minister to stand up and say that he will accept the amendment as it is, because I understand the practical problems. But what we want to hear from the Government is not just that there is agreement on the principle, but that they believe this has a high priority and that they hope to be able to give a timetable of possible and highly probable implementation. If the Minister cannot give that today I hope that he will come back on Report, so that we do have some record and some indication that this really is being treated seriously now, when we are becoming more and more aware, in matters both of theory and of research, of what is happening in penology. Unfortunately, the distance between theory and practice is growing wider rather than narrower. I beg to move.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: I should like to associate myself very strongly with my noble friend's amendment, and to emphasise that, while it may be possible occasionally in a large central prison like Holloway to achieve some sort of segregation of young people, in local prisons where so many of them go, the conditions are particularly bad—worse than they are in central prisons—and the overcrowding is intense. There is really no possibility of proper segregation.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I add support from these Benches for this amendment. The time comes when Governments have to accept that things that they have been saying for 15 years ought to be done and will now say that they shall be done. I would ask for approximately that which the noble Baroness has asked for—that the Government agreeing that this should be done, the noble Lord on behalf of the Government will now give us a timetable showing how it is going to be done and even saying: "It shall be done except in certain circumstances."
I do not think that the Government can be asked to legislate for something which they simply cannot do, and I think that they are really in that position—more shame to them and to all the other Governments before them—but I believe that we want something positive. The noble Baroness has put forward an unanswerable case. I am sure the noble Lord the Minister in fact agrees with it, and I hope that we get something out of it.
Baroness Bacon: May I emphasise what my noble friend Lady Wootton has said? There is overcrowding in nearly every prison in the country, but the overcrowding in the local prisons, such as Leeds, is very
918
much worse than in the training prisons, such as Wakefield. This is so because the local prisons have to take everybody who is sent to them by the courts, whereas to some extent the training prisons can say which prisoners shall come to them. But it is precisely to the local prisons that, with very few exceptions, young people are sent on remand. Therefore the likelihood of their being in the worst possible conditions is much greater than applies in some of the other prisons. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this question and make sure that the local prisons are not made worse than they otherwise might be by the influx of these under-21s.
Lord Elton: I can say at the outset that I have the greatest sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness and with the proposition on which it rests: that young people remanded for trial and young people committed pending sentence should be kept apart from the general run of the prison population and held in young offender establishments rather than in prisons which, as all your Lordships are aware, are overcrowded.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, referred to Leeds, which I recently visited myself at a very early hour in the day, so that I saw it at its worst; and I take the point. I only wish, however, that I could translate that sympathy into acceptance of the noble Baroness's amendment, although she was kind enough to say that she did not expect that. That would certainly get our proceedings off in a friendly and accommodating atmosphere in which we all work at our best. Sadly, however, I cannot; and that is in part because things are not entirely as they seem.
What seems to be the case is that we have two distinct sorts of institution—prisons on the one hand and remand centres on the other—and that we are free to allocate remanded prisoners to one or the other as we choose. We can allocate them as we choose, and I quite see why the noble Baroness would like us always to choose remand centres rather than prisons, in particular for young offenders. But the fact so far as the law is concerned is that there is no distinction between the two categories of establishments. Both are prisons in law, and on the face of it the effect of the amendment would be to exclude something like 2,100 unsentenced under-21s from that accommodation; and we would have nowhere else to put them.
We do not regard this lack of distinction between remand centres and other prison establishments as satisfactory. Indeed, in Clause 10 of the Bill we shall, if your Lordships agree—and the noble Baroness has drawn attention to our intentions here—take power to do something about it. Under those powers, we intend to designate remand centres as such, and as being distinct from prisons. We shall be doing the same for detention and youth custody centres.
Why then, your Lordships may ask, can we not anticipate your Lordships' approval of those powers, accept a restriction preventing our sending young people under 21 to prison at any stage and not just after sentence, and agree to the noble Baroness's amendments? In the first place, it will take some time to achieve the recategorisation, and not every establishment will be redesignated at the same time. That

919
perhaps could be overcome by transitional arrangements of one sort or another, cumbersome though that procedure doubtless would be; but I regret to tell your Lordships that even then we would still be in a difficulty. At present we already, wherever possible, follow a policy of detaining unsentenced young people in what we call remand centres, and we detain such people in ordinary local prisons only when no remand centre place is available for them in that part of the country. Even so, about 700 of them are in prison at any one time; and it is to them that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, all referred.
The noble Baroness's amendments would therefore result in there being nowhere (other than police cells, I suppose) in which any of those people could be detained and, given the crying need of almost every other part of the prison system for copious resources, I am afraid there is no prospect of my being able to undertake to run up sufficient accommodation in time to contain these young people.
Following the debate in this House on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, a few weeks ago, your Lordships will be only too well aware of the great range of heavy and conflicting demands now facing the resources of the prison service and you would not, I think, expect me to commit a significant part of those on one requirement, even if I could. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, was most specific in the desire that I should give a timetable to your Lordships. The fact is that, again, things are not as simple as they look. Improvements in one sector of the prison provision relieve pressure upon others, and I am not able to say with what rapidity this will affect a particular sector, especially when we remember that in many cases remand centres are in some sense attached to existing prisons.
The noble Baroness and the rest of your Lordships can be very well assured of the Government's intention to keep young people, including unsentenced young people, separate from the more mature criminal population in local and other prisons. This we are already doing to a substantial, if limited, extent by administrative means. As our building programme progresses and as other provisions in this Bill begin to bite, we shall be able to do so for increasing numbers of them.
I hope the noble Baroness will accept our commitment to this policy as being a genuine one and that she will not feel the need to try it further.
Baroness Bacon: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I get his figures right? Did he say that there were 2,200 under-21s in remand centres and 700 in local prisons, or was it a total of 2,200?
Lord Elton: The total of unsentenced persons under 21 is 2,188.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: This amendment touches on a very important question; namely, the sense of grievance of those who are kept in prison on remand, and who are then either acquitted or not sentenced to any form of incarceration at all. Therefore, it is very important
920
indeed to remedy that rightly felt sense of injustice on the part of those who come within that classification. I wonder whether the Minister can help us about the percentage of those who are imprisoned on remand and who, ultimately, are found guilty or are sent to prison. I do not ask for an answer off the cuff, but I suspect that quite a large proportion do not have subsequently to face terms of imprisonment. Therefore, there is an element of urgency in this. I confess that we have not found a great deal of satisfaction in the answer of the Minister, but no doubt my noble friend Lady Birk will be able to cross-examine with some particularity about the nature of the unsatisfactory answer.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I wonder whether I may very briefly support my noble friend. We are dealing here with young people under the age of 21. That incorporates those who come before the juvenile benches and, also, the young people who come before the adult benches. Therefore, one has to see where one can send the worst of the possible offenders on remand. I have had the privilege of being in an area, PSD, where we had two very good remand homes. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to Holloway, where they are all girls and women, and, although I am well aware that there are, unfortunately, an increasing number of girls who are getting into trouble with the law, I suppose that we are really thinking of young men.
From the noble Baroness's knowledge of the bench, which is extensive, she will know that there are many ways of dealing with young people, if one wants them to come back to court having had social services reports in, perhaps, three weeks. One can put them on bail, one can put them in a remand centre, one can send them back to their homes or one can remand them in custody. In custody, in my courts, always meant—perhaps I was lucky—a remand home. At this moment, I am talking of the juvenile courts and the under-17s, but I do not think one would ever have sent one to prison.
But when we take into consideration the increasing number of violent crimes that are committed at this time by the 16 to 21s in this country, it seems that any court must be able to remand a young person under that age to prison. If we were dealing with the under 17s, I would be entirely with the noble Baroness. But, as we are dealing with up to 21s, it is very important that courts should still be able to remand whenever they see fit. So I support my noble friend.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: May I come back to the basis of the question that arises from the amendment? What we are dealing with are the 700 young people who are in local prisons, and surely the Minister would agree with the Prison and Borstal Governors' Association, who have described that situation as being a national scandal. I should like to ask the Minister not whether things are not as simple as they appear, but why some effort cannot be made immediately to build into the prison programme remand centres which are suitable for the type of person whom the noble Baroness has just mentioned—the person who needs to be locked up, but is not requiring, in any shape or form, the kind of security which is provided in a local prison? This national scandal should be

921
brought to an end, and I should like to ask the Minister whether there are any plans for building such premises, which could be done very quickly without any major security.
Lord Elton: I should like first to say that I am very much obliged to my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve for explaining more fully than I had both the pressures on this part of the system and the reasons for wishing to continue with a custodial remand. As to what primarily concerns your Lordships, it is clear that there is an agreed inordinate pressure of bodies upon places throughout the prison system, and we have debated this at length on a number of occasions. What your Lordships are saying is that not only should there be an application of our finite resources to reducing pressure by increasing the places —and also, I hope your Lordships will agree, by reducing the number of bodies or the duration of their imprisonment, which is one of the principal objects of this Bill—but the young offender should go to the head of the queue for those resources in the prison system which extend to the need for more staff to oversee the activities of prisoners when they are out of their cells, more accommodation for prisoners to engage in manufacturing and other activities out of their cells, more resources for the education of prisoners in education centres, more cells, more washing facilities, better reception facilities and better processing all the way to the courts.
What I am trying to say, first, is that a programme of specific capital investment directed to that point, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has suggested, could not be implemented as swiftly as he suspects. The time range of introducing a new prison establishment is very long. It is a good deal longer than a hospital, or certainly as long, with the planning requirements and so on. It is not an overnight waving of the wand. But, given that, and before the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, leaps up to put me right, saying that that does not alter anything, I go on to say that a lot of the accommodation that we have is suitable, and that it will become available in the process of our modernisation programme, not necessarily in buildings designed to take young offenders, but in buildings designed to take those who are now in the accommodation which the young offenders could better be occupying.
I have sought to arrive at the percentage of acquittals of young persons received on remand. This is the question about the numbers who subsequently receive or do not receive, sentences, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked me. I understand that, in very round figures, it is about 50/50. That underlines the understandable feeling of resentment of those who have been incarcerated and who have subsequently been told on their release that they need not have been. I accept that, but I do not think that it is the principal reason for trying to improve the conditions in which they are kept. The two points that I want to put before your Lordships are, first, that we are committed to listening and, finally, to resolving this problem; and, secondly, that it must be part of an overall programme for the whole of the prison population. The rest of the programme cannot be deferred in order to favour this part of the population, about which we feel very strongly.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The noble Lord anticipated my interrupting him, but he has not altogether prevented me. I take exception to the view that it takes years to build a prison, when it is not that that we are talking about. We are talking about the kind of country house which can be bought almost anywhere, putting a fence around it and installing a few telephones. Half the people who will be remanded there will not be sentenced to custodial service, anyway, so it is in no way parallel to building a prison.
Lord James of Rusholme: From the point of view of the outsider who is not an expert on this, I must confess that what the Minister has said seems to be very unsatisfactory, for two reasons. He gave us a list of important things which have got to be done for the prison service, which is absolutely right, but some of us believe that these particular people ought to go to the top of the queue for two reasons: first because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said, the whole business of remand in custody is a very suspect business indeed, and secondly, and much more importantly, because these young people are at the very age when, if we send them into the environment of an adult prison, we shall breed lifelong prisoners. For those two reasons, particularly the second, I feel that this must be an absolute priority over all the other desirable things which the Minister mentioned. If the Minister has been told that it takes longer to build a fairly secure remand centre than it does to build a hospital, I suggest that it is time he consulted another architect.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I shall not want to hear what the last seven words of the noble Lord's interjection were, but I did not hear them. Was he telling me to tell it to the marines?
Lord James of Rusholme: No, the marines have got their hands fairly full at the moment. What I was doing was telling the noble Lord to consult other architects than the ones who told him that it takes longer to build a remand centre than it does to build a hospital, because it cannot be true.
Baroness Bacon: I was interested in what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. At one point, however, she confused remand homes and remand centres. She also said that her court is able to send the most serious offenders to prison. In our part of the world, and in other parts too, maybe, it does not happen like that. There is a remand centre some 15 miles out of Leeds which is on the same site as an open prison. The reason why young people are sent into the most appalling conditions in Leeds Prison—I am pleased that the noble Lord the Minister has seen the appalling conditions there—is not because they are the most severe offenders but because the remand centre is full and there is nowhere else to send them, so they have to go into Leeds Prison on remand.
Lord Mottistone: To return to the amendment, I have tremendous sympathy for what all noble Lords have said about the obvious long-term need to get the balance right. I am a little suspicious of instant

923
remand homes at the waving of a wand, but it can happen. Nevertheless, in the nature of things they take time. Surely the question, though, is whether it is right for this House to put the amendment into the Bill at this point. It seems to me that in due course it would be right to have the sense of the amendment included in the Bill. However, it is too early to do so now because there will be insufficient resources and time to allow us to obey the law if the amendment is included now. Perhaps we can come back to it in two or three years' time when other things have been done.
Lord Renton: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Mottistone is right. Architecture and what is practically desirable on the one hand are one thing. Legal necessity and the problem of having to cope with young offenders, many of whom have committed very serious offences, within the framework of the present system are another. We have to take things as they are, not as we should like them to be. Taking things as they are, it seems to me that it would be folly to leave out subsection (2) of the clause.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to my two noble friends for bringing us back to a consideration of the amendment in the context of the Bill. As a finale to my response to what noble Lords have said about this, I would say that I have tried to make our concern clear. It is not a question of a country house being done over, with a few inexpensive additions. The people who could live there could be sent home on bail. We have to provide secure accommodation. That accommodation is expensive. I thought I retracted that it took longer than a hospital—I said it took a very long time, commensurate with that, and I stand by that—to provide prison accommodation, which is not always the most welcome new neighbour in a community. There are many planning difficulties. However, the state of the prison service as it now is—the noble Baroness has been generous enough to accept that this is not the fault only of this Government; the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has attributed it to many Governments, and I would endorse both speakers—means that to include the amendment in the Bill at this stage would leave us with nowhere to send a large number of remand cases, a considerable number of whom would subsequently be convicted, and convicted of violent misdemeanours, which means that they ought not to he left free to roam the streets. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept the earnest assurance I have given her of the fact that my perception of this very nearly coincides with hers.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: One of the things which the Bill proposes is to do away with borstal training. No doubt the youth custody centres will be largely located in the borstal institutions, but it seems likely that the length of sentences and the number of persons so committed will be less than the total man-woman population, over time, in the borstal centres. Could not some use be made of the borstal centres to relieve this problem? Could not some spare accommodation be found in that way?
Lord Elton: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness
924
for giving an instance of the principle which I sought to adduce: that the improvements which we are making both in the capital programme and in the Bill will reduce pressure on accommodation and allow young people to go into it. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Birk: I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment The Minister—and I agree with him—said that he agreed with the principle behind the amendment, as did the Minister in another place. He also pointed to the defects in the amendment as it stands at present. However, I think the Minister will agree with me that that is not the important part of it. If we are to enter into a discussion of remand centres in prisons and the fact that although they are used they are not remand centres in law, there is a danger that we shall get bogged down in semantics. That is not the principle which we are discussing.
I did not intend to divide the Committee when moving the amendment. However, having listened to what other noble Lords have said, and also to what the Minister has said, 1 am extremely worried—and I think other noble Lords who have spoken feel the same —that there does not seem to be the sense of urgency and impetus behind what the Minister said which I was hoping to hear. We on this side of the Committee are also extremely worried about the wording of the subsection. The subsection which we are trying to remove is written in such a way that it is a complete endorsement of the present system. It is not written in a way which gives an indication that this is going to be temporary and that we shall get rid of a wretched system which has gone on for too long.
My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones made a telling point when he referred to the numbers of young people who are sent to prison. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, is quite right when she says that there are alternatives which all of us certainly try to use. I do, as I am sure the noble Baroness does. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are still far too many young people in prisons—and not only in the prisons I was talking about. My noble friends have pointed out the even worse state in local prisons. Because there is no indication of any hope of trying to remedy or starting to remedy what is an atrocious system at the present time, I feel that I must test the temperature of the Committee.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness does that, may I ask her whether she will consider the terms of the amendment very carefully, because she is in fact throwing 2,100 people out on the street. I cannot imagine that many people would wish to vote for that.
Baroness Birk: I am dividing on this amendment because of the whole principle involved and the approach put forward by the Government. Unless a miracle occurs, I do not believe that we are going to win this Division; but it will at least make the Government think and come back with something they themselves have drafted for the Bill, which would at least meet the very strong feeling expressed around the Committee. Then we would feel that we had achieved something.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: The amendment does not say that the 2,000 people who are already there are to be turned out. It just says that further people are not to be put in.
3.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 108.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Aylestone, L.

Listowel, E.

Bacon, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. B.

Balogh, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

McCarthy, L.

Bishopston, L. [Teller.]

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Blease, L.

Milford, L.

Blyton, L.

Mishcon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Molloy, L.

Brockway, L.

Onslow, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Oram, L.

Caradon, L.

Peart, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rhodes, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Denington, B.

Saltoun, Ly.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stamp, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stedman, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Faithfull, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gardiner, L.

Stone, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Underhill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Walston, L.

Hunt, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ingleby, V.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

White, B.

James of Rusholme, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jeger, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Digby, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Allerton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Avon, E.

Effingham, E.

Bathurst, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Elton, L.

Beloff, L.

Ferrers, E.

Berkeley, B.

Fortescue, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Cairns, E.

Gainford, L.

Cathcart, E.

Garner, L.

Cawley, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Chelwood, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Colyton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hatherton, L.

Daventry, V.

Hawke, L.

Davidson, V.

Henley, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hives, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Derwent, L.

Ilchester, E.

926

Inglewood, L.

Reigate, L.

Killearn, L.

Reilly, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Renton, L.

Long, V.

Richardson, L.

Lovat, L.

Rochdale, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rugby, L.

Lyell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sandford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Mar, C.

Selkirk, E.

Marley, L.

Sharples, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Spens, L.

Mersey, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mills, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Milverton, L.

Terrington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Teviot, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Tollemache, L.

Mottistone, L.

Torphichen, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Newall, L.

Trumpington, B.

Northchurch, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Porritt, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Radnor, E.

Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Glenarthur: I think your Lordships would agree that it might now be appropriate for the Statement to be repeated. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Luxembourg Meeting of Foreign Ministers
3.49 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on the visit which he paid to Luxembourg on 20th to 21st June, during which he attended a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Ten and the first part of the Foreign Affairs Council, which continues today and on which there will be a report to the House. The Statement is as follows:
"At my request there was first a discussion of the Community's decision-making procedures. I left our partners in no doubt about the British Government's position that where a member state considers that very important interests are at stake, discussion must be continued until unanimous agreement is reached and that Community business should continue to be governed by this principle in accordance with the Luxembourg Compromise. This position was supported unreservedly by two member states and by two others with minor qualifications.
" The position is therefore that five member states support the principle that decisions must be deferred where a member state considers that its major national interests are at stake. It was not to be expected that the five members who declined

927
to endorse this principle in 1966 would do so now, but they made it clear that they were not seeking to reopen the Luxembourg Compromise. The Community's practice since 1966 was based on an agreement to disagree, and this remains the position.
" In view of what happened at the Agriculture Council on 18th May, I would obviously have preferred a clear-cut result. Although there is now a better understanding in the Community of our position and of the principles involved, we may have to return to the subject. The crucial point is what will happen in practice when our very important national interests are at stake. We shall continue to defend them on the basis we have made clear to our partners.
" In addition to the discussion on majority voting, we also had a brief discussion on the Genscher/ Colombo proposals. No conclusions were reached but it was agreed that work on the proposals would continue.
" The Foreign Ministers agreed that the arms embargoes on Argentina imposed nationally by member states would remain in force for the time being. They decided that the European Community's ban on Argentine imports should be lifted as from 22nd June in the expectation that there would be no further acts of force in the South Atlantic.
" They also agreed that, should this not be the case, a new situation would arise to which the Ten would be obliged to react immediately. Normal commercial relations between Argentina and the member states of the European Community depend therefore on a lasting cessation of hostilities in the South Atlantic.
" Foreign Ministers also discussed the increasingly serious situation in the Lebanon. They expressed their determination to continue humanitarian aid both nationally and in the Community framework. The Community decided not to proceed at this stage with the signature of the second Financial Protocol with Israel.
" On 21st June I had a meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister. Sr Perez-Llorca informed me that the Spanish Government wished to postpone the arrangements by which the Lisbon statement of 10th April 1980 would have been implemented on 25th June 1982 with a meeting between us in Portugal and the opening that day of the Gibraltar border.
" Her Majesty's Government were fully prepared to go ahead and I much regret this further postponement. Nevertheless I agreed with the Spanish Foreign Minister that we were both determined to keep alive the process envisaged in the Lisbon agreement; that we would remain in touch on the matter personally and through diplomatic channels; and that the date for a new meeting would be fixed in due course. The Governor of Gibraltar will be returning to London for consultations tomorrow, and I hope to have talks with Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Isola in the near future ".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House
928
is grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Is she aware that that part of the Statement which deals with the Luxembourg Compromise is vague and unsatisfactory? Is the way not left open for the veto to be ignored once again, and what happens if that takes place? Is it not vital for further talks to be held as soon as possible to clarify the matter? And was not some procedure which would define a very important national interest, which is the wording in the Luxembourg Compromise, discussed? On the Genscher/Colombo proposals, are not the voting procedures dealt with in these proposals, and is there a chance that the work on the proposals might be completed fairly soon? Perhaps the noble Baroness could put a date on it.
While it is disappointing that the imports ban should be raised before the cessation of hostilities by the Argentine, can the noble Baroness enlarge on the proposal to extend the arms embargo, which is very welcome news? Can we be sure now that armaments from France, like the Exocet missile and other armaments, will not reach the Argentine through Peru or some other country?
With regard to the Lebanon, is the EEC now proposing any further action in accordance with the Venice declaration? Are any initiatives from the leaders of the EEC in view? Can the noble Baroness say if United Nations Resolution 512 is being implemented; namely, the resolution which deals with the humanitarian aspects of this matter, and the need for medical supplies getting through to the Lebanon from the United Nations and other agencies as soon as possible? Is it true, for example, that a ship in Cyprus is unable to get through because the port of Lebanon is mined? On the last point, Gibraltar, does the decision taken mean that the frontier at La Linea will remain closed indefinitely now, or will the 1980 argeement that the frontier should be opened be implemented before the talks are resumed? Will what has taken place now affect the United Kingdom's attitude to Spain's entry into European Community?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we, too, would like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. First, I think, we would all like to express sorrow at the postponement of the talks on Gibraltar. We must all hope that when the tension over the Falklands has diminished somewhat they will still, as I think the Government anticipate, take place.
Even though the deplorable so-called compromise of Luxembourg has apparently been reinstated—and here I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn; I think it has been reinstated—as the accepted unofficial rule, we must at least hope, surely, that it will not be so disgracefully misused as it has been in the past. What is more sad, to my mind at any rate, is what I fear is the prospective demise of the Colombo/ Genscher plan. Since this plan, it seems, can only be accepted, even in a watered down form, by unanimous vote—I think I am right in saying that this is necessary —is it not obvious that no significant proposals contained in it will ever see the light of day? The Danes, for instance, have a veto, and seeing that the overriding objective is never to separate themselves, or to separate themselves as little as possible, from their Scandinavian friends, they will invariably exer-

929
cise it in order to block the smallest advance towards European political unity, of which in principle they thoroughly disapprove. I would be interested to know if the noble Baroness can comment on that statement.
Would not the Government, therefore, agree that, if there is to be any advance in this direction, it must be made by such members as favour it? After all, political action is outside the treaties, and those who favour it can do so in any way they please. There is no reason, for instance, why members who favour some sort of co-operation as regards defence should not co-operate, without involving those colleagues who do not want so to co-operate, and who in any case would in no way be bound by any decision taken in this sphere. Otherwise, frankly, I see little future in common political action, still less in the formation of any genuine common foreign policy.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their response to the Statement. They have asked a number of questions on different matters, and I will do my best to answer them. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked a number of questions, on the Luxembourg Compromise. I would like to say that five member states agreed that the Community should continue the practice of deferring majority voting when member states consider that major national interests are at stake. We can, therefore, expect that the Community will continue to operate on a basis which will enable us to safeguard our important national interests.
On the question of the Genscher/Colombo proposals—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos—again I can give no date when they might be implemented. Discussion continues between the member states and there are a number of problems still to be resolved. I am afraid that that does not answer the detailed points that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised but, as the noble Lord will know himself—and he no doubt will have heard the Government's views expressed in a speech by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place last week—it has now been recognised that there is an ad hoc group of officials which have been examining the proposals, and they should continue this work under the Danish Presidency.
As regards the Lebanon, I was asked quite specifically about help on humanitarian grounds. We are contributing, through the European Community, to the International Committee of the Red Cross appeal for aid to the Lebanon, and the Government have also pledged almost £¼ million of humanitarian aid to the victims of the conflict. This is being channelled through the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Lebanon Red Cross and other agencies.
Finally, both noble Lords raised the question of Gibraltar. I think that we all agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, made that it is most regrettable that the opening of the border has been postponed. I do not feel that I can go further than what I said in the Statement on this matter.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, as regards the Statement,
930
I wonder whether the Government can give a little more information on three particular points. First, as regards the Luxembourg Compromise, did the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs find it possible to introduce the idea of a country giving its reasons in writing when it was invoking the veto—an idea which was very fully debated in this House?
On the question of the Genscher/Columbo proposals, we heard in the Statement that work would continue and, in her answer just now, the noble Baroness referred to an ad hoc group of officials. It all depends on the tone of voice, does it not? Is this work continuing among the group of ad hoc officials in a hopeful tone of voice or in a "sweep it under the carpet" tone of voice? I think that the House would like to know the answer to that.
As regards the Lebanon, we find that for the fifth time in a generation the Middle East is in flames; the Israel Army stands halfway up the Lebanon; and world war is nearer than it has been for many weeks at least, to put it mildly. Yet the European Community, after its considerable history of political co-operation and positive proposals in this matter, simply proposes not to proceed with the Second Financial Protocol. Can the Government at least tell the House what is the Second Financial Protocol?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has raised three further points. The first concerns the Luxembourg Compromise. I think that I can only say further on this matter that, on the question of whether or not it enables us still to have a veto, it was accepted by the Six nations that it did enable us to do so, and the agreement to disagree has worked for nearly 10 years among the Nine and the Ten. As regards the question of giving our reasons in writing, that certainly is an idea which was included in the Genscher/Colombo proposals, but there was no decision reached about the texts of this matter at the meeting which concluded on 20th June. I really cannot add anything further to what I have already said about the Genscher/Colombo discussions and certainly, if I may say so, not about the tone of voice. I have tried to indicate that the discussions are continuing, and I think that that is where the matter must rest. I have no doubt that, when it says that the report makes this quite plain, that is what is happening and it is continuing its work under the Danish presidency at present and will, of course, continue—should it not be concluded before then—under the next presidency.
The noble Lord finally asked me a further question about the Lebanon. I should like to say on this matter that we did once again maintain the firm commitments to the principles of the Venice Declaration as a framework upon which progress towards a negotiated settlement in the Middle East could be based. We are regularly in touch with the parties concerned to promote the acceptance of these principles.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. The first concerns the Luxembourg Compromise, as regards which I think everybody would accept that the veto should be there for real and proper defence of national interests—that is, stopping people fishing up to the shores of Great

931
Britain. But it seems to have been used recently as a bargaining counter. To use it as a bargaining counter—in other words, to say, "I will not pay my parking fine unless I get my case heard favourably in the House of Lords"—seems to be an abuse of that Luxembourg Compromise. I ask my noble friend to bear in mind what happened with the liberum veto in Poland. When that happened, the whole of the Polish constitution collapsed because everybody had the power of veto. Can we please have an undertaking from Her Majesty's Government that they will not use it in the way which I described as regards the parking fine in the House of Lords?
Secondly, I should like to go back to the problem of Gibraltar. When we have a situation like the Berlin Wall across from Gibraltar to La Linea, is it not rather odd that Spain should still be a member of NATO when it has not taken down that "Berlin Wall" between Gibraltar and Spain?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope I made clear in what I said earlier that, as regards the question of whether the Luxembourg Compromise is still valid and when it would be used, from discussion it is quite clear that five member states, including ourselves, took the view that the practice of deferring decisions by majority voting where a member state considers that important national interests are at stake should be continued. The operative words are "important national interests I think that this is the matter upon which we should concentrate. It provides a basis for the Community's decision-taking procedures which will enable important national interests in the future to continue to be safeguarded.
On the question of Spain and NATO, of course, as a Government we have welcomed Spain's entry into NATO which has just taken place and which will be good for the NATO Alliance. We have not set any pre-conditions to this. However, it is a fact that it is regrettable that the border between the territories of two NATO allies should be closed, and that is why we hope that the situation will be rectified as soon as possible.
Lord Boothby:My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness one very brief question. While we all hope for an amicable solution to the problem, can she give us an assurance at least that, so long as Spain keeps the frontier with Gibraltar closed, the accession of Spain to the Common Market will not be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the question of the accession of Spain to the Community, I should like to confirm what I think has already been said—namely, that, although we have supported Spain's application to join the Community, it is inconceivable that there should be a closed frontier between the territories of two members of the Community, and we have made this point clear to the Spaniards.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend the Leader of the House just one question. Although I welcome the arrival in this country tomorrow of the Governor and the visit later on of Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Peter Isola, in view of what has
932
transpired in Luxembourg, will Her Majesty's Government be willing to place on the agenda of the discussions with these gentlemen the question of a Government reappraisal regarding the sustaining of the economy of Gibraltar? First, one is not sure that the commercialisation of the dockyard is viable. Secondly, the alternative economic activities which were looked into by a consultancy firm appointed by the ODA on behalf of the Gibraltar Government included tourism, financial operations, industrial activities and free trade zones. Are some of those not somewhat irrelevant in view of the fact that Spain has decided not to open the frontier?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have no doubt at all that when the Governor comes to London all these many issues will be discussed. They are, of course, material to all the reasons for wanting the frontier to be reopened. But as I have already indicated, it is an unhappy situation that Spain has not reopened the frontier, as we hoped she would.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.12 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert (" or make a detention centre order.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment which stands in the names of myself, my noble friend Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. The effect of this amendment, if it were to be graciously accepted by the Government and incorporated in the Bill, would be to abolish detention centres. The amendment has been moved upon the basis that to allow it would be a logical progression in the philosophy of Part I of the Bill, and also that it would be consistent with the development of progressive thought on this matter over the last decade.
As many Members of the Committee will know, as early as 1974 the Advisory Council on the Penal System recommended that the three systems of imprisonment, borstal and detention centre should be merged into one youth custody scheme. That report spelt out very succinctly its reasons. They were as follows:
" The general concept of constructive training pioneered by the borstal system has indeed won such wide acceptance that it is largely applied not only in borstals but throughout the young prisoner centres and detention centres as well. The result is that the supposed distinctions, which were once real and significant, between prisons, borstals and detention centres as establishments offering alternative ways of dealing with young adult offenders in custody, have now become blurred and indeed misleading ".
That argument was accepted by the last Labour Government in their Green Paper of 1978 entitled,Youth custody and supervision—a new sentence.
The present Government, when they took office, very soon thereafter published their White Paper of 1980, Young Offenders. But although accepting that there was an unanswerable case for the fusion for young offenders of the system of imprisonment and borstal, they jibbed at the inclusion of detention centres.
In the submission of those of us on these Benches, there are very strong and overwhelming reasons for accepting this amendment. I think that the reasons can be summarised as follows. If fusion is brought about, it will inevitably create a more flexible system than ever existed before. It will enable the problems of overcrowding to be tackled on the one hand and, on the other, the conditions of under-utilisation also to be dealt with. The effect upon the individual offender more often than not would be that that offender can be placed in an institution much nearer home than is the case at the present moment. I am sure that every Member of this Committee will agree that that is an extremely important factor. It means that the close contact which is so necessary and so desirable between the young person, his family, his friends, probation officers and social workers, which very often is now threatened by long expensive journeys, would, in the alternative, be maintained.
Even though efforts are now often made by probation officers to see young people before the end of their term in borstal, very often in practice this is not possible. In my submission, this factor is something that can have a very considerable influence indeed upon the situation in relation to detention centres, which reflects a failure in the context of so many young people. As the Committee is well aware, 76 per cent. of all young people who go to detention centres are reconvicted within the period of two years.
The Advisory Committee on the Penal System in its 1974 publication stressed the following:
" It should be an object of policy so to reorganise the pattern of location of establishments and the allocation of young adult offenders to them that periods in custody will normally be spent in establishments situated nearer to their home areas ".
As, I trust, a realist, I have no doubt that the Government will set their face against this amendment and will say, indeed, that there is really no justification for it. It seems to me that the Government are committed to take that view because of the paramount significance that they attach to the maintenance of detention centres. They conceive of them as being places not only of training but basically punitive institutions where the short sharp lesson is to be learnt. May I say, with great respect to those who hold those views, that although there has been research the world over during the last 20 years into various types of youth custody and, indeed, in many countries into the phenomenon of the short, sharp sentence, there is no hard evidence from any part of the world to suggest that it is more successful than a more ameliorative system. Indeed, in 1980, when the experiments at Send and New Hall were commenced, the Government made it clear that those were only in the nature of experiments and promised that data would be published as soon as possible.
My calculation—and I stand to be corrected on this—is that by now a total of some 1,200 young people or so will have passed through those two institutions. By now the Government must surely have a fair idea whether those figures show a marked improvement upon the old system. If there has been a marked improvement, then no doubt it is the duty of each and every one of us to reconsider the position in the light of such data. If, on the other hand, there is no such data to support that contention, clearly,
934
in my submission, there is a duty upon the Government to reconsider their whole position in the context of detention centres. If it be the case that there is nothing to suggest that the short sharp sentence is any more successful in 1982 than it was in the 1950s and 1960s—and there are ample data to show that there was no earthly justification for it in terms of success in that period—then most certainly there should be the most radical rethinking on the part of the Government.
The Government have, it seems, wavered on this matter before. In 1970, when they came into office, they accepted for a short period the report of the advisory committee in 1970 on detention centres. It may have had something to do with the fact that a Minister of State at the Home Office then was Mr. Mark Carlisle, a Member of another place, who himself had been a member of that particular sub-committee. It is therefore in that light and against that background that this amendment is moved as an urgent plea for the Government to justify the experiment that has now been running since April 1980; and, if they are not able to justify that experiment, to say that they are still willing to reconsider the situation fundamentally. 1 beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: May I briefly support the opening speaker here. He has raised two points, one pro and one against. The pro point is the increased flexibility which the Home Office and the prison department very much require. To have one youth service covering the whole gamut of youth offending would give them a flexibility which would make it easier for them to send people to detention near home.
The second, and negative, point is that the detention centre, as opposed to borstal, is punishment without any particular effort at rehabilitation. Rehabilitation has very much gone out nowadays. We none of us think that borstal was doing much good, and there is no plea for it to be retained; but there is no doubt that the staff working in these institutions are very unhappy indeed if no room is left for rehabilitation as one of the things they can do—and the short, sharp shock more or less excludes the direct rehabilitation. There is a pious hope that there will be indirect rehabilitation, which many of us doubt. The figures do not show it, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, in asking for some justification for not doing this. It obviously is not a matter of life and death, but a matter of organisation which would be improved by this amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like briefly to intervene. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, drew our attention to the possibility of a youth custody scheme. It seems to me from what he and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, have said, that it would be at the direction not of the courts but of the Home Office as to where any of the juveniles—that is the under-21s we are still talking about—should go. If the direction of their destination should be left in the care of what we must call civil servants instead of the magistracy, instead of the law, then I am sure that that would be wrong.
The noble Lord mentioned Send detention centre,

935
where I was a short time ago. Indeed, I was on the telephone to them this morning. I, for one, was impressed by the way young people were—and I use the word carefully—treated. They were 15s to 17s. The centre was not full. The youths were obviously not rehabilitated because, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, says, there was not the time available. The sentence in the future will be, as I understand it, from 21 days to four months. But there will be remission on any sentence. Therefore, a young person could remain in a detention centre for as short a time as one week, which means that no rehabilitation is possible.
On the other hand, when I was there I was told that it is apparent that these young people are taught something. They are taught a bit of discipline. They are taught, perhaps for the first time in their lives, occasionally to do what they are told. It is an important remedial way of treating some of these offenders. I asked the warden what were the categories of offence that came to him and were there at this time. They were for burglary, several cases of TADA, several cases of GBH and robbery. I asked, "Robbery with violence on the street, being mugging?" He said, no, because they are a county and they do not take in those from London; therefore, they do not have many of those. But that if there were those cases they would surely end up there. With this package deal that we are being asked to approve in Part I of this Bill, I feel that the detention centres certainly—not the borstals—have an important part to play.
Lord Wigoder: I intervene to make only one observation from the standpoint of someone who believes that the short, sharp shock is probably slightly preferable, to the long, sharp shock, but otherwise has very little to support it. I dislike talking in generalised terms, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would give us some simple figures that the Home Office must have by this time. First of all a simple question: how many young offenders underwent that treatment in the first 12 months since April 1980? The figure must be available. Secondly—and it may not be conclusive; we can argue about the significance of it—how many of those people were reconvicted in the 12 months after their release?
4.27 pm..
Lord Elton: May I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on board this Bill, which I think is going to voyage for some considerable time, and compliment him on the obvious conviction and considerable eloquence with which he argued his case. May I start from the standpoint of the common man, which is the one 1 think I am best fitted to occupy. It generally is the case in human experience that the first experience of any strict or unaccustomed régime has the greatest impact. I remember with pangs of unhappiness my first day at boarding school,
I remember with almost sharper pangs being woken at three o'clock in the morning at the Castlemartin camp—into which I had the day before been conscripted to howls of derision from the rest of those conscripted because I had a mackintosh and they had not—in the grey light of dawn at the sound of the
936
furniture being broken up by my fellow conscripts to light the fire. All this was a new world and it was something which it took me time to adjust to. It was in the first weeks of that experience that I found myself most affected by this new experience. Thereafter, being a young person I adapted rather quicker, I dare say, than I would now. Therefore, I think that there is, from the commonsense point of view, a supposition that the first part of any sentence is going to have the greatest effect upon the people who experience it.
That means that the provision for the sentence needs to be different from the traditional form of sentence, because for a start there will be no time for an elaborately structured training programme; but that does not mean that there will be no progress made with the inhabitants, with the young person detained. I recently visited Haslar, which is one of the detention centres running the new régime. I was greatly impressed by the way in which the education resources there were used for diagnostic and helping activities with the young people.
I would go along with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, if I could not persuade your Lordships further down the road which the Government wish to travel, or nearer to the dotted white line in the middle of it, that is, that we are all agreed that the necessity of locking people up is unfortunate. Most of us are in considerable doubt as to whether there is a rehabilitative effect when we do so and the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan quoted reconviction which must prove damaging to the thesis that people should be in prison detained for longer because of its rehabilitative effect.
If detention, or custodial treatment of any kind, is not to be beneficial to the subject and is not to achieve what it sets out to achieve, then presumably the shorter the time occupied by it, and the smaller the resources devoted to it, the better. But that is an argument from weakness which I would not want to pursue very far. Under the provisions in the Bill the detention centre order will on the whole be used for those who are fit and have little or no experience of custody, and it seems right that they should be held in separate establishments, apart from those more serious offenders who have received longer sentences, and let us remember that the detention order is intended to be the first experience of that sort.
We also intend to retain the distinction between junior and senior detention centres so that juveniles are, wherever possible, held separately from older offenders. Under generic sentence, such as the noble Lord suggests, although there would be flexibility, there would not be the advantages that we expect from allowing courts to send offenders to places appropriate to their age and character. As I say, in some detention centres there will be a new régime. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that altogether about 5,000 have been through the tougher régime, but I regret to tell him that we do not as yet have reconviction figures, that there is a monitoring exercise actually in progress, but that it is required for statistical reliability to run for two years and therefore, as I said on Second Reading, those figures will be available at the end of this year.
The amendmendment would, as I say, combine

937
all custodial sentences for young people in one indistinct whole and remove from courts the ability to choose the destination of the people they sentence. I would remind your Lordships that it is necessary to obtain the confidence of the courts in any system we run, and that it is an important aspect of it. The Children and Young Persons' Act 1969 contains within it provision to abolish the sentence for juveniles, and the future of the system, and more particularly the future of the people who work in the system, has therefore been in doubt for no less than a decade. It seems to me proper that that doubt should be put at an end for the sake of the people who operate the system.
The only other matter I would draw to your Lordships' attention is that this is a determinate sentence, whereas the borstal sentence is indeterminate, and here again we touch on the confidence of the courts in the system as they wish to decide what is to happen to the young people who come before them. That is our position. It does not accord with that of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. Indeed, his position appears to be hostile to the whole philosophy to a major part of the Bill for which the Government seek to obtain your Lordships' approval.
Lord Wigoder: Leaving aside the question of statistical reliability, which is a matter each of us can make up our own minds about, my Lords, may I ask the Minister if the Home Office have the simple figures (we can argue about their significance later) first, for the number of people who went through the detention centres, where there is the short, sharp shock, from April 1980 to April 1981? They must have those figures. Secondly, do they have those figures, down to April 1982, of how many of those people have been reconvicted? Let us argue about the significance later. It is idle to pretend that, because of the question of statistical reliability, the Home Office are not able to give those figures to the House and apparently will not be able to do so until consideration of the Bill is over.
Lord Elton: I had no intention of using an excuse to conceal from the House knowledge which the department already had. What I wished to explain was that the actual evaluation would not be sufficiently reliable as an exercise as a whole for us to put before your Lordships until it had run for two years, and it then needs to be processed. As to the figures, the only figures I can get now is the round figure of 5,000 who have been through already. I take the noble Lord's question and I see its relevance. It appears not be possible to produce them at this stage. I assure him that I shall get them as soon as may be possible and convey them to him and other of your Lordships who may be interested by the most appropriate and expeditious means, but I cannot put my finger on them at the moment.
That is not very satisfactory, but it is the best I can do. The fact remains that our general philosophy believes that the most effective part of a sentence is the beginning, that unless it is to be a very long programme of rehabilitation, tailored to the individual, the shorter it is the better, not only in terms of resources but also in terms of the individual offender, and of
938
course by reducing the length of the attendance, that means less use of resources which are scarce and better conditions for other people in the system, and that is something we want as well.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his customary graciousness, has indicated that the answer he has just given is not very satisfactory, and with that most of us would agree. He is arguing today that it is desirable to maintain detention centres in a separate existence, and that is an arguable proposition about which a valid argument could no doubt be made on both sides. He was then pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to say what had happened in relation to the short, sharp shock sentence, and he has been unable to give any clear indication about that except to say that he will correspond with Lord Wigoder and others at some later stage to tell them what the results have been of the analysis. Being well used to debates in this House, the Minister will recognise that that is not a very satisfactory position.
Lord Elton: What I would imagine might happen would be that we should be able to raise the issue at a later stage so that all your Lordships could partake of the knowledge. I do not wish to hold cards close to my chest. I cannot display them until I myself see what is on the face of them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am delighted to be reassured on that and let us hope that on Report we shall be able to have that information. I would remind the Minister that no serious argument was ever made for the introduction of the sentence in the first instance; there was no serious criminolgical or social research which ever justified it. It was an ill-considered phrase in a weekend speech, and that is the basis of the short, sharp shock. I suggest that we are entitled to have an early answer as to what is the result of the research that has taken place. I hope it is being carried out by the Home Office Research Unit, which has a substantial reputation. The Minister has indicated that we shall have the information, and I hope that every effort will be made to make sure that we have it by Report, when we shall be able to return to the matter and see what the result of the study has been.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I might elaborate a little. I shall certainly be able to produce the reception figures to 1981. The reconviction figures are not so easy to come by, because each individual case has to be tracked down. I shall certainly see that every best effort is made. I have no wish to conceal things from your Lordships. What I cannot produce is what we have not got, but we shall do our very best to get everything that your Lordships may wish, and the proper time, I accept, to do that is at the next stage of the Bill, rather than by correspondence.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether he would agree that the boy who has been in detention has to have had re-offended before we can get any figures at all?
Lord Elton: I am very sorry, but my attention was wandering to the previous point when my noble friend

939
asked her question with such admirable brevity that I was not able to pick it up.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Is it not correct—and the detention centre short, sharp shock treatment started in April 1981—that the person who has left the detention centre has to re-offend before one can get any figures?
Lord Elton: Indeed, yes, that is so, and therefore, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, would say, there would be some limitation on the use of all of this. What the noble Lord wants is some indication of where we are going, and I think that that is a perfectly acceptable desire.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: Since the statistics give the reconviction figures for detention centres as a whole, it would surely not be necessary to track out every individual, but to have a breakdown according to the different types of detention centre—those which practise the short, sharp shock, and those which are less short, less sharp and less shocking.
Lord Elton: In fact, at the moment, the normal method is not to conduct research until two years after conviction. That is why at this stage I am being so very hesitant in making an unwise commitment to more than I can deliver. The normal screening is after two years, to see how many reconvictions there have been. Therefore, there is not a running programme out of which we can just pick the figures as the noble Baroness suggested we should. The latest figures given in prison statistics are for those released until 1977, I understand.
Baroness Faithfull: I wonder whether it would help my noble friend the Minister if I were to say that I understand that the short, sharp shock was based on experience at Glenochill Detention Centre in Scotland. Glenochill Detention Centre has had the short, sharp shock for some considerable time. Would it help the Committee and the Minister if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who is present, were able to obtain the figures from Glenochill Detention Centre, on which I understand the English detention centres were based?
Lord Melchett: I should like to make a point to the noble Lord before he replies to that question. The two detention centres that have been referred to are not simply part of the generality of criminal statistics; they were set up as experimental programmes. If I may say so to the noble Lord, it is not good enough to come to the Chamber and say, "Well, the criminal statistics are collected two years later and I won't be able to tell you anything until then". In the normal course of events, if governments really want to know what is happening—and I suggest to the noble Lord that there must be some doubt about that—the experimental programmes are monitored as they go along. Each individual young person who has been through the short, sharp shock will be followed very carefully to see what happens to him. It ought to have been possible for the noble Lord to give us
940
some information today, and certainly to give some information before the Report stage, so that we can consider it before we debate a similar amendment at that stage.
Lord Elton: As I say, the experiment is designed on a statistical basis, with a two-year base. We have not reached the end of it. As to an "ill-considered phrase in a weekend speech", that really is not the basis of policy. It was, rather, a well-considered and apt phrase, describing the policy. I would point out that we are talking about only two places. We are not talking about every detention centre being full of people who are there for only a week or a fortnight. I really cannot tell the Committee more than I have told it. I am certain in my bones that, in the difficult position in which we are, this is the better way to proceed, that we ought not to continue as we now are, and that we should not leave the question mark hanging over the people at present working in the detention centres. To the best of my ability I shall put before your Lordships further information at the Report stage.
I would say that the actual number of reconvictions is not the only aspect of the experiment which is being carefully monitored, and I have every reason to believe that what we see is reassuring. But I would remind the Committee, as it has been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who started this hare running, that in fact, even if it is only the same product as what we already have, it means that people will be detained for shorter periods, at less expense and less inconvenience. That, as I say, is an argument for weakness, and I hold it only in reserve.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: I wonder whether it would ease the noble Lord's problem if he were to finish the quotation, which runs:
" A short, sharp shock
On a cheap and chippy chopper
With a cheap and chippy chopper
On a big, black block ".
Then the noble Lord would not need any follow-up.
Lord Mishcon: There may in fact be an argument, a philosophical argument, a practical argument, a statistical argument, in regard to the short, sharp shock in the detention centre. But the one thing that, so far as I am aware, the noble Lord the Minister has not dealt with is the very real advantage that will be apparent to the whole Committee, and which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan—that is, the greater flexibility. About one thing there is no doubt at all—that is, that overcrowding of our institutions is an absolute disgrace. That applies in respect of the youngster as much as everybody else. There is also the point that greater flexibility obviously would allow of non-overcrowding, if I may put it that way, because of the variety of institutions that are available if there is a single youth sentence.
The other point concerns the greater ability to send the youngster to somewhere which is near his home. The great advantage of a family being able to visit is one of which the Committee must be very conscious. The terrific hardship following the short, sharp shock that there might be to the family of a young man or a young girl in a detention centre is

941
somewhat relieved by the ability to visit, and is made all the worse by a complete inability to visit owing to the distance away from the family home of the detention centre in question.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Before the Minister replies to that, I wonder whether he can also enlighten us. If the régime has the benefits that he has indicated, why are girls deprived of the privilege of undergoing the short, sharp shock as much as boys?
Lord Elton: I suppose the disadvantages of mixing young offenders with adult offenders which would result from the larger sentence that the noble Lord was after apply even more when one mixes male young offenders with female young offenders. As to the question of nearness to home, of course I accept that it is a good thing when a prisoner can be visited and is close to home. As a matter of policy, we always put young offenders, as others, as near to home as is possible. However, there are other considerations. It is better to have him in provision that is suitable to him a little further away, and we are dealing with short sentences, when of course visiting is of rather less importance.
Baroness Bacon: Does not the noble Lord recall that we did have detention centres for girls and that it was because they were so unsatisfactory that we decided to close them and not send any more girls to detention centres?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: May I go back to the point on which the noble Lord was so helpful a few moments ago? As I understand the assurance that he has given the Committee, it is that before the Report stage, or at the Report stage, he will bring to the House all the information that is available about the trial régime at the particular detention centres. As I understand his argument, he goes further than that. He said that it is not just a question of the statistics involved. Referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, had said, he went on to say that it is not just a question of statistics; there are other matters of an unspecified character with which he will be able to assist your Lordships when we reach the Report stage.
I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. First—to repeat the question which, no doubt inadvertently, he was unable to deal with earlier—is the statistical analysis being carried out? Who is carrying it out? Is it being done by the Home Office esearch Unit, or by somebody else? Secondly, in terms of the qualitative judgments which, as I understand it, he indicated are being made, who is making them? Is that being done by the Home Office Research Unit, or is it being done by somebody else?
I think these are important matters; and, as the Minister will be aware, he is in fact endeavouring to persuade the Committee that it is necessary to retain detention centres. Being a person well versed in debates in your Lordships' House, he will realise that the onus is upon him, given the character of the debate we are now having, to demonstrate that there are satisfactory answers to these questions. Speaking for myself, if he indicates that what I have said broadly speaking represents the assurances he has given the Committee, then I think a number of us will
942
be content, certainly until the Report stage, when we hope we will get a detailed statement by the noble Lord on these questions.
Lord Elton: If I may revert first to the question of girls, I would remind your Lordships that there was in fact, and has only ever been, just one detention centre for girls. Moor Court, in Staffordshire, was opened in 1962. It served only the northern part of the country, and had an average daily population of about 24 girls. It was closed in 1969 on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Penal System; and a study of girls sent there and to borstal showed that, apart from the number of previous convictions, there was little difference between the sort of girl sentenced to the detention centre and the sort of girl sentenced to borstal training.
The advisory council concluded that short-term custodial training was in principle unsuitable for girls, and that girls of the kind who were sent to the detention centre would be better dealt with non-custodially or given the longer period of treatment that borstal training provides. The advisory council considered that the needs of delinquent boys and delinquent girls were so dissimilar—and this is the point—that there was no reason why the disposals open to the courts should be the same for both sexes.
The evaluation of the short, sharp shock is being done by the Home Office statisticians and psychologists. There are also two distinguished independent academics who sit on the steering committee. The department and my colleagues get our advice from as wide an area as possible. I think that your Lordships have possibly debated this issue for a length of time which suggests that we should not go on, but, of course, that is in the hands of the Committee.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has made the admirable point that it is the first few days, if not indeed the first few hours, of a custodial sentence that have the greatest impact upon the offender. I am sure that no one would seek to contend to the contrary; but, with great respect, it does not seem to me that that answers the argument. That of course will be the case whether you sentence a person to seven days' or to seven years' custody. It does not deal with the question of what the appropriate length of sentence should be in any particular case. In any event, in so far as the category that we are dealing with here is concerned, there is the range of from 28 days to 4 months less remission already catered for.
Of course, it may be that a tough régime can show the most beneficial results, and that is really what the argument has been about on this amendment. But, basically, there is nothing to show that the imposition of toughness on top of the deprivation of liberty has in itself anything to commend it. As I am sure the Minister will recollect, the Advisory Council on the Penal System, in its report in 1970, made this point and recommended,
" that the function of detention in a detention centre should he regarded as fulfilled by the deprivation of an offender's liberty ".
That in no way militates against the principle of the greatest impact taking place inside the first few days.

943
That impact may be a more beneficial impact on account of deprivation of liberty than on account of anything else punitively grafted on top of that particular restriction.
The matter that worries me most in this connection is the dogmatism of the Minister. He has accused me of dogmatism, but my own attitude is that, although one has certain preconceived ideas in this matter, for my own part—and I am sure that I speak for my noble and learned friend and for my noble friends behind me in this matter—I am prepared to reconsider the situation if there be some spectacular, massive truth that stems from the data that is eventually to be published. But it does not seem to me that the Minister is willing to be regulated in the same way.
The Minister accepts that here was an experiment set up by the Home Office; here was the Home Office setting up a machinery for the collection of data; but as far as the Minister is concerned, not having been supplied with one item of that data, he is still totally certain as to the eventual result. Is the Minister prepared to tell the Committee that, although he has his own views about the matter, nevertheless, as a Minister in the Home Office, he is prepared to look at this data upon its merits when it is eventually available?
I join with those noble Lords who have asked for the maximum data to be released at a significant time in the passage of this Bill; namely, at such time as would allow your Lordships to act upon it. If it be that in practice it would not be possible even to give the reconviction figures for one year for all those who have passed through Send and through New Hall under the latest régime, surely it would be possible to take a sample of letters—say 500—and, on the basis of that sample, to make an intelligent calculation as to what, in total, the data would reveal? If the Minister is prepared to give that assurance, then most certainly I would not seek to press this amendment.
Lord Elton: It is difficult to be clearer in an undertaking than I hope I have already been. What I will seek to do is to obtain the largest appropriate and feasible sample. There are constraints upon recovering information about reconviction. I am not personally familiar with how long it takes to trace the subsequent career of a released detainee, but I will see the extent to which I can satisfy your Lordships with information and I will make available the whole of the information which I feel the Committee ought to have in this context.
I cannot be more specific than that because I do not know how you get the reconviction figure back. It is not a very easy process, because unless the person re-offends you do not know where he is. As my noble friend said, is that an indication that he has not been reconvicted, or is it an indication that we have not looked in the right place for him? But I shall be advised about this, and I hope to be able to assure your Lordships as to the quality as well as the quantity of the information I give, and your Lordships will be able to judge it on that.
But I would just come back to this point. We are not embarking on this in the sort of slap-happy way that the noble Lord seems to suggest. It is the result of mature reflection, not of a word cast aside in a speech.
944
Even if we were wrong in our expectations and there was no change, there would be advantages both to the inmates and to the system, and therefore I think your Lordships, casting your minds over the other points that I made earlier, would be wise to welcome the noble Lord's decision not to press this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert (" because it appears to the court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified ").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 7 as well because the same points apply in those amendments. Having had this debate on detention centres, may I say that my central interest in this Bill is non-custodial care, and not custodial care. Clause 1 (4) of the Bill states:
" Where a person under 21 years of age is convicted or found guilty of an offence, the court may not—

(a) make a detention centre order in respect of him;

(b) pass a youth custody sentence on him; or

(c) pass a sentence of custody for life on him,

unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate ".
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will feel or say, or feel and say, that that is adequate. My contention, with my amendment, is that it is not adequate. This is because I think we should put into the Bill the words,
" because it appears to the court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified ".
My noble friend may say that this could go into regulations and that it is not for the Bill, but I would point out two things. First, the Children and Young Persons Act was passed in 1969 and in that Act non-custodial treatment in the form of intermediate treatment was recommended. However, although it was in the Bill, it was not clearly spelt out, there was no formula laid down, and, as a consequence, here in 1982, the Bill having been passed in 1969, we have not got overall satisfactory intermediate treatment throughout the country. Therefore, it seems we should have a formula as to exactly what it is that the court should do before it makes a custodial order. That is the reason for moving this amendment.
I believe that, if this amendment were to be accepted by my noble friend the Minister, there would be a shift from custodial to non-custodial care. I would say this. Of course we all agree that there are certain of the difficult young people that we deal with who need and must have, for the protection of the public and for the protection of themselves, custodial care; but, down the years since 1969, the number of juveniles sent to borstals and detention centres rose from about 3,000 in 1970 to 7,500 in 1980 and, correspondingly, supervision orders dropped considerably from 1970. If a formula had been laid down concerning intermediate treatment and if it had been law, I maintain that we should not have lost all those years from 1969 to 1982.
Surely, we want to reduce the level of custodial care. I think it has been said in many other debates that we have the highest number of children and young persons in custodial care in the EEC. I think that I have already mentioned that a German criminologist told me that the 1969 Children and Young Persons Act was a good Act badly administered. I believe it was badly administered because we have not got a proper formula. A Danish criminologist rang me recently to say that he thought it was an extraordinary thing that in this country we had so many children in custodial care. This formula which I suggest we should put forward would be a help to the magistrates, but not only to them; it would help the social workers as well. It is not always either social workers or magistrates who have embarked on so many custodial sentences: I would suggest that it is both and that both need to have the same formula.
Another point is that we need an overall policy in the country. The policy from bench to bench is uneven and this is shown by a piece of research that was carried out by the National Children's Bureau, which showed how different was the sentencing on the part of different courts throughout the country. I wonder whether with the shorter sentences we may find that more, not less, children get sent to custodial care. This, I think, is worrying. In the last debate, on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, a great deal of discussion took place over monitoring and over general principles. I would suggest that, if we were to monitor what happens over non-custodial care, if cases were to come to the Court of Appeal and were to be analysed, perhaps we might then get at what should be done and what is our policy and where we are going; but I fear that, by the time that happens, we shall not have built up a policy and, although this wording may be, for an Act, somewhat heavy, nevertheless I believe it would be aguideline, a formula, for the courts, and for both the social workers and the probation officers. Also, it will be the same the country aver. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: I am happy to rise to support the amendment moved in the name of the noble Baroness. I know that she will not mind if 1 remind her that this amendment arose from one of the recommendations in the report by the all-party penal affairs group entitled, The Young Offender: A Strategy for the Future, in which we strongly recommended that the precise circumstances for a court decision to incarcerate a young offender should be spelt out in the statute. It may be felt by some that to give three specific conditions or reasons to help the courts in interpreting the word "appropriate" is an undue interference with the discretion of the courts; but as the noble Baroness has made clear—and I should like to make this point again—that word "appropriate" is wide open to a diversity of interpretation by magistrates' courts up and down the land.
I see this amendment, as, I think, do my colleagues as one step towards reducing the lack of consistency in sentencing policy by the courts and, therefore, reducing the degree of inequity to young offenders who are sentenced by the courts. Both points seem very important indeed.
946
The noble Baroness has said that her concern—and it is the concern of all in the all-party penal affairs group—is to reduce the number of young people put away into custodial situations by the courts. The fact is that the numbers who have been put away have risen astronomically during the last decade and far outstrip the undoubtedly rapid rise in crime—and all this without a corresponding effect in deterring young people from committing offences.
On all these grounds, we feel that it is extremely important to spell this out in the statute so that the courts and, as the noble Baroness has said, the social workers can be adequately guided and not left in considerable doubt on the basis of that euphemistic word "appropriate".
Lord Avebury: I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and to underline one of the things that has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the preparedness of the courts to incarcerate children since the passing of the Children and Young Persons Act which, as the noble Baroness told us, was thought to be going to be a means of reducing the number of children in custody when in fact the reverse has happened and there has been a very sharp increase indeed over the last 12 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reinforced this point by saying that not only has the number of children in custody increased but the proportion of children coming before the courts and being given custodial sentences has also risen over this period. It may be of interest to say that the proportion of boys aged between 14 and 16 convicted of indictable offences who received custodial sentences rose from 6 per cent. in 1970 to 12 per cent. in 1980, while the number receiving supervision orders fell from 22 per cent. to 16 per cent. This emphasises the point which was made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—that we have not been at all successful since the Children and Young Persons Act was passed and it has not meant that we were less prepared to lock up young people than we were prior to that Act coming into force.
I should like to refer to the undertakings given by Ministers in another place that the criteria along the lines of these amendments, if not identical with them, would contain any guidance that was given by the Court of Appeal on the use of the sentencing powers in the Bill after the Bill comes into effect. Surely if that is so and if the Court of Appeal would give the sort of guidance that we have in this amendment, it would be better put into the statute itself. Why wait until after the Bill comes into effect and until the Court of Appeal has got around to doing what the Government say it is going to do anyway? Is it not really the job of Parliament to say what they think legislation means, rather than to leave it to the courts to deal with as best they can afterwards?
I must say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the word "appropriate". It is so nebulous and vague that the Court of Appeal in theory could develop guidelines along a totally different path from that which has been set down by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. If this is what Parliament wants, let us put it into the Act now and let us not

947
leave the tidying up to be done by the Court of Appeal after the Bill comes into effect.
Baroness Birk: I should like very strongly to support this amendment from these Benches. I would entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that most of our interest is in seeing how very much more we could do in the way of non-custodial methods of dealing with crime rather than the custodial methods. I think it is perfectly true that there is tremendous danger in what is in fact a good measure of reducing the minimum period at a detention centre from three months to three weeks. I can say without any doubt that many benches will use this as a sentence in preference to a non-custodial. They will do it from the best of motives and with the best will in the world, but it will be a custodial sentence rather than a non-custodial sentence. If the Minister feels, as he may, that this is covered quite sufficiently in the Bill—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the word "appropriate"—I would put it to him with great respect that this really is not so. We have seen in so many other pieces of legislation—not necessarily criminal legislation but others also—that these things have been left open and not spelt out in detail, and it has caused a great deal of confusion and difficulty.
In this case it is particularly important because, as the noble Baroness pointed out, one of the important things is that there should be uniformity. It is wrong that one should leave too much flexibility. Obviously, there must be flexibility in looking at individual cases; but not too much flexibility, not just between one bench and another but between different compositions of benches within the same court area and another, which is in fact what happens. If this is spelt out in this way it would concentrate the minds of magistrates, and I think they would be grateful for these guidelines which are in the legislation. We have seen that, although those are in the guidelines, until something was spelt out on the criteria for bail—and this is rather different; it should be in the major, primary legislation—it was extremely difficult because one got such different approaches. We found exactly the same problem when we were debating legal aid: it was difficult to find a consensus of what the criteria should be. Here is being spelt out, in what I think is a quite admirable way in order to remove doubt, what should be the criteria for giving a custodial sentence rather than a non-custodial one.
It has been pointed out that there has been an increase in juvenile crime, but that increase is not proportionate to the rise of those who are sent to penal establishments. If we wanted any further evidence of the failure of the custodial method of sentence, we have only to look at the reconviction figures of young offenders: those leaving prisons, 68 per cent.; those leaving borstal, 69 per cent. But when we come to detention centres the reconviction figures are quite horrific; 76 per cent. of those leaving detention centres and 83 per cent. of those leaving borstals are reconvicted within two years.
Finally, I think we should also be keeping our eye on the economics of the situation and the question of value for money. There can be no question that non-custodial methods need only a fraction of the resources that custodial methods need, and I hope
948
that the Minister will accept these amendments. They have the support not only of those of us on this side of the House but of other noble Lords as well.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I should like very briefly to support my noble friend Lady Faithfull, for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who, as a very experienced magistrate, has put the side of the magistracy. I also agree with the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I think that uniformity would be brought about by these words being put into the Bill and I warmly support the amendments.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: I support what the noble Baroness Lady Birk, was saying from the practical experience point of view, because I think these words:
" No other method of dealing with them is appropriate"
are imported—are they not?—from the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973. All experience of those words in court has been this. What happens in magistrates' courts very often is that the clerk, after the magistrate has sentenced the person to imprisonment of some kind, looks up and simply says: "No other method appropriate"? The magistrate nods and then that is entered on the record. It becomes a pure formality. Exactly the same thing has happened with not sentencing first offenders to prison. Again you have to state your reasons and once again off goes the person to prison and the clerk says: "Seriousness of offence?", and the magistrate nods, and down goes "seriousness of offence". It becomes a formality.
I am personally a little ambivalent about what my noble friend Lord Avebury was saying about putting criteria into a statute rather than leaving the matter to the Court of Appeal. I am not so sure that I entirely agree with him about that. The trouble is, can one guarantee that the Lord Chief Justice—one almost can with the present Lord Chief Justice, if I may say so—will in fact lay down the criteria? He has laid down the criteria recently in the case of Clark for partially suspended sentences. He has done the same thing in the cases of Bibi and Upton in the most admirable way.
It is much easier for courts to follow guidelines which come down from the Court of Appeal than to try to wrestle with words in a statute and try to interpret what they really mean. If there was some guarantee that the Lord Chief Justice would lay down the guidelines, if these words were not included and the amendment was not accepted, that might be a better method of proceeding. But I see difficulties in guaranteeing that situation.
The Earl of Onslow: I also should like to support this amendment, mainly on the grounds which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, mentioned. It seems to me that if you have a reconviction rate of 82 or 83 per cent. in two years of people who have been sent to borstal, then borstal has been shown to be almost a total failure. Of course, I concede that there are people who must be kept inside simply for the protection of the public. But, surely, the fewer people there are in prison or in borstal, the more the care that

949
can be taken to do the essential part of borstal training, which is to train, re-educate and civilise. If the more people we can keep out, the more accurate and generous the treatment within borstals can be, it may consequently be that the reconviction rate will be reduced from 82 to 81 per cent.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Melchett: This seems to me to be a fundamentally important amendment and it is worth just reminding your Lordships of the background against which we are discussing it. As has already been said, over the last few years, whether there has been a significant increase in juvenile offending or not, the proportion of young offenders being sent to institutions has increased substantially. The percentage of young people coming before the courts and being sent to institutions has increased, at the same time as our knowledge about the ill effects of being sent to institutions has grown, as my noble friend Lady Birk said, with the enormously high proportion that are reconvicted within two years. In effect, what a sentence to an institution of that sort means for a young person is that his chances of not being reconvicted within the next two years are almost negligible.
The Government have introduced a major Bill dealing with criminal justice against that background, and also against the background of mounting concern about the numbers of young people and adults whom this country sees fit to lock up in institutions. On any international scale, we are one of the countries that locks up more people—young people and adults—than others. There is no doubt that most of the professional organisations and experts who have looked at the Government's legislation have come to the view that it is likely to worsen the situation rather than improve it. It is likely to lead to even more young people being sent to institutions, albeit possibly for a shorter period, than the reverse. This amendment seems to me to be the one chance that Parliament has of putting that matter right. That is why I think it is so important.
If I may make just one other point in response to what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said about the possibility of the Court of Appeal using these words in a judgment, or in advice to the courts on sentencing policy, I think that that would be very much a second best. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it would be completely unsatisfactory, in comparison with having the words in a statute, unless the Government were able to reassure me that all courts would have to give their reasons in writing, in the light of the Court of Appeal's instructions, when they sentenced a young person to an institution. As I understand it, that would not be the case unless the words were incorporated in the Bill.
My second ground for concern is that a great deal of research has been done on sentencing practice, and I do not think there is very much doubt that judgments of the Court of Appeal, significant as they may be, particularly for the higher courts, very often have some difficulty in penetrating to magistrates' courts. This is no criticism of magistrates. The Court of Appeal makes a great many very worthy judgments and it would be unrealistic to expect all lay magistrates to be familiar
950
with all of them, even those which affect sentencing policy, of which there are now a great many. I really do not think that that is any adequate substitute for incorporating these words in the Bill, and we are left, as we so often are when arguing with Governments on matters of this kind, with trying to get the Government to say, if the Court of Appeal are prepared to say this, why they cannot put the words into the statute, which is what we ought to do.
Lord Elton: There is a remarkable unanimity about what we wish to achieve and I subscribe to it. We want to stop people from going improperly to custodial treatment, when they can be treated in the community. We are alert to, and share, the anxiety about the rising figures for custodial treatment, particularly of young people, and I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend Lady Faithfull—I almost forget what she looks like, because she will sit behind me—wishes to achieve and with the way in which she has advanced her cause. But it is not only the interests of the individual offender which demand that he should receive a custodial sentence only when no other method of dealing with him is appropriate. The appalling pressure, to which I have referred before, throughout the prison system advocates that as well. I say this to make absolutely clear both the Government's acceptance of the principle embodied in these amendments, and the spirit in which they have approached them. There is already in Clause 1 an unequivocal provision that no court shall pass a custodial sentence on a young offender unless no other method of dealing with him is appropriate, and the amendments themselves borrow words used in paragraph 3 of this Government's White Paper.
The principle, therefore, is not in dispute. What is at issue is whether these amendments would achieve the aim which we all appear to share. 1 appreciate that they differ from the amendments tabled in Committee in another place, which were discussed at great length, and which have been expanded in the light of the debate in another place to include a reference to the seriousness of the offence, as one of the matters which the court must take into account. Indeed, the amendments essentially turn on the need to protect the public and on the gravity of the offence. They leave it to the judgment of the courts to decide what type or length of sentence is demanded by the need to protect the public or by the seriousness of the offence. Therefore, the amendments would not prevent the courts from imposing custodial sentences where they thought them necessary.
One could argue on that ground that the statement of principle enbodied in these amendments cannot, therefore, be objectionable. But there is an equally important point which I ask the House to consider very carefully. It is that, for the same reasons, such a statement of principle is not likely to be effective. It directs the courts towards the principle that custodial sentences should be imposed only in respect of serious offences. Unless, however, there is any guidance as to what constitutes a serious offence, a provision on these lines is not likely to be of much help to the courts. They are left, again, with determining something which has not been quantified. The difficulty which we are up against is that legislation can seek

951
to provide only comprehensive, general principles. In matters of sentencing, there are very real limits to how far Parliament can have a practical effect on the day-to-day decisions made by the courts in an enormously wide range of individual cases.
The question, therefore, is how far can the principle, that a custodial sentence should be awarded only if unavoidable, be helpfully and effectively spelled out in legislation and how far should we look to the courts to provide the guidance? The Government have taken soundings on this, in the light of the discussion in another place. There is no disagreement about the importance of the principles underlying the amendments. They are, indeed, considerations which the courts should—and do—have in mind. But are principles at this level of generality a help to the courts? They have, after all, to cover a wide variety of specific facts and circumstances. It could be said that, at the least, statutory principles on these lines could do no harm. I would be cautious about that.
For example, there may well be circumstances where an offender has, through repeated but minor offending, shown himself "unable or unwilling" to respond to non-custodial penalties. It may nevertheless be right in particular cases to persevere with non-custodial sanctions. The courts need the flexibility to suit their response to the case before them. If it is said that the amendments would leave this open, that is surely to concede that their efficacy is doubtful.
As I say, we agree on the preferability of keeping people out of custody. The phrase must have a familiar ring to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. Keeping people out is something in which he has a laudable interest. My noble friends and others have all spoken to this. My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that she had heard the Children and Young Persons' Act referred to as a good Act badly administered and she asked for a formula. All we are discussing is where the formula should come from. Before I address myself to that, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that Clause 1(7) requires magistrates' courts to give their reasons for imposing a custodial sentence. That is something to which I think he attaches importance.
Lord Melchett: No, that was not my point. So that I do not forget it and in order to allow the noble Lord to get more advice, what I want to know is this: if the Court of Appeal lays down guidelines, will the reasons given by the magistrates' court for imposing a custodial sentence have, in writing, to take into account those guidelines? In other words, will the reason which is given in writing have to say which of the various reasons from the Court of Appeal's guidelines they have taken into account? I understand that if we put these words into the statute, this will quite clearly be an obligation placed on the court.
Lord Elton: I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I take his point exactly. It is something which I shall take into consideration. The noble Lord need not think that I am trying to fob him off. I want first to establish that in my view it is from the courts—indeed, from the Court of Appeal—that this kind of guidance should come. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, for his inter-
952
vention. I take the point that the track record of the Court of Appeal in relation to Upton, Bibi and so on is extremely convincing. I hope your Lordships will note that, as my honourable and learned friend the Minister of State indicated on Third Reading in another place, we can be confident that the Court of Appeal will doubtless take it upon themselves to provide guidelines in exactly the way noble Lords wish. I would refer the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others who feel that this kind of guidance ought to be on the face of the Bill not only to the actual detectable effect of the advice given in Upton and Bibi, which appears to be already becoming apparent, but also to the fact that where the court gives this guidance it will be able to do so with the authority of its own experience of sentencing and with the advantage that it will not require, as my noble friend's amendment would require, the passing of another statute through both Houses of Parliament if experience shows that the guidelines need to be either modified or expanded.
The argument that custody fails, on the evidence of reconviction rates, does not establish that cheaper community-based treatment will succeed. The courts will not therefore necessarily accept the view that a custodial disposal is better. The guidelines in that respect are admirable, but are they effective? They leave it to the courts to decide, as they do now, whether custody is necessary because of the seriousness of the offence. It would be far better to let the Court of Appeal spell out the considerations in detail. That method gives to the courts an element of flexibility which would be denied to them by legislation, because cases will arise from time to time when the statutory principles cause difficulty on particular facts.
There can be no doubt that we are all after the same thing. I am content that guidance of the kind wanted will be provided by the Court of Appeal with greater authority and with greater flexibility than can be provided in your Lordships' House by this means. I hope my noble friend will feel able to accept this reassurance as in fact achieving what she wants with more certainty than the amendment which is now on the Marshalled List.
.36 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: I speak as one who will not forget what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, looks like, even if she were sitting behind me on these Benches—as, indeed, I hope she will one day. I waited to intervene because I was not entirely sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was going to argue that this amendment is unnecessary or whether he was going to argue that it is inadequate. As I followed his argument, he is not saying that it is inadequate. He is not suggesting that there are other criteria, apart from those set out in the amendment, which the courts should consider in deciding whether to impose a custodial sentence. Therefore, the only basis for the difference of opinion that has emerged during the course of the debate is whether it is unnecessary or whether it serves a useful purpose to set out what appear to be commonly agreed criteria in the statute.
I can only say that for my part I should have thought that it would have helped not only magistrates but also recorders and judges to have the criteria set out in this simple and clear way and in a form which will make

953
them, at the end of their decision, have to say in terms on what basis they have imposed a custodial sentence. I accept that the noble Lord the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, have a point in saying that there may be a role for the Court of Appeal, but I doubt whether it is right for your Lordships to hand over the whole of the responsibility to the Court of Appeal in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, says, for example, that if we include the words "the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified" they may require further clarification. I respectfully agree with him. This is surely the area where the Court of Appeal should come in and say what is meant by a somewhat general term of that nature. However, on the issue as to whether or not it is unnecessary to include a clause of this nature defining the criteria, I should have thought there was a great deal to be gained for judges of all sorts and magistrates at all levels and nothing whatever to be lost.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has just said. In a curious way, it is not flexibility that one wants. The fact of the matter is that there has been flexibility of different minds in different courts up to now. If we have too much flexibility, we shall be right back to the situation where those of us who have worked in different courts know full well the different decisions which different courts will come to on the same kind of case. Therefore I support what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said and agree very strongly that it is the guidelines which are necessary which should be set down, which still leaves room for the Court of Appeal to make additional moves, if they so wish.
Viscount Ullswater: My noble friend Lady Faithfull said at the beginning that she was speaking to the three amendments together. Clause 5 deals with imprisonment for default. It also says that no court can commit a person unless there is no other method of dealing with him which is appropriate. In default of a fine, somebody can receive a prison sentence but there is no way of providing that another form of alternative sentence is available. For instance, community service orders are not available to the originating court, because it would not be an imprisonable offence if only a fine could be imposed. I would like to clear up whether instead of being sent to prison for default of a fine, a community service order could be instituted.
Lord Elton: I take it that that question is addressed to the mover of the amendment. In any event, I think that we are focusing our attention on the essentials of this issue and it is simply a question of what will be more efficacious in doing what we all want. Some noble Lords say that it is best done in tablets of stone which can only be chiselled away by all the stages of another statute, and that the corners and the commas should be rounded and inserted by the Court of Appeal. I can only say that the guidance given by the Court of Appeal will be binding on the lower courts. I do not doubt that it will be extensive and specific, and not simply in the form of a check list which the lower courts can tick off, as has been suggested. The sentencing courts will have to take
954
into account the statutory requirements and the principles which the Court of Appeal lays down. The reasons for these will be recorded and will be open to appeal. I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett.
I regret to be at issue with some of my noble friends as well as with noble Lords opposite. I am content to rest my case because I believe that it is the right way to proceed, and that I would be supported in this by the judiciary. I believe also that it gives an opportunity for law to evolve rather than go jerking about from one piece of legislation to another. I still hope that my noble friend Lady Faithfull will see fit not to pursue the matter further.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he say if he can conceive of any circumstances in which the Court of Appeal's guidance would conflict with the words proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for insertion in this Bill?
Lord Elton: I can well conceive a pattern of the guidance far wider than that which my noble friend proposes and some parts of which would not be in precise accord with what she says. I do not see any point in having unnecessary, overlapping grids of guidance when we have the expertise and experience of the Appeal Court of this land, which can be adjusted to meet circumstances as they change, rather than placing immutably on the statute book something smaller and bolder, and therefore rougher and readier.
The Earl of Onslow: If the Court of Appeal will have to lay down these guidelines at some future date, would it not be better to put them in the statute book now so that everybody knows what it says, and then we do not have to go to the Court of Appeal?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I should like to follow that by suggesting that is essentially a policy matter, on which Parliament is to give guidance. It is neither fair nor appropriate that we should simply "pass the buck" on to the judiciary. This is for Parliament to legislate on. I co not believe that the judiciary would be unhappy about being given guidelines such as these. I think that we ought to go forward and support these amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: I feel like a desembodied voice, standing behind my noble friend. Would my noble friend Lord Elton like to look at me? To the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I will say that I am committed to these Benches but I thank him for inviting me to the Liberal Benches. Could I first take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. Obviously he is very well versed in these matters, but perhaps I could say, with the utmost diffidence to magistrates, that not all magistrates know what goes on in the Court of Appeal.
Secondly, social workers and probation officers are the people who make recommendations and provide social inquiry reports to the courts. The courts have the final say but I believe that two magistrates in our House would possibly concede the point that they are influenced by what is said in the probation officers' and social workers' reports. I regret to say that they

955
also do not always know what the Court of Appeal has said. It is a question of the whole climate of opinion, and I am not all sure that we can even wait for these Court of Appeal judgments to be issued and worked upon.
My noble friend the Minister talks about the formula. I believe we must concede that a formula is necessary. My noble friend agrees that the formula is necessary but what he does not agree upon is where it should come. If he agrees that a formula is necessary, then why could it not be in the Bill? I hope that I remain to my noble friend the Minister a disembodied body because I am afraid I feel that I must divide the House on this issue.
5.46 p.m.
On question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 81.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kagan, L.

Auckland, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Avebury, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Bacon, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Balogh, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Banks, L.

Listowel, E.

Barrington, V.

Llewelyn Davies of Hastoe, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bishopston, L.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blyton, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mar, C.

Brockway, L.

Melchett, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Milverton, L.

Byers, L.

Molloy, L.

Cairns, E.

Mottistone, L.

Chitnis, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Onslow,E.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Craigavon, V.

Peart, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Plant, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rochester, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Shinwell, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Simon, V.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Spens, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stedman, B.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Forester, L.

Stone, L.

Gardiner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gosford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Greenway, L.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Trumpington, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ullswater, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Hunt, L. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wade, L.

Ilchester, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ingleby, V.

Walston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

James of Rusholme, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

956

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Long, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lyell, L.

Allerton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Avon, E.

Marley, L.

Bathurst, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bellwin, L.

Merrivale, L.

Beloff, L.

Mersey, V.

Bessborough, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cathcart, E.

Newall, L.

Cockfield, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Daventry, V.

Orkney, E.

Davidson, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

De La Warr, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Radnor, E.

Dormer, L.

Reigate, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Ferrers, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E.

Selkirk, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sharples, B.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Gowrie, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swansea, L.

Harvington, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hatherton, L.

Teynham, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Torphichen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Kilmany, L.

Westbury, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert (" because it appears to the court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 6, I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 6 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 18, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships may find it to the convenience of the Committee if, in moving Amendment No. 6, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 176, and 180. I am pleased to bring forward these amendments to give effect to an undertaking which the Government gave during the passage of the Bill through another place. The Government were strongly pressed to provide that a court should always and invariably consider a social inquiry report before imposing a custodial sentence on a young offender.
May I in parenthesis address myself to a question which I think is exercising the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps the noble Lord, the Chairman of the Committee would allow me to say that Amendment No. 7 is consequential on Amendment No. 4, which has fallen, or, if you happen to look at it from the other side, stood up. Therefore, it does not relate to this debate. All I can do is to congratulate those with whom I disagree on their victory and look for their magnanimity.
Reverting to Amendment No. 6, I am glad to bring forward these amendments to give effect to an undertaking which the Government gave during the passage of the Bill through another place. The Government were strongly pressed to provide that a court should always and invariably consider a social inquiry report before imposing a custodial sentence on a young offender. That was difficult because there would sometimes be cases in which a rigid requirement of that kind would operate in a ridiculous way. Such a case might arise where, for example, the court after a long trial already had a great deal of information about the offender and his circumstances and the offence was so serious that a substantial custodial sentence was absolutely unavoidable. It would clearly be wrong if in such a case the court had to adjourn the case before sentence simply because its information did not happen to be in the form of a social inquiry report.
After long debate there was general agreement that a court should normally consider a social inquiry report before passing a custodial sentence on a young offender, but that it should be able to dispense with the requirement where, in the circumstances of the case, it thought such a report unnecessary. That is the provision which this new clause makes.
The Government have taken the opportunity with these amendments to offer a slight rearrangement of the opening clauses of the Bill. This new clause incorporates the provisions which now appear in subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 1. Clause 1 sets out the general principle that a court may not impose a custodial sentence on a young offender unless it is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate. The new clause elaborates on that provision by providing that the court should usually consider a social inquiry report, and that it must take into account any information before it which is relevant to the young offender's character and his physical and mental condition. A magistrates' court must state and record the reasons for its opinion that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate and, if necessary, its reason for dispensing with a social inquiry report.
This clause improves and strengthens the Bill. It serves to emphasise that custody should always be a last resort and that any decision to impose a custodial sentence should be arrived at only after the fullest consideration of all the circumstances of the offender as well as the offence. I urge the House to accept these amendments.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The Committee will be grateful, or at least we on this side of the Committee will be grateful, to the noble Lord for having met the strongly expressed opinions in another place commending the view that before a custodial sentence is imposed on an
958
offender under 21, the court should consider a social inquiry report unless there are special reasons which make that course unnecessary. Where there are such circumstances the court should give its reasons why it considers this unnecessary. This is a helpful amendment and I think that it will greatly assist the courts in the application of these clauses.
Lord Wigoder: I should like to raise one matter to ensure that I have understood the position. If and when these amendments are carried, as I understand it Amendment No. 7 will not now be called. Amendment No. 7 is consequential to Amendment No. 4 which the Committee has just supported. As I understand it, the position is—and I would be grateful for the Minister's confirmation—that if these amendments are carried, Amendment No. 7 will not be able to be put, but at the Report stage Amendment No. 7 will be re-tabled to come in at the appropriate stage after the new Amendment No. 9 and subsection (4). It will, in effect, then follow on as it would have done had these new amendments not been proposed.
Lord Elton: I think that perhaps I was injudicious in my intervention at the beginning of my introductory speech because the noble Lord has looked at what the noble Lord Chairman said. It would seem that we are to remove a part of the Bill which is to be amended by Amendment No. 7, although it is a consequential amendment. When I was doing my preparation I had not made the assumption that the last Division would go against me and that is why I drew that conclusion. It will be for my noble friend not to move Amendment No. 7, but to do what is appropriate at the next stage of the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I cannot call Amendment No. 7. The next amendment is Amendment No. 8.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
(" (9) For the purposes of this Act the age of a juvenile or young person found guilty or pleading guilty to an offence shall be deemed to be the age of the person at the date of the commission of the offence.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and myself. The purpose of this amendment is to supply what we believe to be essential information—an essential factor—in regard to the general purpose of this clause. Clause 1, as your Lordships are well aware, has to do with the general restrictions on the custody of young people. In the previous subsection—subsection (8) as it stands at the moment, which is the last subsection —there is reference to the matter of age. As your Lordships will see, it says:
" For the purposes of any provision of this Act which requires the determination of the age of a person by the court or the Secretary of State his age shall be deemed to be that which it appears to the court or the Secretary of State (as the case may be) to be after considering any available evidence ".
It seems to us that there is something missing. I have never sat on a Bench myself, but it seems to me

959
that in determining the disposal of a young person, the age of that person at the time either of the arrest or of the sentence—or could it be, as we believe, at the time he or she committed the offence?—is totally relevant to the kind of disposal.
If the young person is below the age of 14 he or she cannot be committed to custody and, depending on the length of sentence which the court deems it correct to impose, the person may be sent to a detention centre or to youth custody. To some extent a relevant factor must be the age of that person. It seems to us sensible to relate the age of the juvenile to his offence or to relate the offence to the age of the juvenile at the time when he or she committed it. It is as simple as that. I hope that your Lordships will agree that there is something missing from the Bill as it stands at the moment and that the Minister will be able to see the ommission, agree it, and put it into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: On the face of it this would seem to be a very helpful and sensible amendment. But I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and those who may agree with him, have considered the principle that is summed up in the old Latin tag, nullum tempus occurit regi—there is no limitation in criminal cases. Indeed, somebody can be brought up before the court for an offence which he or she committed years before. Therefore, if in principle this amendment is right, an exemption would have to be added because it really would be quite absurd if, for example, a person committed an offence at the age of 16 or 17 but did not come before the courts until he was in his middle twenties. It is obvious that when he does eventually come before the courts the principles of sentencing which apply to people of the age at which they do come before the courts, should apply. Therefore, I do not see how your Lordships could accept the amendment as it stands, but perhaps my noble friend Lord Elton will be able to clarify this matter.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: This is a probing amendment. The point is that as it stands it seems unsatisfactory that the magistrate sitting on the Bench does not know at what period he has to take the age before he decides what to do with the offender. If that is not the case, we should be very happy to withdraw the amendment. It seems to me that there is a gap here. I do not wish to say what ought to be the case; we have put down what seemed to us to be correct. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, says that it will not "go"—all right, but something should go. It should not be up to the magistrate to say, "Well, you were 14 when this crime was committed but you were only convicted when you were 15 and, therefore, I shall treat you as 15". He ought to know which it is. It seems to me that the situation is wrong.
I should like to mention one other matter that is wrong. In the third line of the amendment, as printed on the Marshalled List, the word should be "commission" and not "committal".
The Earl of Onslow: I should like to ask a question as somebody who has a totally open mind. Surely this is not something very new? The problem must have arisen since the beginning of the commission of
960
crime. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, might have got up to some appalling high jinks when he was 15 but to prosecute him now and to send him to the detention centre at Send to have a quick, short, sharp sentence would be really carrying things to an idiotic length. However, this situation must have occurred previously, but of course not to that extreme.
The point which I want to raise is as follows. Why is the age 21 and not 18? One can vote for my right honourable friend Mrs. Thatcher at 18, but if in one's exuberance at her winning the election one commits some foul deed, one is sent to a juvenile detention centre as opposed to a male prison. I should like to ask that question.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: It seems to us on these Benches that, as regards the question of the age of an offender in the context of any line that is drawn at law, the choice must really lie between his age at the date of the commission of the offence or his age at the time he is dealt with by the court. No doubt there are many situations that will render either of those two dates less than appropriate. But the lesser of the two evils, in our submission, is the date at which he is dealt with by the court.
In fact, that is the situation at present in relation to a court passing a borstal sentence. It has to consider the age of the miscreant and sometimes that in itself can be a problem, but it must decide that issue of fact as best it can. It has to decide the age at the date on which it deals with the particular offence. That is the position under Section 80 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948. Therefore; of the two evils that would seem to be the lesser in this connection.
Lord Elton: My Lords, my work has almost been done for me. My noble friend Lord Onslow, is, of course, right that the question has arisen before. He thinks that it was resolved at the moment when crime began; that was when Eve first picked the apple, and I think that the result was almost instant eviction, which is not an order appropriate to what we are now considering. But the usual rule is, as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has said, that a court should sentence an offender according to his age at conviction and sentence. There would be very absurd results if this were not so, even if some of the results are not altogether agreeable as things are now. Indeed, this is borne out in Clause 3(1)(a) of the Bill itself, which relates to detention centres if under 21 and over 14 when convicted, and the same for youth custody in Clause 5(1)(a). So I do not think that there is an omission on the face of the Bill.
I could illustrate this further but, as I say, I think that the work has been done for me. If the noble Lord wishes me to proceed further, I could point out other difficulties that will result from what he proposes, but the fact is that to award a sentence appropriate to a 16-year-old compared to, say, a 25-year-old would be rather absurd, and I think that the court has to decide on what is appropriate for the culprit at the time of his trial rather than for the crime at the time of its commission.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In regard to the biblical reference to the eviction from the Garden of Eden, it may help

961
the Committee to remember Mark Twain's famous observation that he would rather be outside the garden with Eve than inside it without her!
Baroness Trumpington: May I just ask, Eve who?
Lord Hunt: I do not think that your Lordships will wish me to detain the Committee very long on this amendment. As my noble friend has said, it was intended to be a probing amendment. I am still left with the impression that there is something to be said which is not said at the end of this clause with regard to this matter. I am in the weak position of not having any judicial experience myself, so I would not know whether the usual practice—which I now understand is to take the age as the age at conviction and sentence—is the normal and usual practice. If that is so, I personally am quite happy to leave it at that. But I would ask the Minister whether he would give a little further thought as to whether it would not be useful, as it is not in the Bill as it stands at the moment, to put it in at the end of this clause.
Lord Elton: I thought that I had made it clear that it is in the Bill, but in Clauses 3 and 5. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has pointed out that the usual practice is also based on statute, so I think I can assure the noble Lord that what he seeks to do is superfluous.
Lord Hunt: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the noble Lord withdraws it, can my noble friend give me some answer as regards the age of 21 as opposed to the age of 18? It may not be the appropriate place to ask this question, but it seems to me to be a relevant point.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend afterwards, because I have not actually grasped the point, and we wish to get on with the Committee stage.
Lord Renton: I think I mentioned that the Committee on the age of majority some years ago decided that the criminal provisions, such as provisions relating to sentencing, the age of various criminal liabilities, and so on, should not be touched by their recommendations. I think that that must be the answer to my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments but perhaps I may draw attention to the fact that, thanks to the success of my noble friend Lady Faithfull—with whom I did not vote I must confess, but nevertheless I congratulate her—we now have two additions to Clause 1 in precisely the same terms, and neither of them very brief. I hope that if these provisions are to remain part of the law and if the Government are not to try to get them reversed somewhere, somehow, the draftsman may be invited to collate them so that we do not have repetition.
962
The other point I wish to make is as follows. This is a very important clause because it replaces Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. Of course, there have been three Criminal Justice Acts since the war, several Criminal Procedures Acts, Magistrates Courts Act—a vast amount of legislation—in most of which some of us, in one place or another, have taken part. I have regarded all the statutes dealing with the criminal law and its application as experimental. Perhaps I may make a confession to your Lordships. I was largely responsible for the much maligned Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961. At the time it was fairly controversial and I never expected it to last 21 years. Under Governments of both complexions that is what it has done, but, speaking for myself, I shall be gald to see the back of it.
Lord Elton: The only point of substance which my noble friend raised was to ask us to have a look at the technicality which my noble friend has placed upon the face of the Bill, and of course we shall do so.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
(" Social inquiry reports etc.
.—(1) For the purpose of determining whether there is any appropriate method of dealing with a person under 21 years of age other than a method whose use in the case of such a person is restricted by section 1(4) or (5) above the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances and shall take into account any information before the court which is relevant to his character and his physical and mental condition.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the court shall in every case obtain a social inquiry report for the purpose of determining whether there is any appropriate method of dealing with a person other than a method whose use is restricted by section 1(4) above.
(3) Subsection (2) above does not apply if, in the circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain a social inquiry report.
(4) Where a magistrates' court deals with a person under 21 years of age by a method whose use in the case of such a person is restricted by section 1(4) or (5) above, it shall state in open court the reason for its opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate.
(5) Where a magistrates' court deals with a person under 21 years of age by a method whose use in the case of such a person is restricted by section 1(4) above without obtaining a social inquiry report, it shall state in open court the reason for its opinion that it was unnecessary to obtain such a report.
(6) A magistrates' court shall cause a reason stated under subsection (4) or (5) above to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.
(7) No sentence or order shall be invalidated by the failure of a court to comply with subsection (2) above, but any other court on appeal from that court shall obtain a social inquiry report if none was obtained by the court below, unless it is of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case it is unnecessary to do so.
(8) In determining whether it should deal with the appellant by a method different from that by which the court below dealt with him the court hearing the appeal shall consider any social inquiry report obtained by it or by the court below.
(9) In this section "social inquiry report" means a report about a person and his circumstances made by a probation officer or by a social worker of a local authority social services department.").
The noble Lord said: This is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders for detention of male offenders aged 14 to 20]:
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert—

(" (1A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a higher number for the minimum number of years of age for the time being specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above.

(1B) An order shall not be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: This is an amendment which does not ask Her Majesty's Government to do something at the moment, but which looks into the future when we may think of children of school age being dealt with in the education system instead of in the penal system. From the point of view of figures, we have noticed that it is the older children or young persons who commit the most difficult crimes with which to deal, and we feel strongly that as a future policy we should consider and work out how children of school age should be kept in the education system, and not the penal system.
I speak with great feeling here, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat what I have said before in your Lordships' House. During the time that I was a children's officer and director of social services only six children in those 18 years went into a penal institution. The remainder were kept in the education system or in the care system of children's homes. I think that it is this to which we should work towards, even if we cannot achieve it now. Therefore, the meaning of this amendment is to make it possible
" by statutory instrument [to] substitute a higher number for the minimum number of years of age for the time being specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above ".
That is really the substance of this amendment.
We have continually talked of the number of young children and young persons going into custodial care who really could be dealt with in the community, and I shall not continue with that. It is distressing to prison and borstal governors when they find themselves dealing with juveniles, and it is distressing to the staff of those institutions. Perhaps most significant of all is that the present Government have themselves accepted the desirability of ending prison department custody for juveniles, but they have done so in another part of the United Kingdom; namely, Northern Ireland.
In 1979, the Black Report on Legislation and Services for Children and Young Persons in Northern Ireland made the controversial recommendation that, except in the case of very serious offences, all existing custodial and residential sentences for juveniles should be amalgamated into a single determinant residential order. The Black Committee recommended that this order should be reserved for those who are clearly a threat to society, and proposed that those sentenced under this order should go to a mixed secure establishment with a régime which could be as helpful and supportive as possible.
However, the then Minister of State for Northern Ireland told the House of Commons Northern Ireland Committee on 5th November 1980 that the Government accepted these proposals. He added that new residential establishments for juvenile offenders would be run by former training school staff and not by
964
prison staff. With justifiable pride, he pointed out that following these changes Northern Ireland would be one of the first areas in Europe which would no longer accommodate children in adult penal institutions. Therefore, I move this amendment in the hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it, bearing in mind that this is what we should move towards. I beg to move.
6.23 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It is an interesting and important amendment. It is doing something which I hope we will see done in this Bill. It is bringing something creative and looking towards the future, and following a particular philosophy which we try to embody more and more in the field, which is to move away from the custodial side into the non-custodial side when dealing with penal offences. In this part of the Bill, where we are dealing with young offenders and juveniles, it is appalling to be reminded so many times as we go into these amendments of the rise in the numbers of juveniles going into custody.
Furthermore, when we have to accept that the rise in the number of juveniles in custody has no parallel among the older age groups, even today, it makes one gasp. Apart from the awful aspect of so many youngsters in custodial care, and I will not rehearse the arguments on previous amendments where we have shown what the rate of recidivism is, what we are doing is to create future generations of prison occupants. It is becoming this vicious penal circle, and it is something that we should stop.
This amendment opens a window of fresh air to the future and is saying that the minimum age should be able to be raised. In looking into this amendment, which is supported by the all-party Penal Reform Group, I was impressed that not only the prison and borstal governors share this view, but the probation officers and social workers. When the comments came out on the parliamentary all-party Penal Affairs Group report, Young Offenders, a Strategy for the Future, the Police Federation also expressed its support for the phasing out of prison department custody for juveniles. It is interesting that one has this all round support.
It is important to show in this major Bill that we are moving towards the future and not staying put in the unfortunate rut in which we find ourselves today in this great area of dealing with juveniles and young offenders. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept this amendment. If there is anything in the drafting that does not please him, what we are concerned with is that the spirit and intention of it should be incorporated into the Bill.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I wanted to say something and it seems to me that this is the right part of the Bill at which to do so, in view of the noble Baroness's amendment. Last weekend I was sitting next to the former Lord Mayor—deputy now—of Birmingham, who was the chairman of the committee of social services. I was fascinated by what he had to tell me in that large and difficult city. He, as chairman, had been round to all the establishments run by the social services. He had found that those establish-

965
ments were in no cases full. He had, therefore, closed some of the establishments, but he had made a specific point of taking out the social worker from each of those establishments and he had formed them into a fostering committee. He had organised them into this committee, and they had been sent into the City of Birmingham to find fostering homes for these children. It was not only for delinquent children, but others who needed to be removed from the care of their own homes. I am only telling your Lordships this because it seemed to me that this might be a way ahead for certainly some of our big cities.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I would support the noble Baroness who has just spoken about fostering, which is one of the most important remedies open to us. I do not know whether it is strictly applicable to this amendment. All that I want to say about this amendment, because it has been fully discussed by the noble Baroness who moved it and my noble friend on the Front Bench, is that I want to give just an impression of total gloom. Everybody that I know who is connected with penal affairs thinks that it is a mistake, where it is avoidable, to send children—and by children, I mean youngsters up to 18, anyway—to prison.
Every magistrate you speak to says the same thing. Every judge says the same thing. Yet the increase in custodial sentences since 1965 has been five fold. That is less than a fifth of the percentage rise in crime. So it is a real increase in courts sending juveniles to prison. This may be inevitable. They may be so clearly evil that there is no other way of treating them, but I do not believe it. On the other hand, I do not think that either magistrates or judges are telling anything but the truth. I do not know what on earth is the answer, but it is a nasty situation that exactly the opposite of what we all think ought to happen is in fact happening.
During the past 20 years the proportion of convicted adults received into custody has been more than halved. During the same period, the proportion of juveniles receiving custodial sentences has more than trebled. I am not giving any answers. I am only saying that I am thoroughly worried, and the least we can do in this Committee tonight is to persuade the Government to leave it open to themselves to improve the situation by raising the age as soon as the opportunity arises.
Lord Hylton: It is relevant to mention in connection with the amendment the experience of the alternative probation project which has been running for five years or more at Farnham in Hampshire. It was conceived originally as a new way of doing probation, but in the process it was discovered that most of the young offenders coming into it had either missed school or failed to benefit from school. Therefore they built into the whole project an educational component. That is why I support the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in all she said about keeping children in education and not doing custodial sentences of one kind and another. I hope the Government will take the matter very seriously.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have a short suggestion for my noble friend the Minister. Would he agree that the amendment imports a desirable degree of flexibility in an area where flexibility is desirable?
Lord Elton: Part of the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, seeks, rests in other parts of the Bill, and I am sure my noble friend will accept that our principal intention in the Bill is to reduce both the numbers in custody and the duration of custody—to increase the confidence of the courts in non-custodial sentences—and thereby to reverse a progress which we all deplore. But 1 do not think my noble friend believes any more than I do in what I would call aspirational legislation. The fact is that even she, in her lengthy and enlightened régime at Oxford, was constrained to see six children consigned to penal institutions. There will always be cases, I regret, when younger as well as older young offenders, however few, will be of a nature when they will have to be so contained. That is the reality of the situation. I wish it were otherwise, but we have a duty to deal with things as they are and not things as we would like them to be.
The whole burden of this part of the Bill is to direct the courts very strongly away from the use of custody for young offenders, but we do not intend to deprive them of that power in the most serious cases. The amendment seeks to insert a provision which would enable the Secretary of State to present a draft order to raise the minimum age for detention centre orders. It is in one sense a statement of aspiration, as I said, for the future, but it is wrong to put on the statute book any provision which has no real prospect of being brought into use. There was a reference to the Black Report in Northern Ireland. I have to say that the recommendations of the Black Report have not been implemented. There is a great deal to be said for them, but they could not easily be applied here and my noble friend read out the passage in which an exemption was made for the very people to whom I am referring—very serious offenders: for those we have to make provision.
If the proposals were fully implemented, there would be major changes in the framework of the juvenile justice system, but it has not been possible over the last 13 years to implement in full the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. Again, this is aspirational legislation which may feel like a window open to the future, but it is one through which it is impossible to go. It has itself caused a great deal of uncertainty, not least for those who work with juvenile offenders, who simply do not know where they stand. If the amendment were accepted, the staff of junior detention centres would ask us, quite rightly, what use we intended to make of the provision, and the truthful answer would have to be, alas, that we saw no real, foreseeable prospect of being able to use it because it would close the option for that limited number of people for whom, I regret, it will always be needed.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the Minister for that reply. I appreciate what a difficult amendment it is and the fact that possibly we may all have to work to prove it is necessary and to bring it in at a later stage. I was always taught to hitch your wagon to a star. I believe one can help young offenders. I do not take the gloomy view of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. I think we have got off the tracks but that we can get back on to them. Perhaps over the next few years we may try to get better relationships between the social services and education and we may try to help with the

967
new schemes that are being started and which are being monitored. There is a scheme, for instance, run by Barnardo's and the local authority in Pontefract, which is showing signs of improvement in an area of high delinquency, and I could give examples of many other areas. Therefore, I hope that, having brought the amendment before your Lordships, perhaps as the years go by we may completely alter the way we deal with juveniles, bearing in mind of course that there are some who, as my noble friend Lord Elton said, need a particular type of help because of their particular difficulties. I will not divide the Committee on the amendment at this stage. I will read what my noble friend said and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where reports indicate that a specific course of treatment is necessary (whether it be medical or otherwise) provision may be made exceptionally by the Court to extend the period of 4 months in order that treatment may be completed.
( ) Where the period of custody is extended in accordance with subsection ( ) above, the case is to be reviewed at 14 day intervals.").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will have seen that I have several amendments down. It may be convenient if I make a short preface to them all: I do not propose to move them together, but separately as we come to them, because they all deal with different subjects. On Second Reading I said I had been advised in the matter by a recently retired warden of a custodial establishment for delinquent girls in the London area. I slightly stress the London area because the theme of my amendments, and the questions I have to ask, may distress my noble friend Lady Faithfull somewhat in view of what she said; the general theme deals with the six whom she had to send to prison—repeated in the London area, as it were—and I suspect that in the London area there are rather more people who are too difficult to deal with under other circumstances than there are in other parts of the country, where it might be possible to handle them more reasonably.
I am grateful to my noble friend for the kind letter he wrote in response to my remarks on Second Reading. It was surprisingly confident, I would say, in referring to the ability of local authority personnel to handle what they are asked to handle. My advice is that in many parts of the country that is not quite the case, but I will leave it at that. All my amendments are probing—I have informed my noble friend of that—and are really asking him a series of questions and, as he knows what they are, hopefully I shall get some splendid, or at any rate meaningful, answers.
The problem is that there are types of medical and other treatment which last for more than four months. The question, therefore, is how the detention centre is to complete a course of treatment for drugs, solvent abuse, venereal disease or something of that sort when the cure may last for more than four months. That is really the substance of the question. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to my noble friend for narrowing the area of his concern in this amendment to the question of medical and other treatment in detention centres. The Committee will know that the intention is that the sentences shall be short, and I accept that it is possible that inmates might be partaking of courses of treatment of one kind or another which last longer than the sentences. The question that my noble friend is asking is: should we keep them inside the detention centres for longer than the sentences in order to see that the courses of treatment are completed?
I think that I can assure my noble friend that under any circumstances we should not wish to keep anybody in detention for longer than the sentence required, but equally we should not wish a person to be discharged into the community without proper medical supervision and the chance of completing a course of treatment. if the course of treatment were such that it could not be given in the detention centre, the young person would already have been transferred to the National Health Service, or to another part of the Prison Service where the treatment was available. If, on the other hand, the course of treatment could be carried out in such an establishment, then in the natural order of things, the medical officer would ensure that the detainee was put in touch with the National Health Service and that his treatment was not interrupted upon his release.
Lord Mottistone: Yes, I feared that my noble friend might say that, but really that is not an answer. The kind of people whom we are talking about, on being released from prison, even if they were put in touch with the local doctor, would not have the same approach as your Lordships would have to these problems. If we, at our great age, are put in touch with the doctor, we do not dare to go to see him. But if you are 14, 15, 16 or even in your early twenties, and you are told, "Gosh, you've got venereal disease, and you've got to complete the course, otherwise you are going to be a menace to society ", you do not care a fig for that, and you do not go to the doctor. It is a real problem. My adviser had this sort of problem.
Perhaps I may press my noble friend slightly. I would not necessarily expect an immediate answer, but I should like him to study the situation of people who will not comply with what one might call normal social pressures. What is to be done if the course of treatment is perhaps three-quarters complete when the sentence ends? What do we do to make sure that the treatment is completed?
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. There is another aspect to this problem, and it is concerned with the question, who is to treat the people involved? My experience is that at the moment in the psychiatric service one cannot get psychiatrists or mental hospitals to accept a patient if he is not willing to go for treatment. Those of us who have dealt to a considerable extent with drug addicts know that they will not go to a clinic. If the people in question are to be handed on to the National Health Service, will the NHS in fact take them? I ask that because my experience is that it will not take them.
Lord Elton: I must make it quite clear that the function of the prison service is not to cure the sick. We had lengthy debates in this area when considering the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, and it was then made quite clear the types of illnesses under which people could be detained because they suffered from them. Frankly, under those circumstances a person would not be in a detention centre, anyway. But if he were suffering from a lesser affliction, whether it be a social disease or a mental disease, we must remember that when the sentencing justice says to him, "You must take your medicine", he uses the term entirely figuratively. The young person is put inside for a purpose which relates to his misdemeanour, not to his state of health.
I consider that the prison service has a highly commendable record for close co-operation with the National Health Service in this field. What the noble Lord seeks to do is to extend periods of detention in order that courses of treatment which do not relate to the offence can be completed. I regret that that is not the function of the Bill; nor is it the function of the prison department.
Compulsory treatment outside the prison system, and indeed inside it, leads to very considerable difficulties, which we have discussed in very great length in this Chamber. My noble friend Lady Faithfull for one has taken part in such debates, and many of your Lordships whom I see sitting here are familiar with the issues. I should not think that we wanted to broach them now. The only reassurance that I can give to my noble friend is to say that this is an area which interests me, too, in particular in the mental health field, but also in the medical field. I have the matter under review. I believe that it might be possible to make things better than they now are, but they are by no means bad.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If I may intervene briefly, I would say that though I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has raised a matter of importance, I believe that there are arguments of principle against what he is proposing. As I understand it, the court would have the opportunity to extend a period of custody to ensure that a course of treatment is completed. I speak subject to correction from the Minister, but I know of no provision in the English law which has ever given a court such a power.
I might be wholly mistaken in that view, but I should like to cite one particular example of which I have some knowledge. It relates to the problem of mental illness, touched on by the noble Baroness. I think that doctors would approach with the utmost caution the question of wanting powers of this kind to be exercised on behalf of a person who had some form of mental illness. As I understand the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, the court would have the power to review the matter at 14-day intervals. I cannot think of a worse manner in which to approach a person suffering from a difficult psychiatric problem of one kind or another. Though, of course, completely aware of the reality of the issue described by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I do not believe that this is the way to deal with the problem.
Lord Mottistone: I hasten to dispel any opinion that I have been seeking to put through the amendment;
970
it is a probing amendment. My noble friend, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, went off and followed the hare that I wanted to put through the amendment. I want to put to the Government the fact that there is a very real problem involving the prison service and all that goes on there, local authority care, and doctors. In a sense they are all saying. "It's your job, not mine". There is a group of people whom it is difficult to convince that they must do something for the benefit of themselves, let alone the benefit of the community, and in effect they fall between the official bodies and so are not dealt with.
As I say, this is a real problem. I received a glimmer of hope from my noble friend when he said that he is desperately interested in the matter, and I trust that that might lead to some action in some way. I reserve the right to go on being a nuisance at the Report stage in one way or another in order to try to get something more solid out of my noble friend. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is different from the last one, though it is another probing amendment. At present there are no detention centres for girls. This point was mentioned earlier, and it was partly answered under Amendment No. 3 by my noble friend. I cannot remember to whose speech he was responding. I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—no, it was the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington.
My question is—and I hope that my noble friend will be allowed to listen to it—are detention centres for girls to be established? If not—and this is the key question—what provision is to be made for young female offenders? Your Lordships might recall that at Second Reading, speaking on advice that I had received, I told the House that it is the 14- to 17-year-old girls who have been involved in the biggest increase in vicious crime among any group of people in the last few years. What we are to do? So what provision is to be made for young female offenders?
Lord Elton: May I say first that all young offenders released otherwise than on parole will, on release, be subject to a period of supervision, and that supervision is integral. Perhaps your Lordships would bear with me for a moment. They will have to observe certain conditions, and the Government intend that these will be relatively simple and will relate mainly to keeping in touch with the supervisor. There must be sanctions if they are not observed. Clause 15 deals with the offence of breach of supervision and sets out the penalties, which are a fine of up to £200 or a custodial sentence of up to 30 days. The offence of breach of supervision is directly connected with the original custodial sentence. The courts should be able to remind the offender of the importance of supervision and of the need to comply with its conditions.
My noble friend was particularly interested in short sentences for juvenile girls. Under the provisions of the Bill the custodial sentences made available for

971
young women and girls broadly reflect the present situation. Girls aged 15 and 16 will be eligible for a youth custody sentence of over four to 12 months. Young women aged 17 and over will be eligible for youth custody sentences of 21 days or over, and custody for life. The Bill does not affect the power to order juvenile girls convicted of grave offences to be detained under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. No attempt is made to introduce a detention centre order for girls or a short custodial sentence for juvenile girls.
My noble friend is not I think anxious to claim that it is unjust to discriminate on grounds of sex by providing a short custodial sentence for boys aged 14 or over but not for girls. That is generally used to support the abolition of detention centre orders for juvenile boys; but there may be some noble Lords who feel that there should be a detention centre order or some other short custodial sentence for juvenile girls. There only has ever once been one such detention centre, Moor Court, which I had occasion to refer to earlier this afternoon. That is in Staffordshire, and was opened in 1962. As I said, it served only the northern part of the country, and had an average daily population of about 24 girls. So the scope of this problem is not an enormous one. It was closed in 1969; and, as I reminded your Lordships earlier, the Advisory Council on the Penal System came to the conclusion that the needs of the boys and the girls were so dissimilar that there was nothing wrong in having separate provision.
The number of girls who offend is very much smaller than the number of boys. The offending by the boys is on a much larger scale, as well; and the courts, I think, could not manage without the custodial sentence for the boys. The type of régime operated in detention centres is suitable for boys but not for most of the adolescent girls who commit serious offences.
The question is: where should they be put? The answer is that we feel that in those circumstances there are two sets of reasons why the age groups should be allowed to mix. One of them is the simple logistical one that there are too few to have a national provision without journey times being absolutely unacceptable. The other is that the nature of the female young delinquent, young offender, is such that the older offenders seem to have a steadying effect on the slightly younger girls, and therefore it is proposed that the provision for these girls shall be the same as for the older offenders.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that answer. The only point I should like to leave with him on this matter is that, having experimented with a girls' detention centre in 1962 and closed it in 1969 because there were to few people to occupy it, I understand that, sadly, the rise in the number of teenage female offenders has been such in the years since 1969 that he might well find that it would be wise to consider re-introducing such a place. Even if it was found unnecessary in the 1960s, in the 1980s the increase in crime among teenage girls might justify it. But having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, leave out lines 14 to 16.
The noble Lord said: In this case it says in the Bill:
" Subject to subsection (6) below, a court shall not make an order under this section for the detention of an offender…if it considers that his detention in such a centre would be unsuitable because of his mental or physical condition ".
My question then is: What alternative arrangements are to be made? The present problem is that medical units for the disturbed or addicted accept individuals on a voluntary basis only. If a young person does not want to stay, or absconds, then the necessary treatment and help is not received. What is the answer to this problem that my noble friend would care to give me? I beg to move.
Lord Elton: If a young offender is not physically or mentally fit for the régime at a detention centre, then ideally he should not be sent there, and we shall be debating this issue, I think, at greater length after dinner. If, on the other hand, he arrives there and proves not to be fit to pursue the tougher régime, he can be moved to a less demanding one. Furthermore, if he is seen by the court not to be fit either mentally or physically for a detention centre régime, then his sentence can be made one of youth custody and he will go to the establishment appropriate to that régime. I hope that answers my noble friend's question.
Lord Mottistone: I thank my noble friend for that answer. It is the best one I have had so far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
(" ( ) For the purposes of determining whether the detention of an offender in a detention centre would be unsuitable because of his mental or physical condition the court shall obtain and consider a report into his mental and physical condition ").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to require the courts to obtain a medical report before passing a detention centre sentence. I am well aware that such a practice is already widely in use, but no compulsory legislation exists and it is my contention that, in order to make sure that medical reports are always obtained, this amendment should be made to the Bill.
In 1972 Home Office Circular 179 drew the courts' attention to the demanding nature of the detention centre régime and pointed out that the régime is brisk and involves a vigorous and active day with comparatively little free time. That circular therefore stressed that the régime is unsuited for those with physical or mental handicaps likely to interrupt detention centre training. Despite this guidance there is much evidence to suggest that a considerable number of those entering detention centres are far from fit or stable young men either physically or mentally.
Since the new régimes were introduced, medical officers at the centres have made the decisions as to whether the boys received from the courts were

973
physically or mentally unfit to stand up to the rigours of the régime, and if they decided they were not then transfers to other establishments were arranged. Between 21st April 1980, when the tougher régimes were introduced at two detention centres, and the 25th January of this year, 81 trainees were transferred from New Hall and 107 from Send—around 7 per cent. of the trainees sent to those establishments. The Prison Officers' Association has expressed serious concern about the number of unfit boys being sent to these centres who then have to be tranferred elsewhere. I am sure that we would all agree with those sentiments. I find it hard to believe that anyone could argue against the fact that it would be much more sensible for information relating to the young person's mental and physical condition to be available to the courts in every case at the point of sentence. Why not? What are the difficulties? After all, no court can pass a community service order without considering a report as to the offender's suitability for community service. Far from fettering the discretion of the courts to pass the sentence most appropriate to the offence and to the offender, the availability of a medical report would help the court to pass the most appropriate sentence having regard to the state of the offender's health.
The other point is that in most cases the court already considers a medical report before passing a detention centre sentence. All this amendment would do is to extend that normal practice and make it invariable practice. There will be no delay because the courts in practice do not wait for long periods to obtain medical reports from general practitioners before passing detention centre sentences. In Home Office Circular 179, the following advice is given:
" In general, police surgeons in their private capacity would be the most appropriate doctors to perform the examinations since the scheme requires the attendance at short notice of a medical practitioner to examine the defendant within the precincts of the court or at an adjacent place, for instance, a police station. After examination, the practitioner would provide the court with a certificate indicating the fitness or otherwise of the defendant for detention centre training ".
The circular asks clerks of courts to make local arrangements for the attendance of doctors when needed for conducting such a medical examination. If there are areas where such arrangements are inadequate, then that is a case for improving the arrangements and not for rejecting the amendment.
I hope the Government will accept the amendment. It must be obvious that the case for requiring a medical report for detention centres operating the tougher régime is particularly strong; but the nature of even the ordinary detention centre régime is sufficiently exacting to make the consideration of a medical report desirable in all cases and not just in the majority of cases, as at present. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt: I am happy to support the noble Baroness, my colleague on the all-party penal affairs group. She covered the points that I would have covered. There are only three points that I should like to make. The first is that this: I would see the proposal as one more move towards achieving greater consistency between the courts than is the case at present. The noble Baroness mentioned the rigours of the detention centre régime which make severe physical demands and create a strong emotional impact on those who go through the régime.
974
The other point where I believe medical advice is needed is in regard to the temperament of the boy concerned; whether he is likely to react favourably to the régime or whether it is likely to aggravate those delinquent and criminal propensities which caused him to be sent there. I would doubt whether courts of law are sufficiently qualified to reach a decision on that without taking medical advice and psychiatric opinion.
Thirdly—and it is a simple administrative point—the noble Baroness mentioned the considerable numbers of young people who arc sent to the two borstals administering the short, sharp shock—nearly 200 of them in the course of 12 months. One must think of the amount of administrative work and the cost involved, quite apart from the disturbance that this causes the young offenders themselves. On those grounds, in addition to those put to your Lordships by the noble Baroness, I hope the amendment will prove acceptable.
Lord Wigoder: I endorse all the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It seems to me that what it is sought to provide is something which would at once be acceptable to most noble Lords; namely, that, in view of the régime at a detention centre, nobody should he sent there unless there is a medical report which indicates that the person is suitable for that sentence. Unhappily, so far as I can see, the Bill as drafted and the amendment as drafted do not achieve that at all, because of the rather curious way in which the Bill is drafted. The Bill puts it the other way round. What the Bill says is that the court shall not make an order if it considers that the person's detention would be unsuitable because of the mental or physical condition, and the amendment provides that, if the court wishes to determine whether it is unsuitable, there must be a medical report to that effect. This seems totally different from providing what I think most of us would agree should be provided—which is to put it in a positive way so that if the court makes an order it shall not do so unless there is a medical report specifying the medical and mental condition of the person in relation to whom the order is made.
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, but I think that the flaws in both the Bill and the amendment need to be turned round before we reach the next stage if they are to achieve what is sought.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I agree with the sentiments of the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches: it would be better if it were put in that particular way so that a court would not be allowed to come to that conclusion unless it had had the benefit of a medical report. I hope very much that the Government will be able to accept this amendment, for it seems to me that the arguments in favour of it are wholly irrefutable. The situation in law at the moment falls only barely short of what the amendment seeks to achieve.
Clause 1(6) says:
" For the purposes of determining whether there is any appropriate method of dealing with a person under 21 years of age other than a method whose use in the case of such a person is restricted by subsection (4) or (5) above the court shall obtain and consider information about the circumstances, and shall take into

975
account any information before the court which is relevant to his character and his physical and mental condition."
Furthermore, Clause 3(5) reads:
" Subject to subsection (6) below, a court shall not make an order under this section for the detention of an offender in a detention center—
(a) if it considers that his detention in such a centre would be unsuitable because of his mental or physical condition ".
The amendment advances the protection of the young person only slightly beyond that. Secondly, in so far as the situation on the ground is concerned, I am assured by those who deal with these matters day in and day out that in the overwhelming majority of cases reports are sought by most courts in any event—a point already touched upon by the noble Baroness.
Lastly, on the one hand, I do not think there is the slightest danger that the courts would be fettered at all, because this would enable a court to have greater information and to feel that it was more free in its scope to deal with the young person than if it did not have it. Nor, on the other hand, is there any real danger of delay. In the main, the reports need not be prepared by general practitioners. They can be prepared by police surgeons who are probably in a position to attend that very court to make such reports.
There is one further argument. It is that, if a report has been properly made, a court is in a position to consider the very sort of case that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, spoke about in his earlier amendments. If in fact a court knew that a youngster was suffering from the sort of conditions the noble Lord has described to us, then it would make a care order and that person would never end up in a detention centre at all. Therefore, if that full information is given at the right time, it is in everybody's interest.
The Earl of Onslow: There is one point I should like to raise in supporting my noble friend Lady Trumpington. If there were 87 people sent away from Send and a number from another place, surely this disturbs the régime in the detention centre, whose object it is, we all hope, to have a curative effect. I am sure it cannot be good for those who are undergoing a short, sharp, shock to see people coming in and going out for what they may feel are slightly unfair reasons.
The other point I should like to ask, although I do not necessarily expect an immediate answer, is this. Of those people who were sent away from Send, how many had undergone medical examinations at the point of sentence in the courts, and how many had not?—because if it is shown that none of them had been asked to undergo a physical or mental test at the time of conviction and sentence, it would seem to show that a medical test at court level would save time, trouble, money and administration. That would be very well worth while from their point of view and also, I would suggest, from our point of view and the point of view of the taxpayer.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: Very briefly, may I say I believe this should be absolutely mandatory. I would agree with the noble Lord who said that in the majority of courts that would obtain and they would have a medical—and especially if the magistrates concerned had been to a detention centre themselves.
976
I think this is important, and when I was at Send recently—though 1 do not want to harp on the fact that I have just been to see the institution—the warden tried to make the point to me that there were some boys who had been sent when they were not physically fit and he hoped that in future this would not happen.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Elton: I can travel a good deal of the way down the same road as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, did in dealing with the amendment proposed by my noble friend. I think I am right in saying that in her intervention just now my noble friend Lady Macleod had it in mind that had the magistrates been to detention centres in an inspectorial role, rather than a custodial role, they would certainly see that a medical report was furnished.
Let us see what the law already provides in this Bill. It goes a long way. First of all, the court must be of the opinion that no other method of dealing with the offender is appropriate. In deciding that, the court, under the new clause which the Government have introduced, must consider a social inquiry report in most cases. It must also take into account any information before it which is relevant to the offender's character and his physical and mental condition. It is further prohibited by Clause 3(5), as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said, from making a detention centre order if it considers that the offender's detention in such a centre would be unsuitable because of his physical or mental condition.
I think we have to trust the courts to some extent to satisfy themselves that they have the information they need to come to a proper decision, and they can obtain whatever medical, psychiatric or other reports they ask for. Even if they are placed under a statutory obligation to obtain a medical report in every case, which is what this amendment seeks to do, the ultimate judgment as to whether an offender is unsuitable for a detention centre will remain with the court.
Now let us see what would flow from a decision to amend the Bill in the way proposed by my noble friend. I think there is more than has so far been suggested. The court will have before it a young offender. It has already decided that nothing less than a custodial sentence will do. It has also decided that the sentence should be served in a detention centre. Such a centre is designed for people (and Clause 3 seeks largely to reserve it for such people) who have had no earlier significant custodial experience. The sentence can be for as little as three weeks.
What must the court now do? It will adjourn the case for a medical report and the young offender will be remanded. It has already been decided that by reason of the seriousness of his offence he should be detained in custody and, as most remands for this purpose are for three weeks, the result for the older age group will be a period of three weeks spent in a remand centre or a local prison while it is decided whether or not he is fit enough for a course of treatment designed for people who have had no experience of either.
That I think is a somewhat absurd situation; but I do take on board my noble friend's anxiety and I should like to say that the reference in Clause 3(5) to the offender's fitness is not, as she seems to think, a flimsy

977
shield for a weak offender against a savage régime. The centres themselves are not anxious to recruit weak or ailing inmates, and the truth is that it is simply not very convenient to have to deal in a detention centre with an offender who is in some respect not quite up to the régime. I will seek the breakdown of the statistics my noble friend Lord Onslow asked for, but I cannot instantly answer how many of those who were subsequently referred on were subject to a medical report.
However, allowances and concessions are made for offenders who are not up to the régime, and they will continue to be made for any who, in spite of the Bill, are found not to be fit when they are examined by medical officer on reception. The provision is aimed at those who are to receive custodial sentences anyway and is designed only to ensure that they go to the most suitable type of establishment. It is in the interests of the whole system, and not just of the offender, to get him into the right place; but I wonder if I could say something to help my noble friend. A procedure was established under the Home Office Circular 179 of 1972 for medical examinations to ascertain fitness for detention centres to be carried out at or in the vicinity of the court, usually by police surgeons. The purpose of the circular was to reduce the need for remands in custody for medical reports. It is still in force, but we do not know in what percentage of cases sentencing courts have the certificates of fitness before them when committing persons to detention centres. We think the percentage is quite small.
When the new custodial sentencing scheme set out in Clause 1 to 15 is brought into force, we shall be giving further information to the courts. I wonder whether my noble friend would be reassured if I undertook to draw this provision rather more forcefully to the attention of the courts so that we can avoid what may appear to be this embarrassingly high number of people who are wrongly allocated to more stringent régimes. I hope this will be of help.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: The noble Lord has made a very interesting and curious reply. He began by saying (and it was agreed by everybody) that it is very rare in cases of this kind for there not to be a medical report. He then told us it was impossible to arrange it in under three weeks; and he finally said he thought it could be arranged quite quickly. I am in a state of total confusion.
Lord Elton: I am so sorry to have brought the noble Lord into a state of confusion immediately before dinner. What I was saying was that, under the normal cycle, if somebody is remanded, typically he is remanded for three weeks for a medical report; and that comes from somewhere else. But there is provision, which is not at present properly used, as I understand it, for this report to be available more or less in the precincts of the court. I was saying that I thought it would be wrong to introduce into the Bill a procedure which would probably result in these remands but right if I could persuade, by administrative means, the courts to avail themselves of what is already available. It will be possible to monitor this by the number of people who are subsequently transferred. I think it will go down dramatically.
Lord Wigoder: Can the noble Lord say how long it would take an officer in reception to assess whether the person arriving is fit for the régime or not?
Lord Elton: No; I would have thought that a thorough medical examination for this purpose would not take more than hours; I do not think it would be measured in days. I could not say how many minutes there would be.
The fact is that, whatever other provision we have, I do not think those responsible for running such a centre would wish to dispense with that operation. I think that they would wish, for their own reassurance, to be certain that all was well with the people who went in with them. Otherwise, if something subsequently went wrong, there would have been negligence and they might feel themselves protected by a medical examination. So, if the noble Lord is seeking to save time in the detention centre, I have grave doubts about whether it would do that.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister very much indeed. His words have given me food for thought. Faced by a lot of hungry noble Lords, I feel that food for other parts is more important at the moment. I shall beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I may raise it again at Report stage when I have discussed it with my colleagues.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hylton: I should like to ask a very brief question —arising out of Amendment No. 11, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone—and I ask it in my ignorance. If it is clear to a court that offences have been committed in connection with, or closely linked to, alcohol, drug or glue abuse, is it open to that court, instead of making a detention order, to make a care order or some other kind of order, which will provide for medical treatment for such purposes as detoxification and, if possible, the prevention of future alcohol, drug or glue abuse?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Is not the situation this? If it is an offence which is punishable for an adult with imprisonment, then the Crown court or the juvenile court can make a care order?
Lord Elton: Indeed, it is. I was about to phrase it in a different way. I accept that.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that this is probably an appropriate moment to adjourn for dinner. We have other business during the adjournment, but it may be of interest to the Committee to know that I shall be proposing, when the other business is finished, that the House stand adjourned until ten minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Pilotage Commission (Additional Function) Order 1982
7.23 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Pilotage Commission (Additional Function) Order 1982. This order has been examined by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. They have considered an explanatory memorandum from the Department of Trade and I understand that they are satisfied as to the legal basis for the order. The order gives the Pilotage Commission the function of devising schemes to compensate marine pilots for loss of employment or reductions in earnings. It was envisaged in Section 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 that the commission's functions would be extended in this way. Subsection (2) provides that, subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses, the Secretary of State may by order confer on the commission such functions as he considers appropriate for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1). Subsection (3) states that such an order may provide for the making of compensation schemes by the commission.
I should like to take up a little of your Lordships' time to explain some of the background to this order. In recent years, and, more particularly, following the United Kingdom's accession to the EEC, there has been a substantial shift in the level of shipping movements away from the West coast ports of the United Kingdom, to East and South coast ports which offer the shortest routes to the major European markets. The growth of containerisation and the increase in the size of tankers has reduced the number of ships entering nearly all ports, and the worldwide recession has affected shipping more severely than most other economic activities. As a result, the demands on the pilotage service have reduced considerably in all ports. It is likely that demands on the pilotage service will be even further reduced, as more masters and first mates qualify to undertake their own pilotage in the approaches to those ports which they visit regularly.
I would explain to your Lordships that these masters and first mates are issued with pilotage certificates by local pilotage authorities, which effectively means that they do not have to take a licensed pilot when they enter a port. Until the passage of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, these certificates were issued only to British subjects, but, because of the obligation arising from our membership of the EEC, the 1979 Act made it clear that any EEC nationals who are masters or first mates of EEC flag vessels can apply for these certificates, and this significantly extends the potential number of holders.
A further very important factor is the need, which has been long recognised, for a major re-organisation of the structure of pilotage in the United Kingdom. The provisions on pilotage in the 1979 Act, which established the Pilotage Commission, provided the legislative framework under which the re-organisation could take place. The commission has started this work and it is clear that re-organisation will add still further to the number of surplus pilots. There are some 40 pilotage authorities responsible for the
980
organisation of pilotage in 78 pilotage districts in the United Kingdom. The best known of these is, of course, Trinity House.
The pilots themselves are self-employed, except in Orkney and Shetland, although I would explain that they operate within a regulatory framework which is made under pilotage legislation, and their earnings are determined by national agreement between pilot and shipowner representatives. But their self-employed status means that they cannot be discharged merely because the demand for their services falls away, partially or entirely. Indeed, incentives need to be devised if their numbers are to be reduced to the extent that is likely to be required. We do not yet know how many pilots will become surplus to requirements, but at present there are about 1,400 pilots and this could be several hundred too many.
The Pilotage Commission advises that there is little prospect of natural wastage leading to reduced manning levels, except over a period of many years. It has advised my noble friend the Secretary of State that, in order to make progress with reorganising the pilotage service, and, in particular, increasing the efficiency of that service, it is essential to devise a national scheme which will provide financial incentives for the voluntary surrender of pilots' licences, and my noble friend the Secretary of State has indeed accepted this advice.
The order that is before us this evening enables the Pilotage Commission to consider the form which these incentives might take. It does not, however, empower the commission to raise the finance that may be needed to implement any detailed scheme which it may propose. The approval of the Secretary of State will be needed for this and he has made it clear that he expects the commission to work in close consultation with shipowners, pilots and other interested parties. He has also urged on the commission the need to achieve early agreement between the parties and to give this the highest priority in its work programme.
I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I give some indications of the possible—and I hasten to stress the word "possible"—sources of finance; indeed, the commission is examining all possibilities. First, Section 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 empowers the commission to make schemes requiring pilotage authorities to make payments to assist the commission to meet expenses incurred in performing its functions. This would be in the form of a levy on pilotage receipts and it is entirely lawful for this levy to be passed on to the shipowner in the form of increased pilotage dues. But these schemes require the confirmation of the Secretary of State before they come into force.
Secondly, charges levied for the use of pilotage certificates could be increased by the pilotage authorities, subject to approval by the Secretary of State of the by-laws giving effect to these increases. Thirdly, the commission could, if it wished, borrow within its statutory borrowing limit and it could borrow such sums as it thought necessary. At present, the statutory limit is set at £200,000, but this could be increased by order to £500,000. But such borrowing, which need not be from the Government, would provide for perhaps part of the cost of a scheme to be spread over a period of years, with repayments being refunded through the levy arrangements which I have already outlined to

981
your Lordships. Fourthly, pilots themselves could contribute towards the cost of a scheme and payments would have to be agreed between the pilots and the promoters of the scheme. I am sure the House will appreciate that this would not be the sole source of finance. The number of pilots potentially surplus and the need to reduce their number quickly make this inevitable.
It is therefore likely that the main cost burden will lie upon the shipowner, although of course there will be major offsetting savings from the reduction in the pilots' earnings as more pilots leave the service. Some 70 per cent. of the pilotage dues in United Kingdom ports are paid by ships which are not registered in this country. Nevertheless, the charge which falls on the British shipowner remains substantial and the Government simply cannot disregard the adverse effect that additional charges would have on an industry which is already under intense financial pressure. Port authorities, too, are much concerned about anything which diminishes the competitiveness of the services which they can provide. The pilots, on the other hand, are deeply anxious about their livelihoods and about the maintenance of the highly skilled and experienced service which they provide to the shipping industry, and it is understandable that they should seek the best possible terms on which they would be prepared to leave the industry.
I have made these general points in order to attempt to identify the conflicting considerations that will need to be resolved by the commission when they make detailed proposals on the form and the funding of compensation schemes. Before my noble friend the Secretary of State confirms any scheme he will wish to be satisfied that an acceptable balance has been achieved. It simply is not possible to form judgments at this stage, and especially this evening. They must await the full consideration of the proposals of the commission when they come forward. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th May be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
7.35 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for explaining the draft order in such detail. Your Lordships will very much have appreciated the fact that the noble Lord was able to go into the amount of detail which he did in explaining the order. The order itself is not contentious but its results could be highly contentious. The noble Lord explained in detail the problems which have arisen and which have made necessary the laying of this order, but any scheme devised by the Pilotage Commission to induce a pilot to retire early is bound to create problems. The noble Lord himself underlined a number of the problems. Who, in fact, is to pay the inducement to persuade a pilot to retire early? Is it to be the shipowners? Is it to be the remaining pilots? Is it to be the Government? Or is it perhaps to be the European Economic Community? The shipowners are unlikely to be happy about paying this inducement as they will not derive any benefit from making this payment. The pilots themselves will not wish to see their earnings eaten into by having
982
to make a payment in this way. And I am sure that the Government themselves will plead poverty.
The noble Lord explained how this situation has arisen: that is, that, as a result of our accession to the European Economic Community, more traffic is coming into the east and south coast ports and less into the ports in the west. One would have thought that because it was a result of our closer links with Europe there would be a strong case for suggesting that we should expect some help from the European Economic Community in this way. One wonders whether the problems which the noble Lord indicated might be solved by natural wastage. In his introduction he did not give us any indication of the present age structure of the 1,400 pilots. Is the noble Lord able to give that information to the House? In view of the remarks which he made, I wonder whether the problem really arose in the ports on the west coast which lost trade as a result of the movement of trade after our accession to the European Economic Community. As it is now possible for EEC nationals to have pilots' licences, will there be opportunities for re-employment, in particular of some of the younger pilots, within Europe itself?
As the noble Lord indicated, there arc inevitably many difficulties in creating any scheme for compensating those who are self-employed. As the noble Lord indicated, United Kingdom pilots are self-employed in some 76 out of 78 pilotage districts. None of the items which is listed in the order will of itself make any of the pilots redundant in the normal way. The events described in the order would certainly reduce the amount of work available to pilots in a particular district and could result in their earning less than they do at present. I understand that at present average earnings are in the region of £20,000 per pilot. The only way in which those earnings can be maintained at their present level if the amount of work decreases is, as the noble Lord has said, by some pilots being induced to retire earlier. This order is about schemes to provide such inducement. In those circumstances, it would seem to be wrong for any scheme to have the effect of increasing the real cost of pilotage. I wonder whether we could have confirmation from the noble Lord that this is the Government's view. In his consideration of this point the noble Lord suggested that the shipowners might expect to pay a levy.
In conclusion, may I say that this order is basically a licence to think. However, it is important that the commission should know the views of the Government in order to avoid future disappointment and frustration when it comes to making the order. I hope that the noble Lord can give us an assurance that when he is in a position to lay an order your Lordships will have an opportunity to debate it.
Viscount Rochdale: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for the detailed and careful way in which he has led us through the order. May I also very much endorse what the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, particularly when it comes to the question of cost. However desirable may be a scheme that the commission puts forward, somebody has to pay for the cost of it. This is made more complicated by the fact that the pilotage industry is a self-employed industry

983
and the inducements to make a number of pilots withdraw from their work may be quite costly. Who is going to pay for it? Ultimately the cost must be met by pilotage dues.
Therefore the question that I should like to put to my noble friend, which is no more that underlining what the noble Lord opposite has just said, is, can we have some assurance that when the schemes are put forward, the Secretary of State will be very careful indeed to see that the ultimate cost is not higher and therefore a greater burden on the shipping industry than is the position today? This is immensely important when one considers the difficulty that the shipping industry has in many ways. It must be a question of reducing costs rather than allowing a scheme to go forward which will increase them. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some assurance on the Secretary of State's attitude to any scheme.
7.41 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I should like to follow the two other noble Lords who have commented on this order. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, I, too, have been advised that British shipowners are seriously concerned about the possible repercussions of this order. As has already been pointed out, it provides for the Pilotage Commission to made schemes under which payments may in certain circumstances be made by the Commission to compensate pilots and their assistants for loss of employment or reduced earnings. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made clear, the commission has no funds and no power to raise funds for this purpose—so these schemes, if they are to provide for payment, will, I presume, have to provide for payment by somebody else. The question is, who should that "somebody else" be? The right answer to that question seems to be different in each of the three sets of circumstances suggested in the order.
Before I refer to those, may I first comment on one statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who said that one possibility would be that contributions could be levied by the Pilotage Commission towards the cost of carrying out its functions. But the function which is being given to the commission is merely to draft a scheme and not to pay for the scheme. So I do not consider that that clause should be prayed in aid in getting the Pilotage Commission to raise a surcharge out its functions in this way, because it is limited to producing a scheme. I will just leave that for the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to think about.
The Secretary of State is not, of course, bound to approve every scheme put forward by the Pilotage Commission, but, where he does decide to do so, a further order will be required in each case. But that order would be subject only to negative procedure, and we all know how difficult it is effectively to stop such an order, which in any event cannot be amended. I ask this of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell: is it not incumbent on the Secretary of State to lay down some guidelines for the Pilotage Commission? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us that this is in his mind. This follows on what has been said already by other noble Lords, and I apologise if I am knocking at an open door.
984
It seems to me that where in any pilotage district the organisation has been improved to the extent that the same number of ships can satisfactorily be dealt with by fewer pilots, then something really has been achieved. 1 understand that in those cases it has already been agreed between the General Council of British Shipping on behalf of the shipowners and the bodies which represent the pilots that the net financial benefits shall be shared between the shipowners and the pilots. In those circumstances, one would hope that any scheme devised by the Pilotage Commission would follow that line.
As I see it, the position in regard to the grant of pilotage certificates is not so clear. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, explained what these certificates are. If, as a result of the 1979 Act, the number of these certificates is to be substantially increased following the extension of the privilege to citizens of the European Economic Community, thus reducing the demand for pilots, then payments may well be justified to enable some existing pilots to surrender their licences. But it would hardly seem reasonable for all the users of pilotage services to pay for that. I was interested in the suggestion that perhaps the EEC themselves might help. I was going to make the simpler suggestion that, since this is a matter arising directly from our membership of the EEC, the cost would properly fall on the Government.
Finally, in respect of the third category described in the order, where a reduction in demand for pilots results from falling trade, is there really any case for compensation? As has been said, the pilots are, at their own wish, self-employed persons. I do not believe that any other self-employed persons would claim or would expect compensation from potential clients or customers because their business was falling away. This seems to me to be rather a curious proposition.
I expect that all these propositions merit discussion. I am told that at the Joint Committee the Minister did say that he would insist that any scheme must be fair to the shipowners; I am sure he meant also that it must be fair to other people. But I do suggest that guidelines would be of considerable advantage to everyone, including the Pilotage Commission, and that these should be prepared in consultation with all concerned. I hope, too, that it will be made clear, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, stated so lucidly at the end of his speech, that no scheme can be approved if it will add to the cost of pilotage in any district.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful, as we are, for the tremendous interest which has been evoked by this apparently fairly simple order before your Lordships this evening. I am immensely grateful to the two noble Viscounts and noble Lord who have spoken. Clearly they have a great deal of expertise and have studied the order in detail.
Perhaps I may attempt to reply to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and by others who have spoken. If I do miss any points I am sure these will be carefully noted, and I will write if I have made any major omissions. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, asked me a number of questions. The first major point he raised concerned

985
the age structure of the pilots. As far as we are able to deduce, there are at present a little more than 1,400 pilots in the service. Approximately one-quarter of these pilots are over 55 years of age, and some 60 per cent. of the 1,400 pilots are between 40 and 54 years of age. the balance of about 15 per cent. are under 40 years of age. Although some of the older group of pilots may come up for retirement shortly, it could take up to 10 years before what we would call normal natural wastage leads to a significant reduction in the overall number of pilots. Given this age structure, and indeed this pattern, it would be obvious to your Lordships that a scheme for voluntary premature retirement will be one option the commission would wish to consider.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also raised the point that I mentioned in my comments about the West Coast ports, and the slightly differing structure of maritime trade with the United Kingdom, which has arisen from among other things the increase in containerisation and port handling and the pattern of maritime traffic. As regards West Coast ports in the United Kingdom that have lost their share of traffic, some of them are worse than others, but if we take one example, Milford Haven, which is oil traffic, this has not been affected by United Kingdom membership of the EEC.
The noble Lord also raised the question of job opportunities for pilots in other EEC countries if they were among those who took voluntary retirement or were surplus to the requirements of the pilotage districts here. This would be a matter for the member states of the EEC and it would depend very largely on their competence in the language and their knowledge of the EEC ports.
Certainly I would confirm that the Government would be reluctant to impose any increased charge on the shipping industry. That is a very major consideration in the thoughts of my noble friend, and indeed I believe of the Government, in looking at the possibilities of trying to raise funds for these purposes. I would also give a very very firm assurance that your Lordships' House would have an opportunity to debate any further order arising from the order that we have before us tonight. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, put much of the dilemma that is before the Government and the commission with the order tonight, by calling it a licence to think. I think that puts much of the matter in a nutshell.
My noble friend Lord Rochdale raised the problem of added expenditure as a burden to the shipping industry. There is the possibility that shipowners might have to pay to help out with the funds for compensation, but I would add that so would other interested parties, the pilots themselves and possibly port authorities. I would stress the comment I made earlier, that my noble friend will be very reluctant to impose any increased charge particularly on the shipping industry.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, raised several points. The first one, which I agree is particularly important, concerned the Pilotage Commission. I understand that the Pilotage Commission may lawfully levy charges on pilotage authorities already to provide finance to carry out its particular functions. Given the present order that is before us tonight, it would be a function which could use charges already
986
levied on pilotage authorities to promote the compensation schemes. So already the power to levy is there, and the uses to which those charges can be put, I understand, certainly are intra vires. Given the present order, this would be a function, and funds could be expended to see if one could promote the compensation schemes.
The noble Viscount was worried about the negative resolution procedure. I think it is quite in order and quite normal for orders of this nature to be subject to the negative resolution procedure, certainly in your Lordships' House. We have no doubt of the vigilance of all the interests in shipping, in pilotage and in maritime trade, and particularly the interests within your Lordships' House; we are confident that they would pick up any points and give very detailed scrutiny to any orders brought forward in this particular field. 1 would stress to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that my noble friend the Secretary of State has no power to impose guidelines on the commission. I think the whole process which he will follow from this order tonight will be very much one of thought and consultation.
My Lords, I hope I have covered the major points that were raised by the noble Lords who so kindly discussed the order before us tonight. If I have missed any points, I will of course fill in the details, and write briefly to the noble Lords who raised them. With that I commend the order to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982
7.57 a.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I beg to move, That the Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order, the draft of which was laid before your Lordships House on 20th May, be approved. On 2nd March we debated the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order. This, as your Lordships will remember, established a new Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. That first phase of the reorganisation of departments, following detailed reports on their organisation in the spring of last year, 1981, was completed by 1st April this year, 1982, and strengthened the control functions of the Civil Service.
The present order, the details of which were only decided when the earlier order had reached an advanced stage, and which therefore could not be included in that order, will permit a similar strengthening of the economic departments by amalgamating the present functions of the Departments of Manpower Services and Commerce in a new Department of Economic Development. Further, as a distinct operational arm of this new department, we intend to create a new Industrial Development Board, a distinct and commercially oriented organisation, which in our view is best suited to promote Northern Ireland's industrial development drive. This action, the creation of the new Industrial Development Board, will be much more fully debated when the House considers the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order in the near future. The board, however, will work closely with the rest of the new departments, where

987
functions such as energy, tourism, aircraft and shipbuilding, industrial relations and the new youth training programme are concerned. It will also handle the overall economic and industrial development policy. This new structure will enable us to plan more effectively for the future and to allocate resources where they are most needed. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th May be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for this explanation of this order. It is an important order as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, and, as I understand it, during the past few months there have been appropriate consultations and discussions with the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and with other bodies generally affected by the changes arising from the provisions of this order. I understand also that there has been detailed consultation with the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, representing the staff affected by the changes. From these consultations, I gather that there has been general agreement and favourable reaction concerning the Government's objectives in creating this new unified Department of Economic Development. It is generally expected that the new department should enable an improved and a more effective organisation of the Government's involvement in the industrial, commercial and manpower affairs in the Province—affairs vital to the future prosperity of the Northern Ireland people.
While we propose to give approval to this order, there are a few points which I should be grateful if the noble Earl the Minister could clarify, or on which perhaps he could give me some assurances. The noble Earl has mentioned the Industrial Development Board. That is a matter which we shall discuss at length on another occasion and, therefore, I do not propose to deal with it during our discussions on the order which is presently before us.
I should like to ask whether the order will bring about any reduction in the existing levels of staff employed in both departments? If so, in what divisions are the reductions likely to occur? There is no doubt that the new Department of Economic Development faces a colossal task in seeking to deal with chronic high levels of unemployment and in any efforts to surmount the problems and responsibilities of each of the functional divisions at present covered by the Department of Commerce and the Department of Manpower Services. These functional divisions are responsible for the Government's direction and policies over a wide range of matters affecting industrial investment, manufacturing and commerce, tourism, supplies of energy, mineral exploration and manpower policies which include training, employment services, youth employment programmes and industrial relations.
It is inevitable that the merging of the two departments will give rise to new administrative arrangements and staff changes. Can the Minister give an assurance that the momentum and the scope of the functions and services of these divisions can be maintained and improved during the changeover and the amalgamation
988
arrangements? Will there be any changes in the role or the remit of advisory bodies attached to some of these functional divisions?
The Minister will know from his experiences in Northern Ireland of the importance of manpower to the Province. In the process of the changes that are taking place in the setting up of this new Department of Economic Development, may I ask that the noble Earl will use his good offices in seriously exploring the usefulness of setting up a manpower advisory council with a remit to deal with management development, employment services and youth training, along with the other range of manpower matters? I feel that this would be an extremely useful proposal which I know is being examined at present by organisations in Northern Ireland, particularly in the manpower field. With those remarks from this side of the House, we wish to give approval to the order.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am very grateful for the very constructive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Blease, has received the order. On the staff side concerns I should like to reassure him that, while common personnel and financial services will be used by the whole new department where previously there were two departments, and that while this will allow savings of at least 15 posts, there are not enforced redundancies. Throughout the whole exercise there have, in fact, been discussions with the staff representatives about the implications of the changes and their attitude has been extremely constructive as has the attitude and action of all the staff concerned in the exercise.
I shall bring the noble Lord's point about the manpower council to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place who has specific responsibilities in that connection. As I noted when I opened, this simple order will permit a rather more effective organisation of Northern Ireland's economic institutions. Of course, we are not pretending in any way that such a reorganisation can solve the very intractable, indeed tragic, economic problems facing Northern Ireland, but it will I think enable us to apply our policies generally more efficiently and effectively and that can only help. As I have said, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has received the order and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House be now adjourned during pleasure until ten past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.5 until 8.10 p.m.]

Criminal Justice Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 [Consecutive terms and aggregate periods of detention]:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 15, leave out from (" that ") to ("; and ") in line 17

989
and insert (" the only appropriate method of dealing with him is to pass a custodial sentence on him ").
The noble Lord said: The Government thought it right to seek this amendment partly in order to harmonise the phraseology of the Bill, and partly to emphasise its purpose. In Clauses 3(1) and 5(1), we require a court, in dealing with an offender, to be satisfied that:
" the only appropriate method of dealing with him is to pass a custodial sentence on him ".
That is in negative terms, emphasising that no other method is appropriate.
Clause 4(5), on the other hand, expresses the same provision in the words:
" a custodial sentence would be appropriate for the offence ".
That has overtones of positive suitability, which we should prefer to avoid. This amendment changes that so that it is identical with the wording of the other two provisions. It therefore makes a small improvement to the text of the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I think that the proposed amendment is an improvement, and I agree with it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Youth custody: offenders aged 15 to 20]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 39, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: Once again, this is one of my probing amendments and it is significant that the provision in Clause 5(1)(a) applies to 15 year-olds and upwards. There seems to be no alternative provision for 14 year-old girls. Statistics show that the highest increase in female crime is in the 14 to 17 age group. I have noted in passing that Clause 3 copes with 14 year-old boys and, although I do not want to differentiate between the sexes on this, the fact is that 14 year-old girls can be just as vicious as 14 year-old boys. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell me whether there is any provision and, if not, why not. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: Paragraph (a) is an essential part of the framework within which the courts are to use youth custody. It sets the limits in terms of age and in terms of seriousness of offence. There is widespread concern about the use of custody for young offenders. The Government do not agree with all the restrictions yroposed for the limitation of custody on young offenders. But on the basic principle that it should be a last resort we do agree. That is indeed the principle on which the Bill is constructed.
But my noble friend again refers to the provision specifically for female offenders, this time in the younger age group. Really, my answer to the last amendment which my noble friend moved before the dinner break—I think it was the last one—holds good on this occasion. It is that, because there is no prospect of a sufficient number of customers, as it were, to justify a central, national provision, simply because it would be central, young female offenders have to be I
990
accommodated in places which are in other respects for older offenders. I sought to persuade my noble friend at that earlier stage that this was fortunately and coincidentally beneficial for the régime which they underwent. If it had not been so, it would have been a more difficult problem, but that is the way in which we tackle it.
Lord Mottistone: I appreciate that my noble friend was initially trying to answer the amendment as though it was straightforward, but I was not altogether happy—otherwise I should not have moved that amendment—that this particular point of the young teenage girls has really been hoisted in as a problem which needs to be tackled. When we are able to read Hansard and can see all that my noble friend has said, we shall perhaps get a thread of it. But I have a slight feeling that this is something which the Government would like to avoid—I am not talking about this Government but about any Government—and have been avoiding. It is a very difficult problem of how to deal with young teenagers, particularly the girls, who have become a great problem in recent years. So, having made that point yet again—and I shall probably make it again on subsequent amendments—I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithful Baroness Faithful had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 13, at end insert—

(" (1A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a higher number for the lower number of years of age for the time being specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above.

(lB) An order shall not be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 10, which I withdrew, saying that I would consider it further on Report. Therefore, I shall do the same regarding this amendment.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 13, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where a person who is not less than 15 nor more than 16 years old is convicted by a magistrates' court of an offence punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment then, if the court is of opinion that a youth custody sentence should be passed on him, the court shall commit him in custody or on bail to the Crown Court for sentence.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Donaldson and myself. The point at issue here is a very simple one. It is to ensure that, when a lower court—a magistrates' court —wishes to impose a sentence of youth custody on a young offender, the lower court should refer the recommendation to the Crown court, which will impose the sentence. It is self-evident that to impose any form of custodial sentence, particularly on those young offenders susceptible to receive youth custody sentences, is a very serious step indeed.
As I understand the present position, in imposing a borstal sentence the magistrates' court regularly refers

991
to the Crown Court, which imposes the sentence. Now that borstal sentences are no longer to be imposed, this is the logical requirement that we should like to see introduced in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: What is proposed here is, in effect, a special limit on the powers of a magistrates' court when it is dealing with juveniles. Magistrates' courts have power to impose a custodial sentence of up to six months on offenders of any age. That is the general limit of their sentencing power.
The approach adopted in legislation is to place limits on the maximum penalty available to any court. These limits relate to particular offences. There are also limits according to the age of the offender. What the legislation does not do is set a special restriction on the sentencing powers of particular courts according to age; that is to say, any restrictions according to age are general. Thus, under this Bill the limit on the length of a sentence of youth custody which may be imposed on a juvenile—that is to say, a boy or girl under 17—is 12 months. But there is no special limit on the powers of magistrates in dealing with juveniles.
What this amendment seeks to do is exceptionally to introduce a special restriction which would prevent magistrates from imposing youth custody sentences at all. No doubt this derives from the fact that magistrates cannot at present impose a sentence of borstal training. They have to commit to the Crown Court for this. But the new sentence of youth custody is not simply an equivalent to borstal training. This point becomes clear when we consider the range of powers which the Bill as it stands makes available to the magistrates' courts.
Under the Bill a magistrates' court can pass a sentence of any length up to six months on a 15 or 16-year-old juvenile or on a young adult. It can commit the offender to the Crown Court for a longer sentence. The Bill sets a maximum of four months on a custodial sentence for a 14-year-old and of 12 months on a sentence for 15 and 16-year-olds. It is those maxima which are important. The law provides that in almost all cases the proper place for a juvenile to be dealt with is in the juvenile court. We should think long and hard before we start saying that a magistrates' court can be given the difficult and serious task of trying and convicting a young offender, but should be deprived of its usual sentencing powers, although it can try and convict. Both trial and sentence are serious matters —and we cannot say that a court is fit to carry out one task but not the other.
This amendment would not, incidentally, have quite the effect which its sponsors desire. The usual minimum for a youth custody sentence will be four months, but there will be plenty of youth custody sentences much shorter than that, where the offender is unfit or ineligible for a detention centre order. Moreover, the four months minimum is, under Clause 13, movable by statutory instrument. If it went up to six months magistrates would in any case have to commit to the Crown Court for a youth custody sentence. We have made allowance for that in the amendment in paragraph 41 of Schedule 13, which we shall take later. If it went down below four months the effect would be that the Secretary of State, by order, would reduce the jurisdiction of the magis-
992
trates' courts. That, I think, is not what we wish to do. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will perhaps think better of his amendment.
Lord Hunt: I am grateful to the Minister for providing me with some necessary education, and I am now wiser than I was and to some extent reassured and relieved by what he has told me. In view of what he has told me, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 19, at end insert—
(" and
(c) in a case where the court considers that the offender's detention in a detention centre would be unsuitable because of his mental condition, that there are special circumstances (whether relating to the offence or to the offender) which warrant the passing of a sentence of youth custody in that case ").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment, and it is in the same field as the various amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I really move it in order to seek information. If a child is found to be mentally unsuitable for a detention centre but his offence is such that it commands a short custodial sentence, and yet he cannot go to the detention centre because of his mental condition, he is given a youth custody order. May I know exactly what happens if his mental condition is such that he cannot go to the detention centre? Does he then go to prison or to borstal? If so, does he get the necessary treatment there? If not, what happens to him, or her? I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: According to the White Paper, Young Offenders, 1980, the answer to the noble Baroness's question is that he goes to prison. If that is so —and that is the only authority I have for saying so—it is a scandalous and serious state of affairs. Here is a youth, or a boy or a girl, who needs the maximum amount of care who is simply dumped in adult prisons, if this report is true. This amendment is a probing amendment, but if those facts are accurate it is something that should be terminated forthwith. What we should like to know, if the Minister has the information, is how many are involved in that situation and what is going to be done about it.
The proposal in the amendment is that that state of affairs should not be allowed to arise, and that rather than let that arise there should be no incarceration at all. But if any of the young people in this group are ending up in adult prisons that clearly cannot do them any benefit, and it is an intolerable situation. It is presumably impossible to provide facilities for them which are adequate, let alone separate facilities. According to the White Paper, Young Offenders, a comment made by the Prison and Borstal Governers' Branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants—not an irresponsible body—is this:
" They are squeezed into a bank of cells at the end of a wing or landing or, in the case of one local prison, into a basement. Recreational facilities are meagre, and sometimes non-existent. The same applies to work and physical education. It is only remarkable that control and other problems are not more severe, but staff in local prisons will invariably highlight this group as the most difficult one to manage in prevailing conditions ".
The report of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group, of which the noble Baroness was a

993
distinguished member, comments upon this in its report, Young Offenders, a Strategy for the Future, paragraph 227, by saying:
" We recommend that those young offenders for whom a custodial sentence exceeding four months is inappropriate but who are mentally unfit for detention centre régimes should not receive any form of custodial sentence. Since these are cases where by definition only a short custodial sentence is being considered, the offenders concerned will not be among those who represent the most serious danger to the community, and a suitable non-custodial sentence, where appropriate, involving treatment for the offender's mental condition within the National Health Service should be imposed ".
This amendment does not go as far as that recommendation of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group, but it goes some way to achieving that aim by providing that a short custodial sentence should be imposed on such an offender only if there are special circumstances. I, and I am sure the Committee, shall await with concern and interest what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has to tell us either by way of asurance, or whatever it may be, to deal with what appears to be, if these facts as I have read them out are true, to be a scandalous state of affairs.
Lord Hunt: In rising to support the noble Baroness in probing through this amendment, I should like to underscore the concern felt by members of the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group on this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has referred to the White Paper, which makes it clear that young offenders are likely to serve in adult prisons in the circumstances of the Bill at this stage.
My concern is the greater because when the matter came up in Committee in another place, the Minister said the Government had given further thought to what was said in the White Paper, and he said words to the effect that every effort would be made to place all the young people concerned who were under 17, and some of those who were 17 and over, in youth custody centres, but he added that some of those aged 17 and over would probably serve their time in adult prisons. This is a matter of great concern, although the Minister tried to sugar the pill by saying that they would serve their sentences either in a hospital wing or a young prisoners' wing. Anyone who knows the picture in local prisons would endorse every word of what the people who really know—the Prison and Borstal Governors' branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants—have had to say about those establishments, They are scathing and they speak of a national scandal in relation to the detention of young people in adult local prisons. That merely adds weight, if weight were needed, to what the noble Baroness said.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I hope the Government will not shy away from the possibility of letting somebody free when they cannot be accommodated properly. That is what, in my opinion, the whole prison problem is about. Because the Government—the British Government for British justice, not just the Tory Government at the moment—are incapable of dealing with the number of offenders sent forward by the courts, they are piling them in a way that is unacceptable. This is a very small element of the whole, a certain number of very vulnerable disturbed young people, and the right answer is that if a proper place cannot be found to send them, let them free. Let there be no mistake; that is what should be done.
Lord Mottistone: That may be a disaster. I am sorry to tell the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that, but, having been involved with the Mental Health Bill both in this House and another place, I can say that the tragedy is that there are some mental patients of all ages, including the young, particularly schizophrenics, who are totally vulnerable when not under some sort of control. Custody is one thing, and we are talking about prisons. I cannot but say that, because the matter is not going through in the other place as well as it should, there is strong pressure to say that civil liberty must ride above all. The trouble is that there are vulnerable people of whom some people—it has happened in the United States apart from here—are saying, "Let them free. That is the prime thing", and they are casting them into the gutter. That is what is happening. The legislation is just—only just—all right in another place, and for goodness' sake do not think that by saying, "Set them free", life will be made better for them. They are probably being condemned to disaster.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I must reply to that. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is talking about dangerous lunatics. Of course they should not be free, but they should not be in prison either.
Lord Mottistone: Of course not.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Right, and we are talking about a prison sentence on these people, and that should not be confused with a medical sentence of insanity. It has nothing to do with that. These are people who are mentally unfit, but not in a position to be sent to a lunatic asylum, or whatever they call them nowadays. It is failing to meet the situation to talk about it differently. Of course, if somebody is insane, they should be certified and sent to a proper place. We are talking about children, or people slightly older than children, who are mentally unfit, who are unreliable, who are difficult, who are possibly even slightly schizophrenic, but not on a basis which would justify certification. This cannot be laughed off. It must be dealt with and it cannot possibly be dealt with by certification because they are not as ill as that.
The Earl of Onslow: I suggest there is right both in what my noble friend Lord Mottistone says and in what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, says. If these people are set free into the gutter, it is equally possible they could be sent to Wormwood Scrubs to the gutter. What we must try to do is find a balanced, sensible way between the two. Surely, nobody who is mentally sick should be in prison; they should be in hospital. I suspect there are large numbers of adult offenders in secure prisons when they should be in secure mental hospitals. I cannot say because I am not an expert on the subject. Having listened to that interesting exchange of views between my noble friend and the noble Lord, as is often the case in such circumstances, there is right on both sides.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is thinking of the more seriously mentally ill individduals who may come before the courts because of some very grave offence they have committed, and in that case they would, of course, be liable to be transferred

995
by the court to a special hospital under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959, and I think I am right in saying—the Minister may wish to confirm it—that Section 60 may be applied to young people as it is to adults. However, under the amendment I do not think Section 60 would be appropriate because we are talking about the young person who would not be given a custodial sentence of more than four months, so the offence would have been of a relatively minor nature. One assumes that the mental illness from which the young person was suffering would not be so severe as to warrant his detention in a special hospital under the powers of Section 60.
There are, however, other powers in the Mental Health Act which enable a person to be detained for shorter periods. I believe that Section 28 allows for one month's detention, and there are other provisoins in the Act. Thus, when we are considering what is an appropriate disposition for a young person who may be found to be mentally ill when he comes before the courts, we should not neglect the powers which already exist under the Mental Health Act, which have nothing to do with offences but which, I think, might be more appropriate to the minor offences with which we are dealing in the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Perhaps I might respond to that by saying: Do not forget the gutter!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is, with great respect, forgetting that we are dealing with persons sentenced to something less than four months' imprisonment. The picture he built up of the homicidal man who should be in Broadmoor is totally and absolutely irrelevant to what we are considering.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I might intervene in this developing exchange to say that my noble friend Lord Mottistone is not entirely irrelevant in what he says because it is not only the dangerous and suicidal lunatic who is in danger of falling into the gutter if he is released into society without some other provision. I do not doubt that if we were addressing ourselves to an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—I am not suggesting by that that we prolong the proceedings on Report—he would say, "No indeed, that person should not be discharged into the gutter, but some other provision (some other supervision or care) should be provided".
Returning to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and the question she sought to answer, I would say that the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, was broadly right in saying that where you have the extreme case, there is provision under the Mental Health (Amendment) Act and the Mental Health Act itself to deal with it. My noble friend, however, was concerned about where juvenile offenders would go. When we come to Clause 11, your Lordships' Committee will see that we have put down amendments to make sure that juveniles are not held in prison; they will go to youth custody centres, or remand centres when we have them, appropriate to their care. They will not go into adult prisons.
As to young adults, we intend to hold them in young offender establishments also, but I think that we must face the reality that, until the effects of the Bill and
996
the effects of our building and refurbishing programmes reduce current pressures, some of them may have to go to prison. We arc talking now not about juveniles, but about young adults. We are talking not about the majority, but about a minority. Our best intentions are that none of them shall go to prison, but there is a possibility that, until we get it right, some of them will have to, and that I have to admit.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Can the noble Lord say how many are in that category at the moment? The report by the Prison and Borstal Governors' Branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants is absolutely hair-raising. How many are they talking about? It is not known, I see.
Lord Elton: The noble and learned Lord can see, if not from my face, from the faces of others, that I shall have to write to him on that point.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: The Minister is saying that we must face up to reality. That is what the amendment is all about—reality. The reality is that, with all the magnificent provisions for young people, there comes a moment under detention sentence when the court says, "This person is not eligible for a short sentence in a detention centre because he is not fit mentally or physically ". Then what happens? That person is given 21 days, or whatever the period is, in a youth custody centre. As I understand it—the Minister has not made it clear—the régime in a youth custody institution is not suitable for a very short sentence. It upsets the training which is being provided in such a centre.
So one is left with a group of people unfit for the short sentence in the detention centre—rogue elephants so far as the youth custody training system is concerned —and what is to happen to them? One understands that at the moment they are just put into a local prison, and it is that which the governors have described as a scandal. That is what is involved in facing up to reality. As I see it, the purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government to face up to reality. The reality is that these young people are going to go to prison, and that is a scandal. I suggest that the Minister has not answered the question of where they are to go, if it is not to prison. If it is to prison, it is a disgrace.
Lord Elton: With respect, I think that, when the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow, if he does so, he will see that I said that the juveniles will go to youth custody centres and that the great majority of those of 17 and over will also go to young offender establishments. The pressures are such that I do not want to put my hand on my heart and say that none of them will ever again go to prison, because we have not reached that position. The noble Lord cast doubts upon the suitability of youth custody centres for this sort of treatment, saying that there would be rogue elephants —I think that was the phrase. Well, I taught for 10 years. I am not saying that it is a directly analogous experience to running an establishment in which young offenders are supposed to receive education and training. But the fact is that one can accommodate oneself to a certain number of people who are not capable of taking up the full benefits of a régime, or a curriculum, without throwing out the administration for the rest.

997
We have all along in these debates been talking about flexibility, and I think that this is an area in which it is to be expected that these establishments will be able to cater for these people, will be able to provide the medical supervision that they require, and will indeed be able to give them advice which may follow them through into the community when they leave and be of great value to them. These are not simply disciplinary machines. We are not talking about detention centres which have a rapid and rigorous régime. We are talking about youth custody centres, which are specfically available to those for whom the detention centre régimes are not suitable, and I believe that we do less than justice to the service if we say that it could not cope.
As to the prisons I accept that we do not want to send people there. I undertake that we shall do our best not to send any of them there, and as time progresses every effort will be made to see that such numbers as are sent there diminish. But I should be dishonest if in my response to the amendment I suggested that we could undertake that the kind of people whom we are talking about would never go to prison.
The Earl of Onslow: I should like very much to underline the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was raising. The numbers here seem to me really vitally important. If it is a case of one person every two years, then one must be prepared to say, "All right, that's just bad luck" But if there are going to be tens of people a week, then the situation is much more serious. I would ask my noble friend whether he will request his advisers to produce the figures for information during the course of later debates on the Bill. I concede that the offices are probably now closed, but the figures must be available somewhere, and they seem to be very important.
Baroness Phillips: I did not have the opportunity to hear the noble Lord who introduced the original amendment, but, as a magistrate, I am becoming completely confused about who these people are. We are told that they would probably receive sentences of no more than four months in prison; I think that that was the maximum quoted. We are also told that they are vaguely schizophrenic. Now, you cannot be vaguely schizophrenic; either you are schizophrenic, or you are not schizophrenic.
Last week I had a group of young people over here from Malta and three of them were robbed by other young people in Oxford Street. Your Lordships' Committee might regard that as petty and unimportant, but when it cames to a court hearing I think that these are the kind of people whom we would be talking about. I am not quite clear how they come to be in such numbers. The noble Lord on the Front Bench nods his head, but I am wondering about the ages that have been referred to. I should like to have some idea of the offence for which they have been brought to court in the first place. Then we could know whether we were dealing with someone who was genuinely disturbed, or someone who, as it might have been said in the old days, was simply committing an offence. Nowadays nobody seems to be able to commit an offence; they always plead diminished responsibility, or something like that. But I feel that there are some people who actually commit
998
offences. This is a terrible area of confusion. Who are we actually referring to in the amendment?
Lord Elton: As to the numbers, I shall do what I can to help your Lordships' Committee. Whether or not the people who robbed the noble Baroness's friend were mentally disturbed, I cannot say; that would he for the court to decide—
Baroness Phillips: They were not caught.
Lord Elton: I did not catch the allusion. I think that we shall do better if only the person standing up takes part in the debate. I shall be very happy to sit down for as long as noble Lords wish. But the thing is—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble Lord did not catch what was said. The trouble was that the offenders were not caught, either.
Lord Elton: In that case we shall never know whether or not they were mentally disturbed.
For the benefit of the noble Baroness, who came into the Chamber after the amendment was moved and therefore did not hear described the people in question, I shall say merely that they are people who are thought physically or mentally unsuitable for detention in a detention centre. My noble friend and various other noble Lords have said that such people ought not be thrown out on to the street, nor ought they to be thrown into an adult prison. I have said that the Government have no intention of throwing juveniles into anything except youth custody centres, and that we also wish to put people of 17 and over into young offender accommodation. But I would be less than honest if I said that we could bring this about by the time the Bill reaches the statute book. Of course, it depends on the future practice of the courts; but I can tell my noble friend now that we would estimate that up to 100 people at any one time, with a variety of conditions—some serious, some minor—may be concerned throughout the entire prison population. It is a small percentage, but for them, of course, each case is 100 per cent.
I take very much the anxiety that noble Lords have. I was earlier on in my as yet brief political life in the Department of Health, where I saw these people at the other end, as it were, of the tug of war, and I recognise this as a profoundly disturbing thing which worries me deeply. I said earlier that I was interested in the sick prisoners. It is actually this form of illness which I find most compelling and in which I have the greatest interest. So noble Lords need not feel that this is going to be left idle on the sideboard until the next legislation. All I am saying is that, keen as I am to get this set right, I really cannot undertake to do it before the legislation gets on to the statute book.
Lord Avebury: May I make one additional point before the noble Baroness concludes the debate? Now that we are armed with the figure that the noble Lord the Minister has given to us—we know that there are up to 100 of these young people who are mentally ill at any one time who get dumped in the prison system—does the noble Lord agree that it would provide a strong incentive to the Home Office to get on with the job of providing these youth custody centres for up to 100 young persons if this amendment were put on the statute book now?
Lord Elton: Indeed, yes, but I should point out that these are all unfit people and not just mentally unfit people. The noble Lord will agree, I think, that there is a difference between putting somebody who has a mental illness to cope with in a youth custody institution, or indeed in an adult prison, and somebody who has a hernia, for instance. They are really of rather a different order.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, hit the nail on the head. We are in impasse. I think I should say that there are of course places for the mentally ill under youth custody orders, but there are not enough of them to deal with all the mentally ill young offenders.
I had hoped that my noble friend the Minister could have talked a little bit about adult secure units, which were recommended by the late Lord Butler. If such units are recommended for adult prisoners, should there not be adolescent units for young people attached to such centres? In the mental health service we have a service for the adult patients and we have adolescent units for the young patients. It seems to me that one of the most constructive things we could do would be to have adolescent units in secure units for the mentally ill prisoners. This is what I hoped might perhaps be considered.
We obviously cannot get very far on this tonight. It is a vitally important problem, but at this point in time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Provision of premises for young offenders etc.]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I have to tell your Lordships that there is a misprint in the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 20 should read "leave out from beginning to second (' and ') in line 2 on page 9".
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, line 37, leave out from beginning to second (" and ") in line 2 on page 9.
The noble Lord said: I did not spot the error. With the leave of the Committee, with this amendment I should like to take Amendment No. 38, because they are similar. I was planning to take them separately, but I really think that I have dealt thoroughly enough with female delinquents. Perhaps I might find myself associated with Mr. Gladstone; that would be the Liberal Party, and that would all be a disaster!
The amendments are similar because it is not clear from the provision which I seek to leave out in Amendment No. 20 whether remand centres are going to be set up for females over 14 years of age. There is none in the London area at the moment. Holloway used to be used, but is no longer. In connection with Amendment No. 38, there seems to be no provision for attendance centres for young females. Such centres would be especially important if no other provision for under 17 year-old girls is made.
So part of the point which I hope my noble friend will be able to respond to is the question of what to do with the very young, new offenders of around 14 years old of the female sex. What are the Government going to do about providing means for accommodating them under the different circumstances dealt with in Clause 10 and later in Clause 17? I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: We appreciate the reason for this amendment, and we have already had a full debate on the detention centre order. If we are to have the order, we must have somewhere to put those sentenced under it. This amendment would deprive the Secretary of State of his power to provide detention centres, which is an integral part of the Bill's provisions. We shall in due course lay before Parliament draft detention centre rules which will set out more fully the way in which those institutions are to be run. I am afraid the Government cannot accept this amendment, and I hope my noble friend will not press it.
Lord Mottistone: That is a most unsatisfactory reply. I took the trouble to write to my noble friend to tell him that these were probing amendments and what the reasons for them were. I also said that this one was going to relate to Amendment No. 38. My noble friend Lord Sandys replied to it as if it were just a straightforward amendment, but it was not. I wrote a special letter and I got a special "Thank you" reply from my noble friend. It really is most unsatisfactory to have that pat answer. The advisers really must he spanked.
Lord Elton: I think I ought to intervene to shelter my noble friend and the advisers, and possibly provide a magazine to slip down the trousers. I apologise if the answer went astray, but, as the noble Lord had linked it with No. 38 and my noble friend was about to take that, I handed it to him, and this is where the slip came between the cup and the lip.
There will be three units in remand centres for young women—at Pucklechurch, Brisley and Lower Newton—but no unconvicted girl under the age of 17 can be remanded in custody, though 15 and 16 year-olds can be committed to a higher court for sentence. There are six attendance centres specifically for girls; there are nine attendance centres which take girls as well as boys. I hope that that is more the sort of material that my noble friend wanted.
Lord Mottistone: I am deeply grateful to my noble friend for that reply. It was one I had hoped for in the first place. It is the sort of answer I was seeking. I really do think that if one takes the trouble to write the bloody civil servants should do their job properly.
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Sandys: I hope that my noble friend will withdraw what he has just said.
Lord Mottistone: Of course, I will withdraw because the Committee would like me to withdraw.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: A very ungallant remark.
Lord Mottistone: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.2 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 9, line 7, at end insert—
(" ( ) No person detained in an institution provided under this section shall be required to share a cell with another person.
( ) Dormitories in institutions provided under this section shall provide a minimum of 60 square feet per person if inmates are confined in them for 10 hours or less per day, and a minimum of 80 square feet per person if inmates are confined in them for more than 10 hours per day.
( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing standards with respect to air volume, ventilation, heating, floor space and window space in cells and dormitories, bathing facilities and sanitary facilities, to which institutions provided under this section shall conform.").
The noble Lord said: It will make for the peaceful atmosphere of this Committee if I move this amendment. The Committee may be very surprised to learn that there is no statutory provision anywhere for prison accommodation in this country. One hears speeches, one hears of reports, one hears of White Papers criticising the accommodation that exists, but nobody can refer to a standard. There are other standards to which I hope to refer the Committee briefly; but what this amendment tries to do is to set down for the first time some standards and the Committe may feel that we are making a good start when we do that in respect of juvenile offenders.
I said that there were other standards and the first thing that I should like to do, if I may, is to refer to the standards that are set by the 1973 European standard minimum rules. Rule 8 provides that prisoners should be lodged during the night in individual cells. Rule 9 provides that prisoners' accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation. Rule 11 provides for sanitary facilities and says that they must be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in clean and decent conditions.
There were references to the standard rules in the May inquiry into the European prison services. Noble Lords will remember that in 1979 that report was issued. It concluded in this way in regard to the standard minimum rules. It said that it required a target of a minimum of no enforced cell sharing except in regular dormitories, incorporating continuous ready access to lavatories or integral sanitation as appropriate.
It is hardly to be thought, hardly to be anticipated, hardly to be prayed for that juveniles who go into this sort of condition which now all too often prevails will come out with a respect for society and in any way cured in regard to their habits of living when those who are placing them in custody put them into completely uncivilised conditions. So, although we may be doing it for the first time, we should comply with European obligations and the obligations, you may think, of a civilised society. What we must do in the Bill before us is to set down standards which I hope the Committee will think are absolutely minimal standards for any decent incarceration.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: It is. a particular pleasure to me, having been asked by my noble friend Lord Harris to move this amendment, to find how well the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has done it. He has, in fact, anticipated a great deal of what my noble
1002
friend asked me to say, but not quite everything, so I will add a few points. Parliament's attention was drawn to our failure to lay down statutory standards in penal establishments by a very distinguished old friend of mine who alas! is now dead, Pearce, who was, most imaginatively, appointed by the present Home Secretary as the Inspector of Prisons as a result of the May Report recommendations. He was rather a splendid man. I do not think it would be right to talk about this without some reference to him.
It was his first report and, as the first holder of the office, he pointed out that, like the rest of us, he was gratified by the announcement of an increase in prison building but clearly this will take many years and it was clear to him and his colleagues that it was unsatisfactory that there were so few specific standards laid down. This point the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made clearly as far as cell accommodation is concerned.
It seems to me, it seemed to my noble friend Lord Harris and to Bill Pearce who made this report, that it was about time we started somewhere. You cannot start everywhere; so why not start with youth accommodation'? This is what this amendment is about, as the noble Lord said. The standards laid down in this amendment were laid down first by the American Correctional Association. They insist on a minimum of 60 square feet of floor space if prisoners' confinement does not exceed 10 hours and at least 80 square feet if prisoners were confined for more than 10 hours a day which, alas! quite often in this country they are.
They insist that prisoners should be housed singly. In order to be accredited by the Association, the city authorities must comply with 90 per cent. of all the standards classed by the American Correctional Association as essential and 80 per cent. of all standards classed by them as important.
Both my noble friend Lord Harris and I and, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have seen something of the prison conditions in the United States. I went to the Tombs about 10 years ago and, frankly, it was the most awful thing I have seen in my life. It "blew up" about three months later and has since been closed. There is every sort of variety in American prisons but the Tombs was an experience. The top floor was kept for the psychopathic chaps and there were numbers of loonies wandering around. It was the most dangerous experience in my life. There was this with the noise from the uncovered floors with people wheeling food cannisters about.
It was high time that the American correctional standards were reinforced and I think we here should do something about it. The standards movement has been of great importance in improving conditions in American penal establishments and I think it has a part to play here. I do not think you are going to get standards improved with the difficulties there arc in improving anything, without setting them down in advance and giving people something to aim at. The prison governor has got to be able to say to the Home Office: "I am terribly sorry: I cannot do this because it crosses the standards I am obliged to hold up". If you do not do that, he has no power at all. He has to do what he is told, and the result is more or less disaster.
Last December the Prison and Borstal Governors' Branch of the Society of Civil and Public Servants declared its position. It said this:

1003
" The first essential step is to set minimum standards for prison conditions in the 1980s ".
Let me say, the 1982s: we still settle for that now.
" These should be based on the European standard minimum rules and should be incorporated into English law. In practice, this means the outlawing of compulsory cell-sharing and the abolition of ' slopping out '. We have asked the Home Secretary to include this legislation in the Criminal Justice Bill ".
The Home Secretary has not included this legislation in this Bill, so we are putting it forward to help him.
My third point is that we do indeed have obligations on this matter under the 1973 European standard minimum rules. Rule 8 provides that the prisoners should normally be lodged during the night in individual cells. Rule 9 provides that prisoners' accommodation shall meet all requirements of health, due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air, minimum floor space, lighting, heating and ventilation. In this country we can skip the climatic conditions, but everything else is highly relevant.
Rule 11 states that,
" sanitary facilities should be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the need of nature when necessary and in clean and decent conditions ".
I know that in a sense this is asking for the moon and with over 44,000 prisoners in prison at the moment it is not something that can be done under, say, seven or eight years; but I believe that in relation to young offenders this could be done now. I do not ask the Government to say that this should be put into the Bill, but I ask them to give me some assurance that they will at least aim to do this within three years for young offenders. It seems to me something they could do, something that they ought to do, and something over which they are going to be in breach of European regulations very soon if they do not. Following the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I beg to support this amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to make just two points. One is that the situation is very strange since standards are laid down by the Department of Education and Science for all their establishments and standards are laid down by the Department of Health and Social Security for all their establishments. In addition, many of the establishments run by the social services departments take young offenders. How, then, does it happen that two Ministries have very strict standards and one—the Home Office—does not?
I should like to make a further brief point, which concerns the requirement to share a cell. There are some who are gregarious and who like to share a cell, and there are others who find it really difficult. I once saw a girl in a community school for education and asked her: "Why are you in a room by yourself?" She said: "I jumped on matron's foot and hurt her." I asked: "Why did you do that?" She said: "To get sent to a place where I would be in a room by myself." It just means that some people cannot tolerate—some can but some cannot—sharing a room and there does need to be some flexibility. For these reasons, and others, I support the amendment.
Lord Avebury: I should like to make a couple of observations. First I should like to refer to the European standard minimum rules, which have been
1004
referred to several times in the course of this debate. As I understand it, the rules were drafted in 1973 and so they have been there as a model for us to aim at for almost 10 years. During that period, if anything, we have gone even further away from the realisation of the aims set out—such as allowing people to sleep in a cell by themselves if they want to—than we were at the beginning of that period.
I should like to ask the Minister to address himself in the course of his reply to what exactly is the status of the European standard rules. Obviously they are not justiciable. You cannot seek an injunction that the governor of a particular establishment should bring it up to any of the standards set down in those rules. You cannot bring an action against the Secretary of State for his failure to observe them. So may I ask the Minister this. Have these rules any force whatsoever, or are they just a set of pious platitudes to which we have no intention of ever adhering?
If the latter is the case, I cannot see the point in having a document which, as the noble Lord recently told me in a letter which he was good enough to write to me, is available in the libraries of all our prisons in England and Wales for anybody to refer to. That would be a very good thing, if the prisoners on reading it could see any chance of the admirable standards laid down ever being attained. But if they can see that the Government have no intention of providing the kind of standards which are laid down, then it is stimulating unrest in the prisons not only among the wretched prisoners themselves, but also among the staff who have to cope with the appalling conditions that have been described.
The second point that 1 want to make relates to the certification of accommodation in prisons as being fit for occupation. Under the prison rules, the medical officer has to certify every cell in every penal establishment as being fit for the occupation of prisoners. What I should like to ask the noble Lord—and this is something which I have tried to pursue in the course of correspondence, both with him and with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when he was in office—is how the medical officer does this job. He goes and looks at a cell and can see what are the dimensions, the amount of light, of heat and so on. but what are the objective yardsticks by which the medical officer judges the suitability, or otherwise, of the accommodation for a certain number of prisoners? If he does not have the European minimum standards, or any other internal guidelines which are laid down by the Home Office, it is asking a great deal of a medical officer. I do not think that such a duty should be imposed upon him, and the prison rules ought not to lay it down that the medical officer has to carry out a duty for which he is given no guidance whatsoever.
So an amendment of this kind, if it were confined, as has been suggested, to juveniles, would begin to set the pattern which would then be extended throughout the whole of the prison system. I agree with those who have said that it would be far too ambitious to try to aim at meeting anything like the European minimum standards for the 44,000 people whom we have in custody, but I believe that we can make a start on the juveniles and that we should do it while we have an opportunity in this Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: I am not totally happy with this

1005
amendment, not because I do not agree 100 per cent. with the aims behind it, but because I wonder what happens if there is not the money to do it. If we legislate for something which has to be done, and then there is no money, the law comes into disrepute. What happens if somebody is put inside in a double cell? Can he get an injunction stating that the courts are imprisoning him illegally, so that he then has to be let out?
The standards of our prison accommodation should be vastly improved. The thought of three people in a cell for 23 hours a day, with just a chamber pot each, is quite repellant and very barbaric. But to put these standards into legislation would bring the law into disrepute. And let us be quite honest; there are no votes in money for prisons. My right honourable friend the present Home Secretary deserves a great deal of credit for managing to extract out of a very tight-fisted Treasury—quite correctly—money for prison building and such like. But if we put such an amendment into the law, it will be counter-productive.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If I may answer that, we are talking about a limited number of people. It would be quite possible to say that we have to deal with these 3,000 or 4,000 people. We could begin with 500 and bring them up to standard, and have a programme over the next three years to bring the remainder up to standard. This is the kind of proposal that we want to get from the Government, but we never get it. What we want them to say is that they agree with what we say ought to be done. They could say that they do not have the money to do it all, but they could make a start and provide a programme. But can we get it? The answer is, Never.
Lord Elton: I shall try to be brief and to satisfy your Lordships. The first point from which we started was the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners, of which there are both United Nations and Council of Europe versions. These cover much of the ground in the amendments, though without specifying quantities or dimensions. The standard minimum rules have the status of recommendations to guide legislation and practice. In administering the prison system, the Government endeavour to comply with the rules, so far as is possible, but they are not—I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—conventions subject to signature and ratification, as capable of enforcement. They are, as it were, international guidelines. I recognise the attraction of what is proposed. It puts noble Lords who have tabled the amendments—whoever moves them—on the side of the angels. They are very attractive in some respects.
However—I urge noble Lords to bear with me beyond this paragraph—before I go on I have to point out the difficulties. If we set standards high enough to inspire and stretch management, there will inevitably be many failures to meet them in the less favoured establishments. If we set lower standards which can be met, the exercise has a diminishing point to it. If in statute we set different standards for different parts of the prison system, as is now proposed, we should introduce a degree of complexity and enshrine inequity in statutes or regulations. As circumstances change over time—for example, in respect of public expenditure levels
1006
and priorities, staff recruitment or industrial relations—a particular code of standards may become obsolete fairly quickly. Yet the amendment of statutes takes an inordinate length of time. Futhermore, the setting of standards does not in itself increase the resources available. It must be recognised that there will still be other pressing demands for the expenditure of public funds which noble Lords, who put down these standard minimum rules, may well feel equally enthusiastic about.
However, those are all arguments for caution. This is not to say that nothing should be done. The Government have given considerable thought to the arguments for setting standards. We recognise that this is a case in which we must try to surmount the difficulties. We have decided that we should try to draw up a code of standards as a basis for discussion. This would cover and may well focus on the main elements of prisoners' accommodation and living conditions, but we ought also to look at régime activities as well. The two, in terms of resources, are inextricably linked because resources are required to get people supervised out of cells, just as they are required to put them in cells which are relatively congenial. It is too early to say how far we could go in setting quantitative criteria, but we recognise that they are needed if standards are to bite and that we should go as far as possible in this direction. It will not be easy and it will take time. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, asked for some sort of target. I cannot give a commitment. The noble Lord will realise that a good deal of consultation, some of it quite difficult, will be required. However, we should be aiming at about 18 months.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: If accommodation for young prisoners could be brought up to standard within 18 months I should have no comment.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has entirely misunderstood me. What we are saying is that there should be guidelines, that there should be something like the SM Rs—a target, a standard which ought to be reached and adhered to. That means quite a bulky document, as the noble Lord will realise if he has looked at the European and United Nations equivalent. To get that out may take about 18 months. Then we have to bring the accommodation up to standard. How long that will take I cannot say until we know what the standards are and how far we are below them. However, we intend to do what the noble Lord wishes us to do—not by statute, though, but by guidelines.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful for that; it is very slightly more than nothing, I admit. May I just point out that in prison building this has been done over the last 30 years. I was chairman for 10 years of Grendon where the conditions are at least three times as good in every way as they are in ordinary local prisons. If you can do it in prisons, why can you not do it for youth custody? Why can you not have one which is right, and the others you will get right later? You will never move if you do not do that, I assure noble Lords.
The Earl of Onslow: Is not the standard for prisons laid down for Northern Ireland extremely high—individual flushing lavatories in cells, which is what

1007
we should all aim at, and one prisoner per cell? Has one not seen photographs of that at Long Kesh? I may be wrong; I am speaking off the top of my head.
Lord Avebury: I asked a specific question: how medical officers are to carry out this function which they are obliged to do under the prison rules. So there is a statutory obligation on prison authorities that medical officers should certify a cell as being fit for accomodation by prisoners. What I wanted to know was, in the absence of any quantitative standards, how is the medical officer to know that a cell of any particular dimensions, having windows of a particular size and heating to a particular temperature, is in fact adequate for accommodating prisoners?
Lord Mishcon: I think it would be—I am so sorry.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord was going to emulate his noble friend and answer the question for me, I will be only too happy to give way. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has raised a point which I regret f am skirting because I have set the relevant piece of paper on one side. The Prison Rule 23, Borstal Rule 25 and Detention Rule 5 all say much the same. Neither the legislation nor a prison department guidance sets the precise standards to be applied and, in practice, accomodation is certified by governors and medical officers operating under regional oversight. In setting certified normal accomodation levels, they are enjoined to determine the uncrowded capacity of the establishment and, in so doing, to bear in mind such factors as the size, shape and general condition of the accommodation; the number and position of doors and windows; ventilation and lighting; heating; and access to ablutions and lavatories.
To say that such prisons as I have seen in Northern Ireland had individual flush toilets is not so; far from it. But because of population pressures the CNA serves as an index rather than a limit to the capacity of accommodation. It is a sort of Plimsoll Line and sometimes we sail rather deep.
Lord Gardiner: Does this mean that there are no criteria by which the prison medical officer certifies whether something is fit for occupation or not? I have often wondered about the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was saying—and he is always so helpful—that there are no criteria laid down at all. It seems that the medical officer takes a look and then says, Yes, or, No. Is that right—that there are no criteria at all?
Lord Elton: The level we are talking about is the certified normal accommodation. If a prison medical officer thought that it was exceeded to a level which made things not only uncomfortable but dangerous to health, then obviously he would have a duty to intercede. The CNA is what the prison is regarded as being designed for. As I have with tireless regularity told your Lordships, it is something which we are forced to accede. This Bill is among the armoury of things which we are using to bring that excess down to a lower level.
Lord Wigoder: Does that mean that one medical officer can say that a cell of a certain size will accomm-
1008
modate one prisoner while another medical officer at another prison may say that a cell of precisely the same size can accommodate three prisoners?
Lord Elton: No. As I think I said, this is done under regional supervision and the regions themselves are under the hand of central Government, so there are not wide discrepancies about the standards. The question of the extent to which CNA is exceeded depends on a great many different factors in different areas—catchment area, the types of offenders, and the number of establishments available in a particular area. Therefore, there is more overcrowding in some prisons than in others.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, mentioned Grendon, which is a special psychiatric prison. Therefore, the accommodation there is rather different and I do not believe it would be appropriate to use that as a benchmark for all the others. I was trying to say that we must have standards—I agree with that. We want to make them applicable throughout the system—we agree with that. When we have them, then it is a question of whether one should concentrate on bringing one bit of the service up to standard ahead of another or not. I do not doubt that that is something to which we shall return when the guidelines are available.
Lord Avebury: Why is the Minister being so coy about this business of certified accommodation? If one looks at the Prison Department's annual report one can see in the appendix that every single prison is listed there and a figure is given for certified normal accommodation, which is the figure arrived at by the judgment of the medical officers using the process which the noble Lord the Minister has described. He said that this exercise of the judgment of medical officers was under the supervision of the regional prison departments. What I want to know—and what I am sure the noble Lord who moved this amendment and noble Lords who are signatories want to know—is how in a particular region the medical officer and the governor together arrive at the figure for certified normal accommodation. And if there is any difference between one region and another, what is the rationalisation for that? On the other hand, if there is a figure which applies throughout the whole of the prison department establishments of the amount of floor space, the cubic content, the level of illumination, the level of ventilation, the level of temperature and so on, if such things are uniform throughout the prison system, why is it the noble Lord cannot give us the figures? If it is not uniform, could he tell us what the variations are between one region and another. I think the Committee must know the answers to these questions before coming to a decision on the amendment.
Lord Elton: The amendment addresses itself to standardising these criteria. I have said that we endorse that proposal. There will he variations, do not doubt, of circumstance from one region to another. It is the function of the prison governors and the medical officers to see that minima are observed in setting what is certified normal accommodation. Almost every establishment is above certified normal establishment, and of course that is what we are

1009
trying to reduce. I cannot produce a handbook of guidance which is of a national level, because as far as I know it does not exist, and that is exactly what noble Lords opposite are enjoining us to create and that is what I am saying we are going to do. It hope this satisfies the noble Lord.
The Earl of Onslow: On a very minor point, what possible difference can there be in sending somebody to prison in Durham and Cornwall, and why should there be a regional variation in standards? I find it incomprehensible.
Lord Elton: If one prison was built in 1896 and another in 1920, the rooms are likely to be a different size and they are liable to be a different size which is not modular to adjust to prisoners; you either have one and three quarter prisoners or one and a half or half of one prisoner. I would have thought this was elementary, and I think we were straining at a gnat. The principle the amendment is after has been conceded, and I do not see why we go on with the debate.
Lord Mishcon: It is quite obvious from the number of noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and indeed the time we have taken on this amendment, that we have hit upon a very vital subject indeed. I think it would be quite wrong at this time, and with the size of the Committee as it is at present, to take the matter further at this stage. I therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment, and will come back to it, if I may, or may be someone else will be coming back to it, at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 9, leave out lines 10 to 14.
The noble Lord said: This is a comparatively harmless amendment, unlike many of the others we have been concerned with. It is really a probing amendment. The national Association of Probation Officers take a very strong view that it is just as wrong to mix young women with older women as it is to mix boys and young men with older men. The Government, as far as I know, take exactly the opposite view. My own view is at the moment undefined, and I wanted this to be discussed in the Committee. It seems to me that the danger of a girl being corrupted by an older woman who is of a criminal mind is about the same as the danger of a boy being corrupted by an older man who is of a criminal type. I am not aware of any argument in the other direction. But I have no experience of either, so I am hoping to get some information from the noble Lord or other people. This is purely a probing amendment. I think it is important that if we are going to give the Government the leave, which this part of the Bill does, to mix older women with younger women and girls we ought to be very sure what we are doing. I am not in a position to give advice on this and I am asking for information. Are the Government sure that it is right to say that this is a perfectly good thing to do and have they any information of any kind, derived from any scientific or other examination, to support it? The National Association of Probation Officers have a great deal of widespread experience about this and take the opposite view. I have no experience myself and I am interested to know what
1010
has happened. In order to find out, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Elton: I can quite understand the noble Lord's interest in this subject because I also find what I have discovered rather surprising. The arrangment is, in fact, intended for the benefit of the individuals concerned. It is the case that the present law does not distinguish between prisoners on the basis of their age; and in the women's and girls' system over 21s and under 21s subject to sentences of imprisonment, which start at the age of 17, have been held together for many years. That has not been done casually or in response to the need to solve an ad hoc problem; it is a practice well founded on management experience.
During the preparation of this Bill we specifically consulted the governors of women's and girls' establishments about the reasons for, and the results of, this mixing. Their experience is that to hold selected adult women with young offenders brings benefit to both sides. I shall return to the matter of selection in a moment. However, their firm advice is that it is essential because young women in custody can react in a volatile and over-emotional manner, and this seems to be reinforced where an exclusively young population is kept together. The presence of adult women prisoners has a stabilising effect upon them—a matter to which I referred earlier. From the point of view of the adult women, the opportunity to mix often gives them a greater sense of responsibility and maturity.
By contrast, young men are more likely to challenge older male prisoners and themselves to be exploited by them. That is not to say that there are no risks at all with women, but they are more limited and can be dealt with by a proper selection. If I have said enough to satisfy the noble Lord, then I think I shall leave it at that because the other considerations arise from the administrative arrangement which would flow from the amendment if it were accepted.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I am grateful to the noble Lord. However, I think that we ought to have some evidence. The noble Lord says that consultations have been held with prison governors. It would be interesting to know what they said. I think that this is rather an important point. I shall certainly not press the amendment to a Division because I think that it is quite likely that the Government are right. But I think that there has been a rather generalised "everything is all right" line. What does the Governor of Holloway say? What does the last governor of Holloway say? What do other women governors of whom many are very distinguished—say? Could we have a symposium from half a dozen of them and hear something about it? I am not asking for this before Report but I think that it should be done before the British nation adopts a particular policy which is logically difficult to explain. I am not saying that there is not a good reason, but I should like more backing for it. Anyway, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said and I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Amendment No. 23 not moved.)
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, line 7, at end insert—
(" (8) The Secretary of State shall at monthly intervals notify the Crown Court and magistrates' courts of the number of vacancies available in institutions provided under this section.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 24. We have been discussing—and discussing with great interest and with an endeavour to do something about it—overcrowding in prisons. Your Lordships may think that it is suitable to come out at least with some amendments which are of a constructive nature to try at least to do something about it.
It is generally agreed that, over the years, the prison service has been placed in an impossible position by being asked to accommodate and to look after more inmates than it has the resources to cater for properly. All this amendment asks—and it is in accordance with a report of the Expenditure Committee from which I shall briefly quote in a moment—is that reports are issued monthly which enable the courts at least to know what the availability of prisons is in order to ensure that those which happen to be under-occupied, if there are any, at least receive a correct number of prisoners. This quite obviously applies also to those institutions which happen to be overcrowded.
The quotation that I want to make from the 1978 report of the Expenditure Committee on the reduction of pressure on the prison system reads:
" The sub-committee desire to make it clear that they would not wish to interfere in any way with a right of a court to send a person to prison. We feel, however, that it would be helpful to provide regular status reports on prison and borstal institutions, giving information about the accommodation available, and we recommend that such information should be available to all Crown Courts and magistrates' courts."
When this was dealt with in another place, the Minister —and I believe that this was on 23rd February—although not prepared to accept the amendment, agreed that the courts should be aware of the pressures under which the prison system operates and said that he would look seriously into the matter to see whether the frequency or the scale on which the courts are informed of the state of the prison population in various establishments could be improved.
I ask this question—hopefully because this may make me take a certain course in regard to this amendment: what has been done since 23rd February to carry out what the Minister said he would do? If something constructive has happened, it will obviously help my friends and me to know what we ought to do about this amendment.
Lord Elton: As the noble Lord said, this amendment is similar to one which was tabled and discussed, though not formally moved, in another place. Although it is well meant, the Government do not believe it is quite the right approach and, indeed, if brought into the Bill it could produce some confusion. The demand for places in the prison system is, in effect, determined by sentencing decisions taken by a judiciary operating within general but not specific limits imposed by Parliament. A statutory provision requiring individual courts to have detailed population returns at regular intervals could indeed exert an overt influence on individual sentencing decisions. I do not say that those responsible for taking sentencing decisions should not have relevant information about custodial
1012
provision and about the problems the system faces. On the contrary, that is an aim that the Government share. The problem that we face is how best to do it.
I accept that the extent to which the executive should seek to influence the judiciary is ultimately a matter of judgment, and that it would be possible to take different views from the ones I have just implied on how far it is right to go in this direction. But on a more practical level, I do not think that the amendment would work in the way its proposers wish. Population levels in institutions can change rapidly; in detention centres and remand centres they change from day to day. So that information to the courts could rapidly become out of date before it was repeated. Furthermore, overall vacancies in, for example, the youth custody system could, as with borstals at present, mask pressure on secure establishments and, indeed, pressure on all establishments in large areas of the country. And I should add that for unsentenced people the criteria for refusing to grant bail are clearly defined, and I cannot see any scope for a system in which courts would or should be influenced by figures about vacancies in remand centres.
Generally, it would be difficult for the courts to interpret monthly figures except in the broadest sense. Decisions about the movement of offenders within the prison system are made on the basis of daily figures. Detention centres are in fact the only type of young offender establishment to receive sentenced offenders direct from court. By contrast, places in youth custody centres, to which the amendment also relates, will be filled by allocation from the establishments which first received the young offenders from court, and their level of occupation at any one time will not reveal the ebbs and flows of a changing situation.
That said, we are anxious to see whether the ways in which courts are informed of population levels can be improved in an effective way, and since the discussion in another place we have given further thought to how we might do it. Taking detention centres first, magistrates' courts are already requested to inquire about vacancies before passing sentence. This is not—as is sometimes thought—with a view to their being refused places but so that, where necessary, offenders can be committed to centres under less pressure. We propose that a modified inquiry system should continue when the changes in this Bill are brought into force and the courts will, therefore, continue to be aware of fluctuating pressures on the detention centre system. Such a system would not be useful for other young offender establishments because, as I have explained, they do not receive offenders direct from courts. Courts are made aware of pressures in the prison system generally by Ministers, officials and others—including, indeed, Members of your Lordships' House—drawing attention to them, and through publications such as the annual prison department report and accompanying statistical volume. I doubt that there is a court in the country which does not know that the prison system is generally under great pressure at the moment. For our part, the Government will continue to make known these facts and encourage the dissemination of relevant information.

1013
As to the formal transmission of this information a committee of the Magistrates' Association does in fact receive six monthly statistics about population levels. Before Part I of the Bill is brought into force, we will have a look at these arrangements to see if there is any scope for change. Plans are also well in hand for the issue by the Judicial Studies Board of a bulletin of material of interest to sentencers. We may be able to build on this. These various approaches are, I think, likely to bear more fruit than the one
1014
reflected in the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord feels that we have not been idle since the proceedings in another place.
Lord Mishcon: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. The Committee will be grateful that the amendments in another place and in your Lordships' House have produced some practical results. I repeat our gratitude to the Minister, and in the circumstances beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 11 [Accommodation of young offenders and defaulters etc.]:
9.47 p.m.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 8, leave out (" the enactments mentioned in ").
The noble Lord said: The first of these amendments in line 8 is purely to simplify the wording of the Bill. I shall speak to the next amendments as a group, if I may. I beg simply to move this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 29:
Page 10, line 17, at end insert—
(" (1A) Subject to subsection (9) below, an offender aged 16 years or less who is sentenced to youth custody, other than an offender who falls to be detained in a youth custody centre by virtue of subsection (1) above, is to be detained in a youth custody centre or in a remand centre as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct unless—

(a) the term of his youth custody sentence is treated by virtue of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 as reduced to less than 21 days; or

(b) he has been sentenced under section 15(6) below to youth custody for less than 21 days; or

(c) the Secretary of State gives a direction for his detention in a prison under subsection (2) below.").

Page 10, line 18, at end insert (" (a)").
Page 10,line 20, after (" above ") insert ("; or
(b) an offender who falls to be detained in a youth custody centre or a remand centre by virtue of subsection (IA) above,").
Page 10, line 24, after (" above ") insert (" or an offender who falls to be detained in a youth custody centre or a remand centre by virtue of subsection (1A) above ").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry. I have this slightly confused because I changed over folders at this point and the folder to which I was changing was not present briefly on the Front Bench. Therefore, I have leapt ahead of myself and your Lordships. May I now beg to move Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 29 en bloc.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I was nearly denied the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for giving effect to suggestions in anotherplace, which are embodied in Amendments Nos. 25 to 29. It is a good thing to introduce a little calm, gentleness and gratitude in what at one time became a most unlordly display.
Lord Elton: I cannot forbear to thank the noble and learned Lord for his calm and generous response. Nothing would mortify me more than through my own ineptitude denying myself the pleasure of being thanked by the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move the following amendment:
Page 10, line 28, at end insert—
(" ( ) No offender who is less than 17 years of age shall be detained in a prison under subsection (3) above other than for a temporary purpose.").
The noble Baroness said: In view of Amendments Nos. 25 to 29, for which I thank my noble friend—they are amendments to be welcomed—I shall not move my Amendment No. 30.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt had given notice of his intention to move the following amendment:
Page 11, line 6, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: I am caught out, much in the way the Minister was temporarily caught out a few moments ago. Even worse, I have no brief. Therefore, I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Release on licence of young offenders]:
Lord Elystan-Morgan Lord Elystan-Morgan moved Amendment No. 32:
Leave out Clause 14 and insert the following new clause:
(" Release on licence of young offenders.
14. Subsection (5A) of section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to make the length of licence for those young offenders released on parole the same as that for adults. The licence would then end at the remission date. In general, distinction between young and adult offenders is made with the intention of benefiting the young offender. That is the general pattern and policy. However, the present parole arrangements have the opposite effect and can put a young offender in a worse position than an adult in similar circumstances.
The Bill improves on the existing arrangements under which parole for young offenders extends to the latest date of release, rather than the remission date, but in our view it does not go far enough. A young offender released on parole could still be subject to licence, and therefore to recall, for a longer period than an adult serving the same length of sentence. That also means that the young offender who is subject to recall is liable to spend a longer period in custody, as the unexpired part of the licence will be longer. The amendment would remove that anomaly and therefore the potential for a serious injustice would be expunged.
When this amendment was debated in Committee in another place the Minister of State, Mr. Mayhew, after hearing the debate, commented:
" I am very willing to look again at what has been said in the debate…there is no commitment on my part to change, but I would welcome the opportunity to read again what has been said ".
Perhaps rather anodyne words that have fallen from the lips of Ministers of various Governments from time to time. During the debate the Minister acknowledged that he could see the attractions of the argument that there should be equity of treatment between young offenders and adults released on parole. The Minister was, however, concerned to maintain,
" a kind of equality of treatment between young offenders as a class ",
as he described it, and therefore about how the amendment would affect those released on parole compared

1017
with those released in the normal way on licence. We hope the Government will give earnest consideration to the matter so that the iniquity which is at present a possibility in many cases between young and adult offenders will be removed. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I understand the concern which underlies the amendment. It can sometimes be difficult for the probation service to deal with young offenders who resent being supervised, and their task is not helped when the offender feels he is an adult and should not therefore be treated differently from people who are sentenced as adults, and it may help if I explain why the Government have included the provision in Clause 14 and why, therefore, we are not disposed to accept the amendment. We take the view that all young offenders should on release be subject to a period of supervision. An offender who has been in custody is likely to be in a vulnerable state and a supervising officer can provide him with both firm guidance and support of a practical kind. The period of supervision is an integral part of the sentence.
At present those released from detention centres, borstals and sentences of imprisonment of less than 18 months are under supervision for a period of 12 months. The Government take the view that that is too long. The general rule that we introduce in Clause 15 is that all young offenders will be supervised until the date on which their full sentences would have expired. That can be called the remission period. The period of supervision is therefore related to the length of the sentence, but with a minimum of three months and a maximum of 12 months.
However, we do not intend that the new arrangement should interfere with the young offender's chances of being released earlier on parole. At present young prisoners are eligible for release under the parole arrangements in the same way as adult prisoners. The only difference between the two categories is that the parole licence of a young offender runs until the end of the full term of his sentence, while the parole licence of an adult is shorter; it runs until the two-thirds point of his sentence. That is the date on which he would otherwise have been released without any supervision.
The amendment to Clause 14 would abolish the difference between adults and young offenders released on parole. The Government intend to retain it because it balances the general principle underlying the custody and supervision of young offenders. In general, offenders released under Clause 15 will spend two-thirds of their sentences in custody and one-third under supervision. Those released early on parole under Clause 14 might spend one half of the sentence in custody and one half on licence under supervision. That means that there is some equality of treatment as between young offenders as a class, and that is the Government's aim.
If the amendment were to succeed, it would make a severe inroad into the general approach to young offenders. It would introduce as well a dramatic difference between the way that we treat those who are released on parole and those who are not. So in seeking equity in one area, it would create inequity in
1018
another. Let me illustrate the point in the case of two young offenders who have three-year sentences. One is released on parole after 19 months, and under this amendment he would spend 19 months in custody, five months on licence under supervision, and then he would be scot free. The other is released in the ordinary way under Clause 15. He would spend 24 months in custody and 12 months under supervision. The second offender would be released under supervision on the very day that the first became free of supervision.
I have said that the Government intend to retain the existing parole arrangements for young offenders which are set out in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. While that is generally true, it does not explain the small adjustments that we are making to Section 60 in Clause 14 of the Bill. The purpose of those changes is to harmonise further the provisions for parole and those for supervision.
I think that rather than carry forward the argument to what we shall be saying about Clauses 14 and 15, I shall say that I hope the noble Lord sees that what we are proposing is at the very worst the lesser of two evils. It is less inequitable than what he proposes.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Although with his usual courtesy the noble Lord has explained in full the effects of the Government's decision in this matter, with the very greatest respect to him, I do not think that he has really justified the distinction drawn between young offenders in this case. The general policy of the present Government, and of previous Governments, has been to expunge that difference. Indeed, in this very Bill there is a very substantial provision that deals with making time spent in custody by young offenders count as against eventual sentence in exactly the same way as for adult offenders. Having therefore endorsed that principle of equality, why should the Government fly in the face of their own basic philosophy in this matter? We are mildly disappointed, but not altogether dismayed by the Government's attitude, and we hope to return to the matter at another stage, at, one trusts, a more propitious hour than the present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): The next amendment is Amendment No. 33, and I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that if it is agreed to it will not be possible for me to call Amendment No. 34.
Clause 15 [Supervision of young offenders released otherwise than on licence]:
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 13, line 29, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(" (1) A person over 17 and under 22 years of age who is released otherwise than under section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 from a term of detention under a detention centre order or a term of youth custody shall he under the supervision of a probation officer from his release until the end of the supervision period.

1019
(1A) A person released as in subsection (1) above who is under 17 years of age on the date of release shall be under the supervision of a probation officer or a social worker of a local authority social services department from his release until the end of the supervision period.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Donaldson and myself. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify a grey area in penal practice, as to which of the two services, the probation service or the social services, should be responsible for the supervision of young offenders, out of custody, depending on their age. There remains, and will remain if this amendment is accepted, a grey area in respect of young people under 17. My understanding from the probation service, at any rate, is that that grey area is sorted out quite satisfactorily between the two services at local level.
Our concern is in regard to the older ones, those who are 17-plus, and it is my feeling, from some experience, that it is necessary to stipulate that the probation service—which is, after all, the service serving the courts —with its particular training and with its familiarity with the more strict controls and disciplinary supervision which are sometimes quite necessary for young people of that age, should be given the specific responsibility for young people of that age and above.
The clause as it is worded, if your Lordships would glance at Clause 15(1), lumps together all young offenders under the age of 22, and goes on to say that such an offender,
" shall be under the supervision of a probation officer or a social worker of a local authority social services department from his release until the end of the supervision period ".
It does not make any distinction at all; it leaves it to be sorted out locally. I repeat that it is our feeling that this distinction should be made, and this is what we have done in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the noble Lord for exposing his interest in this matter so clearly. Under Clause 15 there is provision to continue the existing arrangement whereby certain juveniles released from detention centres and borstals are supervised by local authority social workers. Mainly these are youngsters who would have been under the care or supervision of the local authority when they were sentenced, and whose continuing supervision by the same local authority social worker is considered to be essential.
It will probably help the Committee if I indicate the sort of case that I have in mind. There is, for example, the case where the whole family is receiving effective help from the social services department. It would be disruptive and unnecessary for the family to have the probation service involved with one child, even though he might be over 17, on release from custody, while a social worker has responsibility for the rest of the family. There will also be those youngsters for whom the local authority will have a continuing legal responsibility under the Children and Young Persons Act, who will, on release, be returning to local authority community homes. The clause enables the continuity of supervising officer to be maintained in those cases where it would be beneficial.
The effect of either this amendment or a later one
1020
which I suspect my noble friend will be speaking about —1 hope I have not leapt up ahead of him, if he was intending to speak—would be to prevent any continuing involvement by the social worker even in those cases where it is thought essential, and make the probation service responsible for supervision in every case. Each case needs to be considered from the point of view of what would be best for the young person concerned.
At the moment, local authority social services departments co-operate with the probation service in an arrangement to decide in each case who should supervise. Although the lion's share is taken by the probation service, there are and always will be cases, such as those that I have illustrated, and others, where it is without doubt for the benefit of the recipient of care (if I may so describe it) that he should be overseen throughout his career, including the interlude (we hope the solitary interlude) of custodial treatment by the same caring adult. That is what we propose and that is why the area is grey, but in a beneficial and not a muddled sense.
Lord Hunt: I was pausing hopefully to get some support for this amendment from any other quarter of the Committee. In view of the late hour, it is obvious that I do not wish to press on and insist on dividing a small Committee. 1 have fully understood what the Minister explained, the circumstances which can arise particularly in the family situation and the need for continuity. I am still not entirely happy that there should not be something more specific about the responsibilities of the probation service as distinct from the social services as a general rule. I should like to think about this and to consider coming up with something else at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 13, line 33, leave out from (" officer ") to (" from ") in line 34.
The noble Lord said: This is linked with the previous amendment, but I wish to follow a slightly different line. I am advised that, whereas supervision of difficult young people carried out by probation officers is of a good standard, there is experience that, unless monitored from the courts, the social workers do not always carry out the supervision as intended. They seem in many cases perhaps to lack the training for this task. I suppose they have a wider range of things to deal with, and difficult young people may be particularly difficult for them. We know that my noble friend Lady Faithfull is very experienced in this area and did extremely well in Oxford; but I am talking about London area where perhaps the ability to have people so well trained in not so great. But almost more importantly—and this is something that my noble friend could perhaps comment on—whereas the probation officers are quite clear about their authority to give instructions and to see that they are carried out, the social workers do not seem to carry the same authority. In general terms, one would be grateful

1021
if my noble friend could clarify whether there is any step being taken to ensure that social workers who get the opportunity of dealing with young people of the offender type, the difficult ones, are trained up to the same standards as the probation officers for doing what is essentially similar work. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: If I may elaborate on what I have said, the social workers have perfectly ample authority to cope with the most difficult cases, and they do so: in my last job I saw them do it and was impressed. As to training, there is a common element in the CQSW course and therefore I feel that the social workers are as well equipped as the probation officers for this work.
The reason why I hesitate in speaking is that I do not want to mount a hobby horse, but I should like to say there has been a habit in the past of some sort of rather ungrateful rivalry between the social work departments and the probation services, and each has perhaps been happy to advance its own expertise at the expense of the other. I believe that those days are behind us and I am just wondering whether the noble Lord's disquiet stems from memories or perhaps the persistence of an unhappy case where each service felt that it was in some way better than the other, when both were doing the same job. Of course that is manifestly unproductive. It is also manifestly diminishing, it if is not extinct.
If I may return to my noble friend's point of anxiety, I am confident that the social worker has adequate authority. In many cases it is greatly to the advantage of the young person to be dealt with by someone he knows and, hopefully, already respects. Where there is an advantage in changing oversight, the advantage is perceived, and because the social work service and the probation service discuss these cases on the occasion of the young person coming to court, they can profit from the opportunity to change the supervision. But there will always be cases where it is better to have care through from before to after sentencing.
Lord Mottistone: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his very full reply and for reassuring me on a point on which I was advised that there had been difficulties in the past. In view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman: Amendment No. 35: 1 understand that there is a misprint here. The amendment refers to line 26 and not to line 25.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 14, line 26, at end insert (" subject to the limitation that the length of any period of custody is not such that an offender would spend longer in custody than under the original sentence.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment which is involved simply with what is down there. It is in order to make sure that a greater punishment than originally imposed on the offender by the court cannot be incurred as a result of this. I do not think it is very likely that it would be, but it is possible, and we should
1022
guard against the possibility. I do not think I need say more at this point. The Chief Whip wants us to be quick, and I always do my best to comply. I think the case is perfectly clear. We do not want to see this subsection enabling the offender to be given a longer time in detention than he would have had under his original sentence. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: I will try to match the noble Lord's brevity. I do not think I can quite do it, but I think he would like me to make it clear that the provision in Clause 15(6) is not some form of recall or return to custody. It creates a new and separate offence like any other offence, and sets a maximum penalty for it. That penalty is available whether the offender is under supervision after being in custody for three years or three weeks. It does not provide an easy way for the court to pop someone back inside when they seem to be going astray. The imposition of a custodial sentence under this provision will be subject to all the restrictions in the opening clauses of this Bill, including social inquiry reports, legal representation and so on.
The court is simply sentencing for a fresh and separate offence of which the offender has been convicted. No doubt it would look at the offender's previous custodial history, but it should not be bound by it. It is highly unlikely that a court would impose a sentence with a maximum of 30 days on someone whose original sentence was a few days less than that. The Government's view is that this is a matter which can properly be left to the discretion of the courts and that what is proposed amounts to, as it were, excessive fine tuning.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I will accept that, but I am not entirely happy. It does not seem to me that a sanction for breaking is the same as a new offence. It seems to me a wrong use of words and I believe the noble Lord should look at this. The position is really quite clear. The offender is given some orders to comply with and fails to comply with them. This is part of the old offence. It is arguable. 1 do not want to go into detail at this hour. I am not happy, but it is not worthwhile dividing the Committee on the amendment. I shall think about it, but I am sure that shall not come back on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 14, line 26, at end insert—
(" (6A) A person released from a custodial sentence imposed under subsection (6)(b) above shall not be liable to a new period of supervision.").
The noble Lord said: This is a slightly more substantial amendment, which is based on the knowledge that those of us who work in this field have acquired from people who are professionals in it about what the offender feels. We are trying to ensure that a person released from a custodial sentence imposed under subsection (6)(b) shall not be liable to a new period of supervision. The point is that he has had his punishment, he has failed to keep to the orders that he was given, he has been punished for that and released and

1023
that should be the end of it. He should not then have a further period of supervision.
I think that I have said it as clearly as it can be said, and there is no point in elaborating. My own view is that he should pay his penalty and then be free and not have a further period of supervision. I hope, at least, that if he cannot agree now the noble Lord will look again at this amendment, because it is more important than some of those that we have been dealing with. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: This turns also, to some extent, on the concept of whether what happens is a new offence or, as it were, a distortion of the old conditions. I see one attractive side to the noble Lord's argument, which is that there is a danger of somebody being trapped into a constant recycle of offence, breach, offence, supervision and so on. But the period of supervision on release under Clause 15 is an integral part of the young offender's sentence. During that time, he must comply with the requirements in his notice of supervision. These will be quite simple and mainly concerned with keeping in touch with the supervising officer. If he fails to comply, he will be guilty of an offence carrying up to 30 days in custody. Plenty of other offences might result in a young offender being given up to 30 days in custody. The question is: should this offender be treated differently from all other offenders?
All custodial sentences of up to 30 days will carry three months' supervision. An offender's breach of supervision will be quite serious if he is given the maximum penalty of 30 days. Should he, unlike all other offenders, be exempt from supervision altogether on release? On balance, I think not. If an offence—be it theft, breach of supervision or criminal damage—is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence, it will also automatically attract the period of supervision. We should be very reluctant to start modifying the structure of the sentence, according to the type of offence.
I can see what the noble Lord will say in reply, because he wishes to relate everything that happens after release from the first period of custody to the original offence. What I am saying is that, in the period of supervision, the offender is required to conduct himself properly, both in respect of all other pieces of legislation affecting the whole population, and also in respect of the orders which apply to him because of his case. If we treat an offence against one differently from an offence against the other, we introduce principles which slightly worry the sentencing authorities. I do not see an unbreakable cycle of reconviction and re-supervision breaking out, because the courts will be aware of this danger and will conduct themselves accordingly and not giving 30 days' supervision to somebody who appears to be unsupervisable. They might possibly expect him to conduct himself properly for three or four.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: One of my least worries is upsetting the sentencing authorities. That is not at all a problem in my life. The noble Lord has not noted that Section 14(8) already allows continua-
1024
tion of the existing licence to its normal termination. The more I think about this the more I am inclined to think that it is rather an important amendment. It would be quite wrong to divide the Committee when there is nobody here. Therefore, I shall raise the matter again at Report. It is an injustice that somebody who commits an offence, who is given a supervision order, who breaches that supervision order and is then punished for the breach which, clearly in his mind, is part of the whole sentence, should then be given further supervision when he comes out. It is not acceptable, and I think that I should like to fight it. However, I shall withdraw the amendment this evening. I will gather my forces, consider whether I can put something down at Report and then see what support I can get.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Provision, regulation and management of attendance centers]:
10.21 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 14, line 36, leave out (" may ") and insert (" shall ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and myself. My purpose in doing so is simply to make an inquiry or to probe what the Government have in mind by using the word "may" rather than "shall". I hope that I am not reading into the Bill, as Clause 16(1) is worded, any lukewarmness or doubts on the part of the Government about the value of attendance centres. My understanding is that attendance centres are serving an essential purpose and that, by and large—they are variously administered around the country—they are doing the job well. When he replies I should like the Minister to explain why the word "may" is used. It looks almost as though the Government may drop the idea of attendance centres after the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sandys: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there is no intention of displaying any degree of lukewarmness in this area, as I hope my remarks will show.
The Government are committed to the provision of attendance centres. Clause 16(1) preserves the Secretary of State's power to do so. The Government made clear their commitment in the White Paper which we have all been looking at—Cmnd. 8045. We noted that there were 71 junior attendance centres for boys aged 10 and under 17 at the beginning of 1979 and a mere two senior centres for young men aged 17 and under 21. Today there are 117 attendance centres in England and Wales. That is an increase of 44 in three years. I hope that helps to demonstrate to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the enthusiasm which the Government have for this particular measure. I think it will be agreed that the Government are making good use of the existing power in Section 48(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948

1025
which subsection (1) replaces. The 1948 Act power is expressed in terms of "may".
It would not be customary to provide that the Secretary of State "shall" provide attendance centres. I have suggested that it would be unnecessary. Of course a future Secretary of State might take the view that attendance centres were no longer an appropriate form of response to juvenile offending. For the foreseeable future it is difficult to imagine so cost effective a disposal being given up.
But more to the point, the substitution of "shall" for "may" would be ineffective. Attendance centres are provided in centres of population. This must be so, since the young offenders who attend there for two or three hours on Saturdays have to be able to travel there without undue difficulty. Absolute comprehensive coverage for the whole country could not be achieved since centres could not be maintained in sparsely populated parts of the country where the number of young offenders within reach of a centre would be too few to make it viable. Thus, the Secretary of State must have the discretion as to where centres can be maintained. Even if subsection (1) allowed the Secretary of State to maintain attendance centres he could—and I emphasise the word "could"—decide that few were needed. Indeed, the fact that until recently there were only two centres for young men aged 17 and over bears out this point. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would not prevent that neglect. I venture to hope that the Committee will agree that the Government can and should be trusted to use the power to set up attendance centres properly and that the amendment should therefore be withdrawn.
Lord Wigoder: Could the noble Lord help by saying how many of the 44 youth attendance centres are senior ones?
Lord Sandys: I do not have that information immediately to hand, but I believe it may emerge in the course of later discussion—possibly on the next amendment.
Lord Hunt: I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his admirable brief and for making it so clear that there is no sinister inference to be drawn from the word "may". I feel very comforted by that, while being somewhat puzzled by the extraordinary interpretation put on the word "shall". I would have thought that the word "shall" was pretty binding and would give the Secretary of State more power to his elbow to develop the attendance centres up and down the land, but with the assurance that the noble Lord has given me I am not going to press this point, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I want to say one very brief word about attendance centres. The All-Party Penal Affairs Group, of which I am the pilot
1026
secretary, and which has done a certain amount to produce amendments which we have debated today, feels very strongly that the attendance centre is one of the most useful non-custodial penalties for young offenders. We have not had an amendment which has enabled us to discuss this subject, so I just want to stress that point. I would like to point out also that the Home Office research study on junior attendance centres published in 1980 found that junior attendance centres appear to be satisfactorily achieving the objectives set for them by the courts; that they are used for a wide variety of offenders; and that there are no contra-indications to their continued use for any particular type of boy. Indeed, their use might be extended to include some of those to whom the courts reluctantly award custodial penalties. Your Lordships will see, therefore, why my noble friend Lord Hunt and I wanted "shall" instead of "may" in this category.
Lord Sandys: Perhaps in response to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I might say that while being very grateful to him for his comments, I believe it will be appreciated by all your Lordships that this clause re-enacts with amendments the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 which enabled the Secretary of State to provide attendance centres for offenders under the age of 21 and for persons under 21 who fail to comply with the requirements of a probation or supervision order.
Rules for the regulation and management of attendance centres may be made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument and the Secretary of State may also make arrangements with local authorities or police authorities for the use of their premises for attendance centres purposes. Most attendance centres are held on school premises as these provide the most suitable range of facilities. Few are held in police training schools or in an operational police station.
Attendance centre orders have been found to be a very useful non-custodial sentence for young offenders and the system is being rapidly expanded with centres now available for girls, either separately or at mixed centres. In particular, more centres are being opened for young adults aged 17 to 20. This does give me the opportunity, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to say that, of the centres recently opened, there are 12 senior centres, of which 10 are new.
Clause 16 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
Lord Denham: Although we have perhaps not got quite so far as I would have wished this evening, I think in view of all the prevailing circumstances, that this is the time when we might call a halt to the day's proceedings. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.