§ 2.59 p.m.
§ The Earl of Longfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
How the cost per head of trainees at the new Medway Secure Training Centre for young people aged 12–14 compares with the average cost in local authority secure units.
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, it is difficult to make a direct comparison between the cost for the Medway Secure Training Centre and the average charge for local authority secure units because local authority charges for secure units reflect only the operating costs and not the build costs, which are met directly from central government capital grants. In addition, there is a wide range of charges across different local authority units. There is no one standard regime. Some units charge extra for specialist facilities. However, if we exclude capital costs, the average cost of a place at Medway would be £2,400 compared with the average in local authority secure accommodation of £2,570.
§ The Earl of LongfordMy Lords, while expressing complete scepticism about that Answer, which is one of the phoniest I can recall in 52 years in the House, everyone being perfectly well aware that these places are enormously expensive and the Answer says the 10 opposite, may I put these questions to the noble Lord? Will he allow me to pay a tribute to the staff of this place under the inspiration of its director? I think I am one of the few noble Lords who has had the chance to visit it. The House may be aware that there are 100 people on the paid staff and two inmates. However, I want to pay my tribute to the evident inspiration of the staff and director. Does the noble Lord realise that there is tremendous disquiet about this place if only because it treats young people as criminals, as everyone knows who reads the press, where they are described as children's gaols? Does he understand the disquiet at the idea of treating children aged 12 to 14 as criminals so that for the rest of their lives they will bear a criminal taint?
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords. I know that your Lordships do not like asperity of language and therefore I would not want to say anything about the particular comment that the noble Earl made. I was aware, surprisingly, of his visit to Medway on 20th April, as I was helpfully provided with a note about that visit. The noble Earl paid tribute, which I believe to be justified, to people who are carrying out extremely difficult work. What is the work that they carry out? It is attempted rehabilitation of young children who have, unfortunately, fallen into criminal ways. They are there essentially to be given the best possible opportunity—I accept at considerable public cost—to make their lives decent and fruitful when they come out.
§ Baroness BlatchMy Lords, I welcome the Government's establishment of this centre. It is another successful policy of the previous government which was opposed tooth and nail by the noble Lord himself and by his colleagues on these Benches when they were in opposition. Will the noble Lord clear up one point for me? The original intention was that such centres should ostensibly be for young very persistent offenders. It was set down in law how persistently they had to offend in order to qualify for a place. There was to be a programme of intensive education and training and rehabilitative programmes which included counselling and developing very close links, if that were possible, with the family and/or mentors in the community. I understand that these establishments are to be an improvement on what the previous government had originally intended. Will the noble Lord explain what is different from the programme that was originally intended for these establishments?
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, it is true, as the noble Baroness says, that the Home Secretary announced in July 1997 that he would continue with the preparations for the centre to avoid the waste of public money that would be involved in withdrawing from the previous commitment. I believe that to be a perfectly justifiable approach. If all the places are taken up, there will be 100 staff providing 24-hour cover for 40 trainees—education, care, security and support services. We believe—I am not sure that there is an enormous difference between us in our objective—that 11 this will give a decent opportunity for rehabilitation for young children whose circumstances and background have been very unfortunate.
§ Lord Allen of AbbeydaleMy Lords, as the catchment area for the centre seems to be the whole of England and Wales, does the estimate of expenditure include the cost of assisting parents from, say, Northumberland or North Wales to travel to Kent to visit their offspring at the centre?
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, the intention is that there should be assistance, where appropriate, for family visits to be made easy, or at least relatively easy, for those who simply cannot afford to travel to see their children.
§ Lord ActonMy Lords, as the number of girls at Medway is likely to be tiny, and as they are to be kept in separate accommodation from the boys, does my noble friend agree that the cost per girl is likely to be very much higher than £2,400; and am I right in thinking that that is £2,400 per week?
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, it is £2,400 a week. I do not accept the proposition put by the noble Lord that that necessarily means that a girl will be more expensive in terms of charges than a boy. I should have thought that the same proposition would obtain if he made it about local authority secure accommodation, where girls and boys are accommodated. I repeat, for the benefit of those who wish enlightenment, that the cost in local authority secure accommodation is £2,570. That is more than the Medway cost on a like-for-like basis.
§ Lord ActonMy Lords, am I right in thinking that at Medway there are to be five trainees in each of eight sub-units? If there are only two girls in a sub-unit, and if there are no boys in a sub-unit, are not the girls going to cost considerably more than the boys?
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, many years ago my father warned me, "If you ever go to the House of Lords, avoid two things: loose women and hypothetical questions."