Young Offenders (Hansard, 16 March 1993)

§ Mr. Michael
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of places required in secure training units for the 11 to 15 years age group which he announced on 2 March; and if he will publish the evidence on which he bases that estimate.

§ Mr. Jack
Work is proceeding on the development of detailed plans for the introduction of the new secure training order for persistent juvenile offenders between the ages of 12 and 15, including an assessment of the number of places likely to be required.

§ Mr. Michael
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 557, when he expects to be able to provide an initial rough figure for the capital costs of (a) the individual units and (b) the total programme of secure training units for the 11 to 15 age groups announced on 2 March.

§ Mr. Jack
As my right hon. and learned Friend indicated in his statement on 2 March, columns 139–42, it is envisaged that the centres will be provided through agreements with suitable organisations which may come from the public, voluntary or private sectors provided that they can demonstrate the ability to meet the standards we shall be setting and to give value for money. Both the capital and revenue costs involved in implementing secure training orders are likely, therefore, to depend, inter alia, on a process of competitive tendering. This will take place once specifications have been drawn up.

§ Mr. Marlow
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, column 478, if he will give the reasons for the Government's view that corporal punishment is not an acceptable way of dealing with offenders.

§ Mr. Jack
There are considerable doubts about the effectiveness of corporal punishment as a deterrent. The courts had largely stopped using this form of punishment before its abolition in 1948, not least because of evidence which seemed to indicate that its use was counterproductive; those who were flogged were found to be more likely to commit further offences than similar offenders who were not subjected to corporal punishment.
Moreover, the use of corporal punishment would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under article 3 of the European convention on human rights which states that no one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.