| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 938
Question accordingly agreed to.Lords amendment No. 74 disagreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker : Do I understand that the hon. Member is not now pressing his amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 76?
Mr. Randall : Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
Lords amendment : No. 78, after clause 49, insert the following new clause- - Detention etc. pending trial--
. In section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (duties of custody officer after charge), for subsections (6) and (6A) there shall be substituted the following subsections-- "(6) Where a custody officer authorises an arrested juvenile to be kept in police detention under subsection (1) above, the custody officer shall, unless he certifies--
(a) that, by reason of such circumstances as are specified in the certificate, it is impracticable for him to do so ; or
(b) in the case of an arrested juvenile who has attained the age of 15 years, that no secure accommodation is available and that keeping him in other local authority accommodation would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him,
secure that the arrested juvenile is moved to local authority accommodation.
(6A) In this section--
local authority accommodation' means accommodation provided by or on behalf of a local authority (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989) ;
secure accommodation' means accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty ;
sexual offence' and violent offence' have the same meanings as in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 ;
and any reference, in relation to an arrested juvenile charged with a violent or sexual offence, to protecting the public from serious harm from him shall be construed as a reference to protecting members of the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, occasioned by further such offences committed by him." ")
Read a Second time.
Mr. Randall : I beg to move, amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out paragraph (b) andinsert--
(b) in the case of an arrested juvenile who has attained the age of 15 years, that keeping him in such accommodation with such supervision as the local authority proposes to make available would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him before he is brought before the magistrates' court to which he is charged to appear.'.
Madam Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the proposed amendment : (b), in line 24, leave out
secure accommodation means accommodation provided for the purpose of securing liberty'.
(c), in line 26, leave out " sexual offence" and "violent offence" have the same meaning as in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991'.
(d), in line 29, leave out
charged with a violent or sexual offence'.
Column 939
Lords amendments Nos. 79 and 80,Lords amendment No. 81, a new clause-- Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation-- and amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.
Lords amendments Nos. 97, 119 to 121, 130 to 132, 144, 152 and 163.
Mr. Randall : Amendment No. 78 was a response by the Government to concerns expressed in another place by Lord Elton and opposition to the continued detention of juveniles in police custody in circumstances in which local authorities have offered to accommodate them until their court appearance. The purpose of the Government's amendment is to lay down restrictive criteria that will help to meet those concerns. We welcome the proposal, and our amendment is intended to improve the measure by clarifying some of the wording. We are concerned that the Government's intentions could be thwarted unless the wording is modified. There are two problems, the first of which lies in the wording of paragraph (b) of Lords amendment No. 78, where there is a risk that the reference to "secure accommodation" could send the wrong message to police custody officers by suggesting to them that, where no secure accommodation is available, they are almost automatically entitled to regard other sorts of accommodation as inadequate to protect the public. Local authorities have effective ways, other than secure accommodation, of ensuring security and the surveillance of arrested juveniles, whom they usually have to hold for no more than one night before producing them at the next available court.
The reference to "secure accommodation" reinforces the tendency for police custody officers to regard other sorts of accommodation as inadequate and will produce wide inequalities between different districts. Children in regions without immediate access to secure accommodation will be at risk of being held in police cells. Moreover, local authorities that take their duty to provide accommodation for detained juveniles seriously, and have access to secure accommodation, will have to choose whether to earmark secure accommodation beds exclusively for that purpose. Secure accommodation is an expensive and valuable resource, but the proposals to end remands in custody will place extra demands on it. To leave paragraph (b) as it stands will place an irrational demand on this limited facility. The second problem lies in the wording of paragraph (b), which refers to the notion of protecting the public from serious harm, but defines "serious harm" only in terms of violent and sexual offences. The custody officer is given no guidance on how to interpret "serious harm" in relation to other offences. Our proposals will ensure that the term "serious harm" means protecting the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, whatever the offence for which the juvenile is arrested. That will ensure consistency between the courts. I hope that the Government will accept our proposals in the constructive manner in which they have been presented and are intended.
Lords amendments Nos. 79 to 81 set out stricter criteria for the remand of juveniles in custody in the short term and provide for the ending of such remands in the long term. The important short-term changes are that such remands will be restricted to cases where they are needed to protect the public from serious harm from the defendant, and that no juvenile can be remanded in
Column 940
custody unless he or she has been offered legal representation. That is unquestionably a welcome and substantial step in the right direction.However, we believe that the real need is to end completely the remanding of juveniles to adult prisons and remand centres, and we have debated that issue at considerable length. Where it is necessary to remand a juvenile, it should be to a secure place in a community home staffed by those specialising in working with children, not to a prison department establishment. While the Government have committed themselves to ending juvenile remands in custody eventually, they have not committed themselves to a timetable for doing so. They have said that they will end such remands where sufficient local secure accommodation is available, but they have not announced a specific time table.
In February, the Home Office issued a consultation paper entitled "The Remand of Alleged Juvenile Offenders". The Home Office proposed to restrict custodial remands in the short term on the lines of the Bill's provisions-- to establish between 30 and 35 more secure beds for juveniles in local authority homes and to review the position, but not necessarily to end juvenile remands in custody, over the next four years.
There has been mounting concern at the remand of juveniles in custody, and many cases can be quoted. The Minister knows only too well that there were some frightening problems relating to young remand prisoners in Hull prison. We should all compliment the staff there, who have to cope in such difficult circumstances. The conditions in which some young people, but not as many as before, are now held are much worse than those for sentenced young offenders in young offender institutions--indeed, they are the worst conditions in the whole penal system. The young people are often confined for most of the day in overcrowded, insanitary cells. Boys of 15 and 16 are held with older teenagers up to the age of 21, many of whom are much tougher and more experienced offenders. That is a recipe for criminal contamination, bullying and suicide attempts.
In the 12 months to end of June 1990, 1,300 boys aged 15 and 16 were remanded to prisons and remand centres. However, the number of juveniles on remand in penal establishments at any one time is much smaller. On 30 April 1990, there were 65 untried and 19 convicted, unsentenced boys under the age of 17 in prisons and remand centres. The Opposition believe that, with such numbers, it should be possible to plan a timetable strategy.
In their consultation paper, the Government estimated that the necessary secure accommodation should be ready in four years' time. However, four years is a disturbingly long time in view of the gravity of the problem. Even more disturbing is the lack of a firm commitment to end the custodial remand of juveniles at that date. Although, ideally, we should like to see a more rapid timetable for ending that practice, the amendment is limited to providing that it should be discontinued at the time when the Government have established that the necessary secure accommodation is in place. The amendments are positive and constructive and tackle a terrible problem for which the Government have failed to come up with a timetable. I hope that the House will support them.
Column 941
9 pmMr. John Patten : Amendment (a), which is the first of the two amendments to Lords amendment No. 78, would remove the reference to secure accommodation from new subsection 6(b) and insert a reference to supervision. Having listened carefully to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), I argue that the nature of the accommodation alone should not determine whether the police can safely transfer 15 and 16 -year-olds to the local authority, but that the quality of the supervision should also be considered. I happen to agree that quality is important and Lords amendment No. 78 allows the quality of supervision to be taken into account. It does not compel the police to hold on to 15 and 16-year-olds if they are satisfied with local authority arrangements.
However, I cannot commend the Opposition amendments to the House because, alas, they have an undesirable side effect. They would widen the discretion of the police to hold young people in police cells. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman wants. Lords amendment No. 78 requires the police to make the transfer if secure accommodation is available. The Opposition's amendments as drafted would remove that requirement. I know the drafting style of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I am sure that he did not draft the amendments. Perhaps they were drafted by the learned counsel to whom the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred earlier. If they were drafted at great cost to the Labour party by some outside source, I hope that it was done on a no foal, no fee basis because it is extremely badly drafted and produces the opposite to what the Opposition set out to achieve. It would allow the police to hold a 15 or 16 -year-old, even if secure accommodation were available, if the police certified that that accommodation offered inadequate protection to the public. That cannot be right and I am sure that it is not what the Opposition intend.
The remaining Opposition amendments to Lords Amendment No. 78 deserve serious consideration but would further restrict police power to hold an arrested juvenile aged 15 or 16. Provided that no local authority secure accommodation is available, Lords amendment No. 78 allows the police to hold 15 and 16-year-olds where there is a risk of serious harm to the public. It does not matter whether that serious harm would be caused by a sexual or violent offence or in some other way. For example, it may be another in a series of bad domestic burglaries of the homes of elderly people after dark. Unfortunately, the Opposition's amendment would limit the concept of serious harm to death or serious personal injury. That simply does not recognise the reality of the problem.
The public have a right to expect protection and consideration for their fear of further attack or burglary by 15 or 16-year-olds. We should not underestimate the harm that a serious domestic burglary can cause. It is not easy to judge serious harm but I believe that the police will be called upon to make difficult decisions, often on the basis of limited information. A balance must be struck between the needs of the young person and those of the public, but the police must have the discretion to strike that balance, at least overnight, and the Opposition's amendments
Column 942
would deprive them of that. Moreover, they could expose both the young man--it normally is a young man rather than a young woman--to further harm.As for Lords amendment No. 81, on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West spoke towards the end of his speech, there is not a scintilla of difference between us on the end that we both want to achieve--the ending of remanding young people in prison. The hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to staff at Hull prison, who have done an extremely good job. However, the amendments to Lords amendment No. 81 would set a firm date of four years after the enactment of the Bill for prison remands to be ended. The Government are committed to ending such remands as quickly as possible and I happen to think that that deadline will be met but--it is a big but-- let us suppose that the deadline cannot be met in some part of the country for, say, a combination of planning reasons. Local protest groups, local authorities not granting planning permission or appeals to the Department of the Environment could all prevent that deadline from being met. If the deadline of four years were not met in such areas, dangerous young people would remain on the streets. I am afraid to say that, while I agree with the sentiment of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said, I cannot agree with the actuality of the amendment, nor can I commend it to the House, and I hope that hon. Members will resist it.
Question accordingly negatived .
Lords amendment No. 78 agreed to .
Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry] . Lords amendment : No. 81, to insert the following new clause-- Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation (".--(1) In relation to any time before such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, section 23 of the 1969 Act as substituted by section ( --Remands and committals to local authority accommodation --)(1) above shall have effect with the following modifications.
(2) In subsection (1), immediately before the words "the remand" there shall be inserted the words "then, unless he is declared by the court, after consultation with a probation officer or a social worker of a local authority social services department, to be a person to whom subsection (5) below applies".
(3) For subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections--
"(4) Where a court declares a person to be one to whom subsection (5) below applies, it shall remand him--
(a) to a remand centre, if it has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception from the court of such persons ; and (
(b) to a prison, if it has not been so notified.
(4A) A court shall not declare a person who is not legally represented in the court to be a person to whom subsection (5) below applies unless--
(a) he applied for legal aid and the application was refused on the ground that it did not appear his means were such that he required assistance ; or
(b) having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to apply. (5) This subsection applies to a young person who is male and has attained the age of fifteen, but only if--
(a) he is charged with or has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence, or an offence
Column 943
punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more ; or(b
he has a recent history of absconding while remanded to local authority accommodation, and is charged with or has been convicted of an imprisonable offence alleged or found to have been committed while he was so remanded,
and (in either case) the court is of opinion that only remanding him to a remand centre or prison would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him."
(4) In subsection (6)--
(a
for the words "imposes a security requirement in respect of a young person" there shall be substituted the words "declares a person to be one to whom subsection (5) above applies" ; and
(b
for the words "subsection (5) above" there shall be substituted the words "that subsection".
(5) In subsections (7) and (9), the words "without imposing a security requirement" shall be omitted.
(6) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection--
"(9A) Where a person is remanded to local authority accommodation, a relevant court may, on the application of the designated authority, declare him to be a person to whom subsection (5) above applies ; and on its doing so, he shall cease to be remanded to local authority accommodation and subsection (4) above shall apply."
(7) In subsection (12), the definition of "secure accommodation" shall be omitted.")
Amendment proposed : (a), in subsection (1), after appoint', insert
which day shall be no later than the end of the period of four years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed'.-- [Mr. Randall.]
Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made :--
The House divided Ayes 127, Noes 202.
Division No. 195] [9.6 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Allen, Graham
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Beckett, Margaret
Bell, Stuart
Bellotti, David
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Bermingham, Gerald
Blunkett, David
Boyes, Roland
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Carr, Michael
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cox, Tom
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Eadie, Alexander
Eastham, Ken
Edwards, Huw
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Fearn, Ronald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Fisher, Mark
Flynn, Paul
Foster, Derek
Foulkes, George
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Galbraith, Sam
Galloway, George
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Graham, Thomas
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Hood, Jimmy
Howells, Geraint
Hoyle, Doug
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Mo n)
Kirkwood, Archy
Leadbitter, Ted
Leighton, Ron
| Next Section
| Home Page |