Clause
27
Escort
arrangements
Mr.
Garnier:
I beg to move amendment No. 23, in
clause 27, page 19, line 34, at
end insert—
‘(3A) After
paragraph 1 there is
inserted—
“(1A)
In making the arrangements under paragraph 1 the Secretary of State
shall have a duty to ensure that young offenders’ safeguarding
and welfare needs are addressed during
transport.”.’.
In moving the amendment, my hon.
Friends, the two hon. Gentlemen from the Liberal Democrat Benches and I
wish to highlight a troubling matter, which I discovered on my prison
visits over the last 18 months or so—the transport of young
offenders from court to prison or to young offenders institutions or
other place of secure accommodation. To cite an example, I went to
Hollesley Bay, which is in Suffolk, just beyond Ipswich, and is, to all
intents and purposes, a humane and well-run young offenders
institution. At the time there was a thoughtful, intelligent governor,
although he may have retired by now. Within the estate, there was also
a very secure unit for long-term young offenders, which I thought was
an excellent establishment. Next door, there is Warren Hill, a category
D prison.
As I met
the prison officers who deal with the reception area—those who
receive the young offenders as they come from the various
courts—I was told that they are often receiving young offenders
as late as midnight and that often the young offenders will have
travelled hundreds of miles in the vans used to transport them to the
institution, travelling from 4 pm, or 4.30 pm. I was told about one
youngster who had been sentenced at Norwich in the morning. He was held
in the cells underneath the court throughout the day and then put in a
van and driven, with adult prisoners—he was not in the same
compartment as the adult prisoners, but he was in the same
van—around East Anglia while the adult prisoners were dropped
off. He was the last in line to be dropped off. It was nearly midnight
when he was finally
received.
That example
is not one of a young offender being carried in the back of a police
car, or in a coach—it is a young offender in a sweatbox. They
are called sweatboxes because they are little biscuit tins into which
individuals are placed. There are no windows, obviously; there is some
form of ventilation. There is a bench or a chair, but the area in which
the prisoner is transported is not much bigger than the top of the
table in front of me; that is the floor space in which the individual
travels. I would estimate that the top ofthat table in front
of the Minister is about 2 ft 6 in by2 ft 6 in. Inside a cube
of approximately that sizesits this young offender. When he
emerges into the reception area of the prison, he is distressed enough
as it is, having been sentenced and removed from anything that he
understands to a place that he may never have been to before.
One may say, “It serves
him jolly well right—if he had not committed the crime, he would
not have been sentenced and he would not have been transported in those
extraordinary conditions to a place far away from his home”. I
accept that argument up to a point, but if we are going to treat people
decently within the criminal justice system, I am not at all sure that
putting them in a biscuit tin and shunting them around the country is
the best way to do it.
Glen Parva is the young
offenders institution in my constituency. I share the estate, as it
were, with myhon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr.
Robathan);it is partly in my constituency and partly in his
constituency. It is two or three miles south of the city of Leicester.
Young offenders who are sentenced in the north of England sometimes
have to travel for hours in these sweatboxes before they are received
into Glen
Parva late at night. I dare say that other young
offenders institutions also receive young offenders late at night after
they have travelled in those ridiculous conditions. It is bad enough that these
young offenders institutions are taking in people who are miles and
miles away from their home, their families and so forth. That is
perhaps not germane to this debate, but if we are going to have
youngsters transported such long distances, I urge the Government to
ensure that their welfare needs are addressed during transportation. As
I understand it—I may be wrong, and the Minister will correct
me—there are no toilet facilities for those youngsters during
their journeys. Whether the van stops at pre-arranged times in order to
allow the youngsters to get off and go to the lavatory, I do not
know.
It strikes me
as strange that, in the 21st century,we transport people,
particularly youngsters, long distances in such conditions. If we
transported animals in those conditions, I suspect that people would
want to know about it and do something about it. It is not the
Minister’s fault personally, but he is politically accountable
for this aspect of public policy. I urge him to ensure humane
arrangements for the transportation of youngsters, and indeed for the
transportation of adults. I say that not because I have sympathy for
the criminal as a criminal, but because we should not treat human
beings
inhumanely.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman
for the way in which he moved the amendment. He raised issues that
clearly need to be resolved. I want the decency agenda to be further
developed from its good beginnings in recent
years.
The
clause clarifies the statutory position in relation to the journey
between relevant premises, such as courts, police stations, hospitals
and custodial establishments, that is made by young people who have
been sentenced or remanded in custody. The amendment would place a
statutory duty on the Secretary of State. Although I understand the
motivation for it, I believe that it is unnecessary, both legally and
practically.
Under
the Children Act 2004, there is a legal obligation on the governors of
secure training centres to safeguard and promote the welfare of
children in their custody. In addition, paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to
the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 places an express duty
on custody officers carrying out escort functions to attend to the
well-being of persons in their care, which includes their
transportation between premises, for example between court and youth
detention accommodation. The amendment would not go as far as the
provisions to which I have just referred.
The amendment is also
unnecessary from a practical point of view. The Youth Justice Board has
been seeking to improve escort arrangements for children and young
people and has invested about £5 million every year to make
separate arrangements for young people travelling to and from young
offender institutions. The board also has a separate contracting
arrangement for children and young people who are sentenced or remanded
to secure training centres or secure children’s homes, which
accommodate the youngest, most vulnerable group.
While I was
listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I took the opportunity to
go through the contracts for escort arrangements. I will check with the
officials to see whether they can be made available to the Committee.
That will depend on commercial confidentiality. The contracts set out
what should happen in relation to comfort stops, which I accept might
not have happened on occasion. I would like to examine the issues that
the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised.
Mr.
Garnier:
I do not want to know anything that will
interfere with proper security and I do not want the Minister to make
announcements in public that would compromise prisoner transport
security. Generally, escapes take place not from within the prison but
during transit, either between prison and hospital, as we saw the other
day, or between court and prison. The Minister need not worry. I do not
need to know the terms of the contract, though it is kind of him to
offer me that opportunity. I want to be assured that he, as the
political master of this aspect of public policy, realises that there
is a problem that he needs to look into and do something
about.
11.45
am
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am grateful to the hon. and learned
Gentleman. I want to give the Committee as much information as I can,
because I agree that the issue needs to be examined. I hope that he is
reassured by what I have said about the investment that the Youth
Justice Board is making. I will pursue the individual cases to which he
referred, because such practices are clearly not acceptable. The
contracts contain provisions for comfort breaks and protection for
individuals, but if they are not being observed, that must be
addressed.
I believe
that clause 27 is entirely sensible. The hon. and learned
Gentleman’s amendments would not meet his requirements and fall
short of existing provisions. With the assurance that I will look into
the matter, I hope that he will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Garnier:
I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, but
I stress that this was not simply a debating exercise. There is an
important point about humanity here that I think all Committee members
want addressed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
27 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
28
Orders
and
regulations
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
James
Brokenshire:
I rise briefly to seek clarification on
clause 28. We have obviously discussed the breadth of the powers vested
in the Secretary of State and the additional ability for further orders
and regulations to be made that might widen and extend the scope of
those powers. I have two technical questions for the Minister. First,
how was it decided which order-making powers would be dealt with under
the affirmative resolution procedure, rather than the negative
resolution procedure? Secondly, will he clarify the order-making powers
under clauses 4(1) and 33?
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause sets out
the level of parliamentary scrutiny for orders and regulations made
under the Bill. It does not apply to orders establishing probation
trusts or to commencement orders, which are not subject to
parliamentary procedure.
Of those orders to which clause
28 applies, the following three are subject to the affirmative
procedure: first, orders made under clause 10(2)(g), which allows the
Secretary of State to add to the list of persons with whom data may be
shared; secondly, orders made under clause 10(7), which provides the
Secretary of State with the power to amend an enactment that prevents
the sharing of data permitted under the clause, and thirdly, orders
made under clause 30(2)(a), which relate to consequential or
transitional provisions amending or repealing primary legislation. All
other regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Our memorandum for the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory
Reform Committee sets out in more detail our thinking on such
matters.
Last
Tuesday, during consideration of clause 4, concerns were expressed by
my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford about the lack of parliamentary
procedure for orders establishing trusts. I explained that in due
course a trust might need to be established or dissolved for commercial
reasons—for example, to bid for a contract or because a contract
had been lost to another provider. It would be inappropriate to subject
such commercial processes to parliamentary procedure. I undertook to
consider further the points that he raised and I shall do so. Perhaps
that is why the order-making powers in clause 10(2) to amend the
definition of listed persons are subject to the affirmative resolution
procedure.
Clause
10(2) defines the list of persons with whom the Secretary of State, and
others defined in clause 10(1), acting through the National Offender
Management Service, can share information on a reciprocal basis. That
power enables the Secretary of State to prescribe additional bodies by
order. The order-making power is subject to the affirmative resolution
procedure. We think that that is the appropriate level of scrutiny,
given the ambit of the power. Although I did not make reference to the
particular clause, I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands our
reasons for using those procedures. I hope that I have been of help to
the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 28
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clauses
29 to 31 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
3
Minor
and consequential
amendments
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I beg to move amendment No. 41, in
schedule 3, page 31, line 6,
after ‘paragraph (i)’ insert
‘(as it has effect before the
commencement of paragraph 154(a) of Schedule 16 to the Armed Forces Act
2006)’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments Nos. 42 to 45.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
Clause 25 provides that the type of
accommodation—I think that I need assistance. I shall speak
rather slowly until assistance
arrives.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
I am grateful to the hon. and learned
Gentleman.
Mr.
Garnier:
I have read Government amendments Nos. 41 to 45,
and I can say that they are not
controversial.
Mr.
Sutcliffe:
Clearly, I should have moved the amendment
formally.
Amendment
agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 42,
in schedule 3, page 31, line 13, at end
insert—
‘(2A) In paragraph
(i) (as it has effect on or after the commencement of paragraph 154(a)
of Schedule 16 to the Armed Forces Act 2006), in sub-paragraph (i) for
“secure accommodation” there is substituted “youth
detention
accommodation”.’.
No.
43, in
schedule 3, page 31, line 14,
after ‘paragraph (j)’ insert
‘(as it has effect before the
commencement of paragraph 154(b) of Schedule 16 to the Armed Forces Act
2006)’.
No. 44,
in
schedule 3, page 31, line 19, at
end insert—
‘(3A) In
paragraph (j) (as it has effect on or after the commencement of
paragraph 154(b) of Schedule 16 to the Armed Forces Act 2006), in
sub-paragraph (i) for “secure accommodation” there is
substituted “youth detention
accommodation”.’.
No.
45, in
schedule 3, page 31, line 22, at
end insert—
‘Armed
Forces Act 2006 (c.52)
6A
(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as
follows.
(2) In section 213(1)
(references in certain provisions of the Sentencing Act to a detention
and training order to include an order under section 211) for
“to 105” there is substituted “to
105A”.
(3) In section
214(3) (powers of court to order person to be detained where offence
committed during currency of detention and training order) for
“secure accommodation” there is substituted “youth
detention
accommodation”.
(4) In
section 215(3) (meaning of “secure accommodation” in
section 214) for ““secure accommodation””
there is substituted ““youth detention
accommodation””.’.—[Mr.
Sutcliffe.]
Schedule
3, as amended, agreed
to.
Schedules 4
and 5 agreed
to.
Clauses 32
to 34 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
