I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 19, line 42 leave out 'person' and insert 'short-term or long-term prisoner'.

This is a technical amendment to correct an error in the Bill. It would leave out "person" and insert "short-term or long-term prisoner". As the Bill is drafted, the clause would apply to all prisoners released on licence, which it cannot do. It can apply only to those serving determinate sentences—not to life sentence prisoners who have indeterminate sentences. Therefore, it makes no sense to talk of the three-quarters point for those people. The amendment corrects the anomaly by ensuring that clause 27(3) applies only to short-term and long-term prisoners.

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 25, line 24 after 'provide', insert—

'(a) that the references in section 27(5) above to four years shall be construed as references to such other period as may be specified in the order;

(b)'.

With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 20.

These amendments give effect to an undertaking which we gave in Committee when we discussed clause 27. We were concerned about the threshold between the automatic and discretionary release scheme which is set at four years in the Bill by way of the definitions of long and short-term sentences. Some of my hon. Friends expressed concern about the four-year period. They were worried that some of the offences committed by people serving shorter periods might require us to have another look at this clause. In Committee we undertook to consider an amendment which would enable the Home Secretary to take a power to vary the threshold.

That threshold could be varied upwards or downwards in the light of the new scheme, but I do not anticipate that that will be necessary in the foreseeable future. My hon. Friends were right to ensure that we had the advantage of retaining flexibility when drawing up the new arrangments. The amendments will allow an adjustment in the important threshold if Parliament believes that that is necessary, and transitional arrangements could be made were Parliament of that mind.

We are worried about Government amendment No. 19, although we have no quarrel with Government amendment No. 20.

Those of us who served on the Committee will remember that the amendments were a concession to the right of the Conservative party who succeeded in what can only be described as a mini-coup.

Section 27 is the key section in implementing the proposals for parole. One of the most positive features is that parole will be automatic for those serving less than four years, and that the discretionary scheme will apply only to those serving four years and more.

In Committee, we welcomed those parole proposals, although we tabled an amendment to ensure that those subject exactly to four years automatically gained parole. Our amendments were in line with what the Carlisle committee decided after much thought.

The Carlisle committee report is of historic importance, and it was considered immediately prior to our discussions on the Bill. We believe that it is crazy, having established a powerful committee to look at a particular problem, which considered that problem in great detail and with much expertise, for the Government then to muck around with the detail of that committee's recommendations.

The thrust of the Carlisle report will be ruined if we start to tinker with the four-year rule. I hope that the Government will not bend any further. We do not like amendment No. 19, and we should like them to have second thoughts about it. It would be far more sensible to keep to the Carlisle recommendations.

As ever, we are the reasonable Opposition—we oppose the amendments not on ideological grounds, but because the Carlisle committee issued a good report. If one tries to mix and match that report with other things, its overall effect will be spoiled.

The Carlisle committee stated:

"Our conclusion is that a four year sentence provides the most sensible threshold beyond which a selective parole system should operate … We have come to the conclusion that the two or three year threshold that many have suggested would be too low … First, for a selective scheme to be credible there must be sufficient time for new considerations to emerge … The shorter the period between sentence and review the more likely it is that the parole decision will be based on no more material than that available to the judge. Second, if the selection process is to be thorough and fair yet not excessively cumbersome and costly the number of cases must be kept to manageable proportions."

We do not want to delay proceedings on this, and we shall not seek to divide the House, but we are unhappy that the amendments could give the Government the ability to tinker with the recommendations of an extremely good report.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for tabling the amendments. I am not entirely sure that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) got his facts right when he described me as on the right of the party.

I do not agree with what the hon. Member for Huddersfield said about has interpretations of the Carlisle recommendations. I support the amendments because the Bill is introducing something that is entirely new—an automatic, conditional release system. We hope that the courts will use that system in line with a greater certainty on sentencing. We do not know whether four years is the right cut-off point; only experience will show what works in practice.

It would be a mistake not to allow my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to vary the four-year rule either upwards or downwards. I would have great doubts about him varying that rule upwards, although there may be a case for varying it downwards. It would be a mistake to enact the Bill without that power to vary. On the basis of that consideration, I welcome the amendments, which I hope the House will support.

It is clear that the Government regard the Carlisle recommendation of the four-year threshold as the right one. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), supported in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) cited some significant figures that made the Government think that it would be right to include an order-making power that could be brought into play in the light of experience in those circumstances where we felt it would be better to have a threshold that was either higher or lower than the four years. For that reason, the Government tabled the amendments.

I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 27, line 7, after 'alleged', insert '(i)'.

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 109, 113 and 112.

The amendments are a direct result of some good debates in Committee on this important issue. They are concerned with trying to help child witnesses in criminal proceedings in two ways—first, through the ability to bypass committal proceedings as set out in clause 43 and, secondly, by placing a bar on personal cross-examination of witnesses by the accused.

I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) argued about this specific issue in Committee, although much of the argument was carried by those who are absent this afternoon, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)—I believe in being kind to Welsh nationalists—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who is about her business in another part of the country, and that leading member of the Trappist tendency, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). That hon. Lady pressed the argument effectively, and I pay tribute to all that she did.

I hope that I can commend the amendments with that brief explanation. They will do a great deal to help child witnesses in terms of bypassing committal and avoiding cross-examination by the accused.

I hesitate to intervene in these proceedings as a Member representing Scotland, but I have a couple of questions about the amendments.

Has the Minister had any discussions with his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish Office on the implementation of such measures in Scotland? I speak as someone who has sought to change the law of Scotland on child witnesses. I did so last year during our deliberations on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful. The amendments will determine the status of children and the protection given to them in what can be the most harrowing of circumstances. It is unfortunate that English legislation is well in advance of developments in Scottish legislation. On behalf of the Scottish children caught up in these dreadful circumstances, I must express my deep regret about that.

Two cases pending in Scotland involve the most harrowing instances of sexual abuse against a number of young children, some of whom were only two or three years old when the horrible incidents took place. Nevertheless, children in Scotland caught up in these dismal circumstances will be denied the protection rightly afforded to English children in these most welcome measures. It is a disgrace that identical legislation for Scotland has not been introduced. What discussions have taken place between the Home Office and the Scottish Office on bringing about these welcome changes in Scottish legislation?

My right hon. Friend will know of my long-standing interest in this matter, and particularly of my association with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which has been concerned about the way in which children have been subjected to the process of appearing in court proceedings. I warmly welcome the clauses in the Bill which, to a large extent, implement the recommendations of the Pigot report. There was a gap in the law with respect to expediting proceedings involving witnesses.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the courtesy with which he received me and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who advised me today that she was unwell and could not be with us. Together with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), we discussed these matters, and the Government amendments meet our anxieties.

The Minister will have noticed amendments Nos. 98 and 99 on the Order Paper; perhaps he will confirm that the Government amendments deal with the points contained in those amendments—and are no doubt better drafted than ours. If they do, I shall not move amendments Nos. 98 or 99; of course, if the Opposition Members whose names those amendments also bear wish to speak to them, that will be up to them.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for accepting the recommendations made to him on this matter.

Will the Minister say a word about some other matters touched on in the Pigot report? For instance, should there not be a code of practice governing the giving of evidence by children? Do the Government believe it possible to introduce measures to prevent unnecessary delays in court cases that involve this sort of children's evidence?

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the generality of the Pigot committee's recommendations when he speaks of codes of practice, or is he referring specifically to speeding up court hearings?

I am referring only to the giving of evidence by children.

Lastly, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has also mentioned the need to ensure that no distinction will be made between children who have suffered abuse and children who have witnessed serious abuse and violence—but I suspect that the Government amendments take care of that.

I too should like to record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for tabling these amendments. I am sure that he will recall that, when we discussed the matter for many hours in Committee, we did not manage to persuade him of the validity of our arguments, but he agreed to reconsider the matter, and that is what he has done. We are most grateful to him. I fervently believe that the law should protect a child witness as much as it protects a child victim. Indeed, it is often difficult to distinguish between them.

We welcome the amendments. It is a shame that two of the hon. Members who argued most eloquently for the ideas that they incorporate are not here. I understand that they are unavoidably detained in Select Committees. I refer of course to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones).

These are important concessions to the Pigot proposals, extending as they do the protection offered to child victims to child witnesses. This subject constituted the most harmonious part of our proceedings in Committee. All hon. Members in Committee wanted as far as possible to make the process of giving evidence in court humane and sensitively handled. The Opposition are pleased that the amendments have been introduced.

First, I want to answer the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), the first part of whose constituency I can never pronounce. He asked me whether discussions had taken place between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland on these important matters. Of course the two Departments consult on these issues. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Scottish criminal law and criminal code have developed differently from ours, which means that, from time to time, Scottish, English and Welsh law look a little out of kilter. Indeed, my hon. Friends occasionally look with envy at some aspects of the Scottish criminal code. For instance, children's panels are often urged on us; we are thought to be lagging behind in that respect, although we are now trying to achieve the same ends in a different way.

I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, if necessary, he and the hon. Gentleman can correspond thereafter.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that the Government amendments adequately cover the possibility of getting around committal, and of not making it possible for children to be cross-examined by those alleged to have assaulted them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Chislehurst and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), and to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who is not here today but who takes a considerable interest in the subject.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who was not here earlier to hear my lavish compliments about how she broke the Trappist vows of the Whips and occasionally went to the Back Benches in Committee to argue the case for children. Her arguments, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), were powerful. As the House knows, we are a listening Government; we listened and then we tabled the amendments.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. (Mr. Maclennan) asked whether we were going to introduce a code of practice governing children's evidence. We are. We are already negotiating, if that is the right word to use, these issues with members of the academic community: for instance, with Professor Bull, a notable authority in the area; and with Mr. John Spencer—just to show how broad-minded I am in these matters—fellow of Selwyn college, Cambridge, even though he has occasionally criticised me in print. He is also an expert, and I have not taken offence. We are bent on employing him, if he is willing to advise us within the strict terms of the Bill, on how to incorporate a practical measure for children's evidence.

I repeat: we are a listening Government and a broad-minded Government, and on this occasion we are a Government with whom the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was happy to do business on an issue in which party politics played no part. I am happy to pay tribute to him and his colleagues for the part that they played in Committee in dealing with these important matters.

I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 27, line 9, leave out from 'that' to 'by' and insert ',for the purposes of avoiding any prejudice to the welfare of the child, the case should be taken over and proceeded with without delay'.

With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 111 and 120.

The amendments form the second part of the Government's response to the debate in Committee about the need to reduce undue delay in cases involving child witnesses. During our scrutiny of the Pigot clauses, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) moved a new clause that formed the basis of much of the debate. Despite my considerable sympathy with his intentions and those of my hon. Friends, I was unable to accept the new clause exactly as it stood, because it imposed a strict timetable in criminal cases which I felt could lead to the guilty walking free if it was not adhered to to the letter. The amendments would not impose a strict timetable, but would, I believe, establish a clear framework for the elimination of unnecessary delays.

Clause 43 already gives the Director of Public Prosecutions power to bypass committal proceedings if he is satisfied that the case should be taken over by the Crown court without delay. Amendments Nos. 110 and 120, however, strengthen that principle by referring explicitly to the welfare of the child, and I think that a number of hon. Members will approve of that. They also impose a clear duty on magistrates courts and the Crown court to consider how best to avoid delay. For the magistrates courts, that means expediting their residual tasks under schedule 5.

The amendments effectively abolish the argument that is sometimes advanced by those involved in the criminal justice system, that they are not responsible for the delay. They are now responsible for minimising it: the amendments bring that into sharp focus. The amendment will, however, allow judges, who have the often difficult task of dealing with children—whether they are victims or witnesses—to tailor any action to the needs of individual cases, balancing the legitimate interests of child welfare with those of natural justice.

The remaining amendment simply corrects a minor drafting error.

Yet again, we accept and endorse the Government's proposals. As we said in Committee, delay is often an important factor. In Committee on any Criminal Justice Bill, we increasingly realise the need for better co-ordination between the separate parts of the system: Opposition Members want to reform that relationship, and to expedite the processes involved. Justice that takes a long time is justice delayed, and, sometimes, is not justice at all.

I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 31, line 38, at end insert—

With this we may take amendment No. 83, in page 32, line 31, at end add—

'(5) No court shall exercise its powers under this section in regard to local authorities, except in those cases where the local authority has been negligent in the conduct of its duties as defined in paragraph 2 of this section or has acted unreasonably, given the circumstances of the case.'.

The Minister must answer a simple and basic question: does he, and do the Government, accept that it is wrong to punish the innocent? If he accepts our amendment, he will ensure that no parent who is innocent of any blame, and no social services department that has done its job properly, will be punished or penalised.

Amendment No. 82 proposes that, in deciding whether a parent should be required to pay a fine, the court should have regard to a number of considerations that may be relevant. The first is:

"whether the parents have neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person and whether any such neglect has caused or contributed to the commission of the offence."

The second is:

"whether it is desirable that the child or young person himself should assume responsibility for payment of the sum."

The third is:

"the relationship of the child or young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering the sum to be paid by the parent or guardian."

The fourth is:

"the respective means of the child or young person and the parent or guardian".

Any other relevant circumstances should also be taken into account.

That, surely, is an entirely correct and reasonable approach, which has been supported by the Government themselves in Home Office circular to courts No. 3/1983 entitled "Criminal Justice Act 1982: Sanctions Against Parents and Guardians". The 1982 Act stipulated that fines should be paid by parents unless the court considered that that would be unreasonable or the parent could not be found. Paragraph 3 of the circular states:

"During the passage of the Bill, considerations which might be relevant to the question of whether it would be unreasonable to order payment by the parent or guardian were discussed. It was suggested, for example, that regard should be had to factors such as whether the parents had neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person or whether any such neglect had caused or contributed, whether directly or indirectly, to the commission of the offence; whether it was desirable that the child or young person himself should assume responsibility for the payment of the fine, compensation or costs, or for part of it; the relationship between the child or young person and the parent or guardian and the likely effect on that relationship of ordering that the parent … pay the sums".

The Government should surely support the principles contained in the amendment.

In view of the emphasis that the Government have placed on parental responsibilities, it is important for them to state on the face of the Bill that they are willing to protect responsible parents. If they agree that the court should consider the criteria that I have specified, the criteria must be included in the legislation, rather than relegated to a paragraph in a long-forgotten circular of some eight years ago.

In come cases it will be appropriate to oblige parents to pay fines imposed on juvenile offenders, but in many others such a course might be both unreasonable and harmful. In some cases, when a young offender is at odds with his parents, the resentment resulting from the imposition of a fine on the parents—who may already be at the end of their tether, especially when the family is poor—could damage family relationships still further, placing the young person more at risk than ever, and perhaps leading to the commission of further offences.

In some instances, magistrates may consider that, if the fine is to have any value, that will lie in its being paid by the child himself rather than in his parents relieving him of the financial responsibility. I know from my own court experience that that frequently arises. In other cases, the parent may have done all that could reasonably be expected to discipline and control the young person, but without success. All parents will have found occasionally that their best efforts have not succeeded. The Minister may claim to be a perfect parent, but most of us would probably admit to being fallible from time to time.

It is important that the courts should be required to consider those potential pitfalls when deciding whether to impose a fine on the parent of a juvenile offender. The amendment does not, of course, prevent the court from considering any other factors which may be relevant. It does not prevent the court from placing an obligation on a parent if it is right and proper to do so. It does not mitigate parental responsibility, but it protects the innocent parent and ensures that courts take into account circumstances in which placing a burden on parents would be detrimental. The Minister will surely not disagree with that.

When the issue was debated in Committee on 24 January, amendment No. 82 was grouped with others and the Minister did not comment specifically on it. Today, he must comment specifically on its merits, and I hope that he will simply accept it.

6 pm

Amendment No. 83 says:

"No court shall exercise its powers under this section in regard to local authorities, except in those cases where the local authority has been negligent in the conduct of its duties as defined in paragraph 2 of this section or has acted unreasonably, given the circumstances of the case."

The amendment limits the circumstances in which a local authority can be required to pay a fine. The clause is far too broad, because it is unreasonable to expect local authorities to pay fines for the offences of juveniles if they and their employees have acted appropriately and professionally. Home Office circular No. 3/1983 is relevant, and the same considerations should apply to local authorities.

The Government recognised that in their White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", which states that the Government will require local authorities to pay financial penalties when juveniles in their care are convicted of offences and

"the court is satisfied that the offence followed a failure by the local authority to carry out its duties."

The amendment requires that that statement be included in the Bill, which places no clear statutory obligation on courts to consider whether the local authority has been negligent or unreasonable and to impose a fine only if an authority has been shown to be at fault.

The assumption in clause 47—an assumption that seems to be in the minds of some of the Government's more right-wing Back Benchers—is that local authorities should always be able to prevent offending by juveniles in their care. That shows little awareness of the reality of caring for those young people, many of whom are persistent young offenders who were taken into care because of their parents' inability to exercise due care and control. The damage caused to those young people may work through to absconding and associated offending. The local authority, which was not responsible for the offending, is left to pick up the pieces.

The Government seem to have turned the cause and effect relationship upside down, and instead of recognising that those young people are in care because of their offending are blaming the local authority for it. I hope that the Minister will put that right.

There are dangers if fining local authorities becomes the norm. It could lead to local authorities reducing home leave and family contact with children in care and it could be detrimental to the young person. There may be increased security in children's homes, at the expense of caring and rehabilitative regimes. I hope that the Minister will agree that a failure to rehabilitate young offenders will increase the long-term threat to the public, and that it must be avoided.

Young offenders may find it amusing and gratifying to see their social worker fined for their behaviour. They may be encouraged to feel that they can break the law with impunity.

The Bill does not say that individual social workers will be fined. The local authority will be at risk for not fulfilling its responsibilities.

The local authority would not be fined for not fulfilling its responsibilities—that is the whole point of my argument—but the amendment seeks to correct that. If the Minister meant what he just said, he will accept the amendment. The amendment aims to provide for what he just suggested; by accepting it, he will make life a lot easier.

Young offenders may find it amusing and gratifying to see their social worker fined for their behaviour. If local authorities are punished, that pressure will be passed down the line. I am sure that the Minister understands what I mean by that. Having worked with young offenders, I can assure him that such amusement is a real danger. It is important that the Bill be amended to provide what the Minister has just suggested. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the amendment.

I did not want to intervene, because the hon. Gentleman speaks from much personal experience, but for once, uncharacteristically, he seemed to be factually incorrect. He said that individual social workers would be at risk financially; it is important that he should not continue to say that.

I take the Minister's point, but he surely understands that, if local authorities, whatever they do and however professional their social workers or correct their systems, are in danger of being forced to pay fines, immense pressure will distort the regime in which social workers work with young people. Young people will rapidly become aware of that and of their ability to play games with their social workers.

The Minister must take that danger seriously. In his first intervention, he suggested that, under the Bill, social services departments would be placed under a burden only if they failed in their duty. We tabled the amendment to correct that. I hope that the Minister, by his intervention, was accepting the amendment. A local authority should be responsible for financial penalties only in specified circumstances when it has acted negligently or unreasonably. That was what the Minister said, that is what I say and that is the purpose of the amendment.

In Committee, the Minister said that there was some protection to local authorities under section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. However, that section is merely on whether it would be unreasonable to fine in the circumstances. Amendment No. 83 goes much further and defines the conduct or misconduct of the local authority as the factor that leads to a fine being imposed.

The amendments are reasonable and fair. They will ensure that innocent parents and effective local authorities will not be in danger of being forced to pay, while allowing a culpable parent or local authority to bear the burden of a fine. How can the Minister possibly refuse that? He almost seemed to concede my point in his intervention, but he must at least assure us that the principles that I have set out will be observed absolutely in the operation of the Bill when it is enacted.

The points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) link with the Home Secretary's statement on the Woolf report. Everyone is talking about parent responsibility, but allowing parents to avoid it. In the statement, all we heard was about the poor life of prisoners. So far as I can remember, no one deigned to mention how victims suffer or to make the obvious point that people are in prison by choice—they choose to go there when they break the law, and we should not be too concerned.

We should take great care about making parents responsible for their children's actions, but the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth seemed to he looking for a way out. If some of the hoax telephone calls of the past week were made by children under the age of 17 or 18, and if their parents knew that their kids had access to the telephone, is the hon. Gentleman really saying that we should not worry? If a child had been involved in making those hoax phone calls, a three-month sentence for him or his parents would not be justified—the minimum sentence should be five years, with deportation for any foreigners.

The essence of the point being made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is that we must look for ways to enable parents to avoid their responsibilities. Would he say that they were not paying due care and attention if they were watching television while their 12 or 14-year-old was thumping a policeman at a football match? Should we say, "Those parents did not know that their child was at a football match, so we should not worry"? I am glad that we are making parents responsible. Instead of creating loopholes to enable parents to get off, we should tighten them to ensure that they do not.

I welcome the clause and support the amendments. I have never been entirely happy with the principle of vicarious criminal liability, which seems to have been embodied in the law for a long time. It does not lead to a need for a court to investigate the degree of parents' criminal liability. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) assumed that parental liability was involved in all circumstances in which a person committed an offence. That should be demonstrated, argued and proved before a court. One of the benefits of amendment No. 82 is that it would make it necessary to argue before a court the extent to which parents should be liable for the misdeeds of their children.

It is clear from the passage read out by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that the Home Office has in mind precisely those considerations which are encapsulated in the amendment. Including them in the Bill would have the virtue of leading to the facts being considered. It may be that that consideration is given, and will be given, in many courts through the presentation of social work reports and so on. If there is a specific requirement along the lines proposed in amendment No. 82, a court will be in no doubt about whether parents are culpable to such an extent that they should be held liable to pay.

Similar considerations apply to amendment No. 83 with regard to the alleged negligence of local authorities. If local authorities are held to be liable, that involvement should be tested. They should not be held to have been negligent without the evidence having been considered by a court. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington assumes that, if the children involved are in care, the local authority is responsible for their misdeeds, but that assumption severes the connection between the offence and the person who committed it. That cannot be in the interest of justice. I hope that the Government will accept these sensible amendments.

I was greatly taken by what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) said about hoax telephone calls by juveniles and adults. The House views with revulsion and distaste the hoax telephone calls to the emergency services in recent days, which in certain circumstances could lead to serious injury or loss of life if the emergency services had been diverted. This is a disgraceful habit in the country at large. It is punishable by imprisonment.

My hon. Friend said that the penalties were not severe enough. He must take credit for bringing to our attention the need to consider this issue. Although I shall not table amendments to the Bill, I shall undertake a review in the Home Office of the penalties that can be imposed on those demented people who make hoax telephone calls about devices, causing chaos not only to the emergency services but to the travelling public. Under the present law, the courts are stamping down hard on that behaviour, and I hope that the House welcomes that action. Perhaps we should arm the courts with tougher measures to deal with such people.

6.15 pm

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made another important point when he talked about the importance of parental responsibility. I believe that my Conservative colleagues would respectfully agree to disagree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about vicarious penalties. We are talking about those who have charge of children and young people. Whether they are parents, step-parents, grandparents or local authorities, they should bear their share of the responsibility by paying fines if the children involved cannot do so.

Alas, there is no clearer sign of the division between Conservative Members and the Opposition than the long debates in Committee on these issues. We had to agree to differ. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland could not be a member of the Committee. We genuinely missed him, although we have heard on Report some "footsteps" of what might have been a lengthier speech in Committee. We shall have to agree to differ, because the amendments dilute the principle of parental responsibility on which the Government place great weight.

Anyone listening to the right hon. Gentleman or reading his speech later may be forgiven for overlooking the fact that he and the Government have diluted the principle of parental responsibility by changing the 1933 Act. It is a question not whether one dilutes the principle but whether one should define the circumstances of the dilution, which is the purpose of the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman has forgotten three fundamental limbs of the Bill: first, that we expect parents to be in court when their children are tried; secondly, that we expect parents, guardians and social services departments to pay the fines; and, thirdly, that we want the courts to have a considerably enhanced power to bind over parents to use their best endeavours to prevent children offending. If that is dilution, I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristic misuse of language.

In all cases, before a parent could be ordered to pay a fine, the court would have to think about several factors, such as whether the offence resulted partly from a failure to exercise parental care and control and what effect making the parents pay would have on family relationships. The court would have to take a view on those factors and presumably—although it is not for me to say—that view could be challenged on appeal. That means that obstacles would be placed in the way of the operation of section 55 of the 1933 Act, and the clear principle that it embodies.

When we discussed what is now amendment No. 82—to which allegedly the relevant Minister did not refer in Committee—either the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) or the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) quoted from paragraph 3 of Home Office circular No. 3/1983 on the Criminal Justice Act 1982. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth pointed out, paragraph 3 suggested that the courts might want to take account of certain factors—which have been reproduced in amendment No. 82—in deciding whether to make the parent or guardian pay a fine.

There is a world of difference between giving guidance to courts in various ways about those matters that they should consider—which we do all the time as a matter of sentencing practice—and requiring them by statute to take account of those and other considerations in every case. That would result in an inflexible approach and would considerably slow down justice.

I turn now to amendment No. 83. The purpose of clause 47(2) is to bring local authorities within the scope of the law on the parental payment of children's fines in section 55 of the 1933 Act. Local authorities that are prepared to take children into care should face up to, and meet, the same responsibilities as parents. Many do so, but, alas, a few do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington thinks that a good number do not.

We should be clear that clause 47 will apply to local authorities only under certain restricted circumstances. The Government firmly believe that those with parental responsibility must expect to face the consequences. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth quoted from that excellently written White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public". He was right to state that we propose that the parental payment provision should apply to local authorities only where

"the court is satisfied that the offence followed a failure by the local authority to carry out its duties."

That is broadly the purpose of the Opposition amendment.

However, on reflection, it is not right to take that approach. It would give the courts an impossible task to perform before they could require a local authority to pay a fine. The courts would have to conduct a trial within a trial to determine whether the local authority had been negligent. That would turn into a mini-public inquiry into the procedures of the social services department in question. Youth courts are not equipped to do that, nor should they be asked to do it.

We believe that it would be better to give local authority social services departments, which try hard in many areas to do a good job, the protection already afforded by section 55 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Section 55 provides an exception to the parental payment requirement where

"It would be unreasonable to make an order for payment, having regard to the circumstances of the case."

That means that, where local authorities had properly carried out their responsibilities, courts would not be required to make an order against them. On the other hand, where local authorities had failed in their duties, the courts would be empowered to make a direction.

The approach followed in the Opposition amendment is unnecessary and counter-productive. Clearly there is a yawning gap between the Opposition and the Government, and I do not believe that we will be able to cross that gap easily.

rose——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken. He would require the leave of the House before he could speak again.

I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in their characterisation of hoax telephone calls, especially where those calls receive the oxygen of publicity. Those calls can be tremendously damaging to society, but they have nothing to do with the amendment.

The amendment is simple. Do the Government accept that it is wrong to punish the innocent? In a schizophrenic speech, the Minister made it clear that he does not care if the innocent are punished. In a characteristic speech, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington showed, as he showed in Standing Committee, that he has extreme views. He is not interested in the effectiveness of the sentence in reducing crime in the future and in protecting the public. He is interested only in fanning the flames of his own prejudice.

Under amendment No. 82, a parent who is negligent or is somehow to blame can be made to bear part, or all, of the burden of the fine. For half his comments, the Minister appeared to agree with Home Office circular No. 3/1983, which sets out the reasonable principles upon which the courts should operate. If the amendment were accepted, it would provide clear guidance to the courts. It would not constrain them. The amendment does not suggest that parents who share responsibility or the social services departments, which through failure, share responsibility, should not share the burden of payment.

The amendment is extremely fair, reasonable and simple.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister is creating a considerable smokescreen? He is trying to give some of his more atavistic Back Benchers the impression that he toughening up, but he has really imposed a power in place of a duty in respect of those aged over 16, and in that respect he has misled the House.

That is absolutely correct. The Minister either agrees with circular No. 3/1983, in which case he can accept the amendment without difficulty, or he agrees with his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, and if he goes to that extreme, he will destroy any reputation for reasonableness and liberality that he worked so hard to gain in Standing Committee.

At the end of the day, the Minister does not care whether the innocent parent or local authority is punished. By failing to restate with great authority the recommendations in circular No. 3/1983, he has introduced an clement of doubt.

I am certain that we will return to the amendment, perhaps with greater understanding and knowledge, in another place, and to allow that to happen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 114, in page 32, line 32, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 36, and insert

'a child or young person ("the relevant minor")'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 115.

The Government believe very strongly that parents have the single most important responsibility for ensuring that their children grow up to respect the law. Just before Christmas, the Home Office conducted a public opinion survey through the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. I could have been knocked down by a feather by the results, which showed, that with regard to preventing crime, the general public point the finger not at the Government, the police or schools, but at parents. The survey showed that 53 per cent. pointed the finger at parents. If we had conducted such a survey five or 10 years ago, there would have been a completely different response. There is a considerable sea change in the country. The Government have recognised it, and we are doing all we can to use that considerable change in public opinion away from the dated and outmoded concepts of the 1960s and 1970s.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the amendment does nothing else, it concentrates the minds of parents about their responsibilities and about where their kids are while they sit around with their feet up watching television?

My hon. Friend is right. Nothing brings that home to me more sharply than the police telling me that, in 1988, 8,000 events happened that would otherwise have been crimes committed by children aged nine and under, who were therefore below the age of criminal responsibility. Some of those events were quite serious. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has it game, set and match on the basis of that statistic.

The responsibility of parenthood begins when children are very young and it continues until they are on the edge of maturity and of becoming responsible adults. That parental responsibility for children's behaviour does not cease when children get into trouble—quite the reverse. It is precisely because their children have got into trouble that parents should become involved. It is then that the firm hand or the quiet word can make all the difference.

Clause 48 ensures that parents are involved at what is inevitably a very difficult time for their children. For those under 16, we believe that it is correct that courts should have a duty to ensure that parents are involved, by binding them over. Many 16 and 17-year-olds will also need a firm hand and guidance if they are to succeed in keeping out of trouble. However, many will be living independent lives, and it would not be right to suggest that parents should take responsibility for their behaviour.

Clause 48 states that there is no cut-off point between being a child and being an adult. Some people mature at different rates between the ages of 16 and 17. There are tough, yobbish, thuggish 15-year-olds and wimpish 16 and 17-year-olds who deserve to be treated like children.

The proposal in clause 48 complements the other proposals relating to 16 and 17-year-olds. Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 strengthen those provisions further by removing inconsistencies in drafting which, I should be the first to state, were identified by the hon. Members for Huddersfield, (Mr. Sheerman) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I seem to be paying compliments to Opposition Members who are absent this afternoon.

In Committee, the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish mentioned several important matters which should be reconsidered. The hon. Member for Huddersfield argued that the distinction that clause 48(1)(b) makes between 16 and 17-year-olds living at home who are in full-time education and 16 and 17-year-olds who are not, is artificial. A 16-year-old who is living at home but is not in full-time education may be equally or more in need of parental guidance than a 16-year-old living at home and in full-time education. Although the subsection was simply intended to take account of the practical limitations of parental influence over young people who live at home, I accept that the link with full-time education is, perhaps, artificial. I should not want to include in the Bill provisions that inadvertently encourage young people to leave school, home, or both at the same time.

6.30 pm

I also share the concern expressed by the now absent hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, who explained how linking the power to bind over a parent to the age and circumstances of the offender might allow a devious-minded 16-year-old to get around the provision by delaying conviction proceedings. That is why the Government have decided to table amendments Nos. 114 and 115, which would achieve the desirable end of empowering the court to bind over the parents of any 16 or 17-year-olds, when they consider such action helpful and sensible. The court would remain under a duty to do that where the child was under 16.

The amendments deal with two of the fears expressed by the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish, and will further improve the provisions regarding the sentencing of 16 and 17-year-olds and the encouragement of parental involvement. I commend them to the House.

I am grateful to the Minister for his compliments about the way in which Opposition Members made proposals. He made some nice comments about the Opposition's ability to argue rationally in Committee.

The amendments remove the absurd proposal that parents of 16-year-olds living at home and in full-time education can be bound over to prevent their children from offending. The inconsistency is that parents may be held responsible for young people who have stayed on in full-time education and who live at the parental home, and may be bound over to exercise proper care and control over the young person. However, if a young person is over 16 and is in work, is unemployed or has left home, the parents cannot be held responsible. Clearly, that is absurd.

I noticed that, every time a concession was made in Committee, the Minister left the Room to allow his right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) to deal with it. It is nice to see him conceding such a major argument on which amendments were tabled by the Opposition, but the consequence is that the superb speech that I was going to make on amendment No. 97 no longer needs to be made.

That is why I made the concession.

It means that I have had to make the speech that I would have made for amendment No. 97 in this debate.

The Minister's concession is good news because it means that we shall not have to debate amendment No. 97.

I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 32, line 41 at end insert—

'(1A) In exercising the powers conferred by this section, the court shall have regard to such of the following considerations as appear to it to be relevant, that is to say—

(a) whether the parents have neglected to exercise due care and control of the child or young person and whether any such neglect has caused or contributed to the commission of the offence,

(b) whether exercising the powers conferred by this section would reduce the likelihood that the child or young person himself will accept personal responsibility for his actions,

(c) the relationship of the child or young person with his parents and the likely effect on that relationship of exercising the powers conferred by this section, as well as to any others which appear to be relevant.'.

The amendment lays down the criteria for binding over parents of juvenile offenders. Although the Labour party takes the subject of parental responsibility extremely seriously, we have different ways of expressing it.

I do not wish to interfere with your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I thought that the Minister's important remarks about hoax calls were rather out of order. However, we agree with him about the wickedness of such behaviour. It is important to make hoaxers realise that the technology now exists to catch them and that increasingly sophisticated telecommunications equipment means that they will be caught and penalised. Stopping young people offending in the first place is far more effective than dealing with them afterwards. The most effective way to ensure that they do not offend is to make sure that they know that the probability of their being caught is high.

Although we believe in parental responsibility, our notion of it is rather different from that of the Government. The amendment lays down the criteria for binding over parents of juvenile offenders. In Committee, the Minister often said that we are having our cake and eating it, because we do not like the clause on parental responsibility any more than we like the privatisation of prisons. When we realise that we shall not win a vote on the principle of an issue, we try to improve the clause and that aspect of the Bill, even though we disagree with the principle. I hope that the Minister does not come back with his tired old chestnut in response to the amendment.

It is important to emphasise that the inclusion of such criteria would go some way toward reducing the serious disquiet that the clause causes to those who work with and sentence juvenile offenders. The clause disturbs expert opinion in the criminal justice system and that is, in itself, disturbing. As we said earlier with reference to Lord Justice Woolf's report, it is important to work with the people who maintain and run the system. If the magistrates, the Crown prosecution service and the magistrates' clerks do not like a proposal, there is little chance of making it a success.

We predict that the clause will be stillborn. It provides that, when a juvenile is convicted of an offence, the court must bind over the parents

"to take proper care of him and exercise proper control over him"

unless it is considered that that would be unreasonable. The parents would be bound over in a specified sum up to £1,000 and, if the child re-offended, the parents woulld be liable to forfeit that amount. In effect, a binding over amounts to a suspended fine. Binding over requires the parents' consent, but the clause empowers courts to fine parents who refuse to be bound over, which renders the idea of consent entirely academic. It is a strange piece of legislation—a sort of Catch 22. I could think of a ruder expression, which I probably should not use because it might be unparliamentary. If someone does not obey the legislation, he has the right to protest, but he will have to pay anyway. The parents will always have to pay.

Magistrates are extremely concerned about the possible effects of the clause and the Magistrates Association has made known its strong opposition to the proposal. In its comments on last year's White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", the association referred to

"the harmful effect these proposals could have in hastening a breakdown of family relationships".

It continued:

"Parents may feel that they are being punished twice for one offence of their child".

It is sad that we in the House can easily become divorced from the reality of parenting which is not normal, but marginal. As a student of economics many years ago, I was interested in the marginal concept. We made judgments on marginal utility and marginal demand. When dealing with the criminal justice system, it is important to remember that it impacts most on the marginal family that is just holding itself together with a little bit of luck and making its way through a crisis.

The Minister and the Government have not realised—but magistrates and probation officers do—that to fine parents in many of the families of which we are talking this evening could be the last marginal straw in breaking up that family. That may not concern the Minister, but it concerns the Opposition. We do not want legislation that destroys families instead of binding them together. We do not want more children being forced to live rough in London rather than staying at home because the feeling within the family has become so bitter that they leave home. The clause would help to do that.

The Justices' Clerks Society opposed the clause in its comments on the White Paper and cited a number of additional practical reasons for its concern. It said:

"We oppose the proposals relating to the binding over of parents to take proper care of children and to exercise proper control over them. We foresee protracted hearings where parents refuse to be bound over and it is our view that a fine on a recalcitrant parent would be inappropriate … We also believe that the introduction of the requirement will inevitably lead to more contested juvenile cases, particularly where parents were already subject to a bind over. Even where the offence is admitted or proved, proceedings in relation to whether or not the parent (and if so which one) should forfeit the recognisance will lead to further, often disputed, hearings."

Anyone who is familiar with magistrates courts will know that justices' clerks are the most experienced in such matters, spend all their time in courts and give advice to magistrates. They are central to the role of the magistrates courts. I should have thought that the Minister would take more notice of their views. Unfortunately, the clause is driven by the unacceptable right of the Conservative party. I do not know whether the legislation on parental responsibility was made in some hidden, smoke-filled room of the Monday Club—we all know what a disgraceful organisation that is—or by another of the secret right-wing societies in the Conservative party.

6.45 pm

Magistrates already have the power to bind over parents in most cases, but they use it in only a handful of cases a year, because they know that in most cases it will not work. The Minister will have another chance in a moment, but in Committee he adeptly sidestepped my question about why, if the power already exists, magistrates do not use it. Will the Minister come back to explain why our contention is wrong? We believe that the power will not be used and that clause 48 will be stillborn. If the Government continue to pass legislation on the basis of ideology rather than what is good and workable, they will bring the criminal justice system into disrepute. It is bad to base law not on human behaviour, but on political ideology.

We believe that making parents forfeit money will increase the pressure on many families for whom life is already a struggle and penalising parents for their children's actions will cause enormous resentment. Where there is already tension between parents and child, it will aggravate relationships still further, putting young people even more at risk. In all too many cases, that is likely to accelerate the trend for parents to throw their children out of the house and swell the growing ranks of young homeless.

The clause is opposed by organisations representing magistrates, justices' clerks, probation officers and social workers, all of whom fully accept the importance of parental responsibility and are actively concerned to find effective ways of reinforcing it. They are the professionals who care about parental responsibility, not some nice little middle-class group, tucked away and working at a distance from the real problems of our country. It is all very well for the nice, tidy, middle-class minority, but the parents with whom we are dealing are the ones for whom the professionals know the reality is different.

I shall quote from a truly revolutionary, red source, The Times. The argument against the clause was summarised in a leading article on 10 November 1990—perhaps Conservative Members hold their breath—which stated:

"This is the kind of proposal that makes perfect sense to middle class ministers."—

[Interruption.] The nice, middle-class Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not want to listen—I cannot think of anyone nicer or more middle-class.

The Times leader talked about

"middle class Ministers, who generally leave the taming of adolescence to their children's boarding schools."

How true that is. It would be lovely to see some of the Cabinet sending their children to ordinary, public sector schools. The article continued:

"For, say, the single mother in Brixton, struggling against odds to keep a young person on track, they represent only a threat. Many such parents will be tempted to wash their hands of their responsibilities. Parental influence—the last, best hope of deflecting the youngster from a life of crime—will be removed. The magistrates do not want these powers. Parliament should not force them to have them."

The Government have made it clear that they are determined to press ahead with the proposal despite widespread opposition. By accepting the amendment, they could at least reduce the damage that it is otherwise likely to cause families. I make a last plea to the Minister to think again about the clause, because it will help to destroy parents, families and responsibility.

I declare an interest as a solicitor. The clause has nothing to do with nice middle-class Ministers, the right wing of the Conservative party or the middle classes, but a lot to do with sound sense. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) has known me for some years and knows that I am on the left of the Conservative party. The hon. Gentleman might think that I am one of the soggy ones. I inform him that the clause appeals to the whole range of thinking throughout the country. It is not from a Tory think tank.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) talked about punishing innocent parents. When a youngster commits a crime, I am not even sure whether there is such a thing as an innocent parent. Parents have responsibility for what their children do. Anything that hon. Members can do to reinforce parental responsibility must be welcomed.

I was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Magistrates Association was against the clause. I can speak only anecdotally, but almost to a man, the magistrates whom I have known over the years have said that they wanted stiffer powers to make sure that parents were held more accountable. I have appeared in courts many times as an advocate for youngsters aged 15, 16 or 17. Sometimes the parent will be present in court, and he will be asked, "How do you explain the crime that this 17-year-old committed? He was drinking in pubs and then got involved in violence at 10 o'clock at night." That parent may say, "It's up to him. His own time is his own. I don't bother about where he goes after school." Without a doubt, such a parent should be bound over and held accountable for that offence. Another parent may say, "I thought that my son was at the youth club, because that's where he said he was going." Clearly, it would be unreasonable to punish that parent. The courts will be sensible enough to deal harshly only with parents who display an attitude that shows that they could not care less.

I sometimes wonder whether we should extend parental responsibility to those in loco parentis. What about all the young men and women from all social classes who are at fine boarding schools such as Eton and Harrow? Those schools are in loco parentis during term time. The head teachers should be taken to the local magistrates court if one of their 17-year-olds is caught out on a drunken spree. I say that seriously, because schools take their in loco parentis role very seriously. They should be included in the legislation. We must do whatever we can to reinforce parental responsibility.

The Government have been at some pains to show that they do not wish to fetter the discretion of the judiciary. They used that argument most powerfully in the debate on the sentencing council but, exceptionally, in respect of this clause, they appear to want to fetter the discretion of the judiciary and to do so in circumstances that are opposed by all hon. Members who have representative roles in the administration of the criminal justice system.

This is a bad clause. Clearly it will be honoured in the breach more than in the observance. It is a bad clause because it removes from the court the right to consider the appropriateness of doing what it may wish to do by imposing upon the court a duty that it must discharge unless it thinks it unreasonable so to do. The amendment would remove the sting of the clause by describing the circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to do so. If the Minister argues that there is some discretion, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the wisdom of describing the circumstances in which the discretion should be exercised. There has been considerable debate about this matter, but I hope that, even at this stage, the Minister will not seek to trumpet the Government's concern for parental responsibility as being greater than that of hon. Members who take a different view about how parental responsibility is best reinforced.

The House is aware of the importance of parents in minimising behaviour that leads to crime and of the crucial role that parents can play. However, it cannot be right to impose upon parents a duty that excludes the particular circumstances of cases before the courts. If it were right, I do not believe that those who administer the criminal justice system and have responsibility would unanimously believe that the Government have got it wrong.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) cannot have read the Bill. We are not in Standing Committee—the Bill is being considered on Report. The reference to reasonableness is there for all the world to see. It is on page 32 of the Bill. Clause 48(1)(b) uses the words,

"to exercise those powers unless satisfied that it would be unreasonable to do so".

The courts have all the opportunity they need to take into account that which is reasonable and that which is unreasonable.

There is nothing onerous on the courts or on those who come before the courts. Rather, there is a great opportunity, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) in a speech that was not only robust but was founded on his experiences in dealing with such issues in the courts. There is everything to be said for having that binding-over power not to punish but to prevent future crime. That is what we are attempting to do.

To use a phrase that I can remember being used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he was Home Secretary, we are trying to ensure that children grow straight rather than crooked. If, by the intervention of the courts trying to encourage parents to take their responsibilities more seriously, children can be prevented from continuing to grow crooked, that is a very good thing. This measure has nothing to do with punishing parents but everything to do with trying to persuade them to take their responsibilities seriously and with preventing future criminality.

I spoke to a magistrate only the other day in relation to a case in which a child of only 14 was persistently playing truant. The father did not know that the child's truancy had gone on for six months, and it was subsequently discovered that, during those periods of truancy, many minor but nevertheless serious offences were committed. I am absolutely convinced, as is my right hon. Friend, that it is important to confront the parent with the reality of what the child is up to. That is the real benefit of the measure.

As my hon. Friend says, this measure brings the parents slap up face to face with their responsibilities. I was interested in the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West that we should bring head teachers face to face with their responsibilities, too. I do not think that that is a matter for this Bill, but it is food for thought for a future Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is very concerned about truancy. We in the Home Office are worried about truancy. If we can deal with the truancy problem more effectively, we can not only prevent offending but bring up children who will perform better and achieve better in school.

We had long debates on this issue in Committee. Of course I take into account the views of the Magistrates Association and of justices' clerks as expressed by their national organisations, but there are about 27,000 magistrates in the country, and their views vary widely. Many magistrates strongly support our view.

We are legislators; we protect the public. We do not legislate for the best interests of magistrates, magistrates' clerks, probation officers or social workers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) will recall that, all through the Committee stage, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) kept talking about "the lobby" and holding up and reading from bits of paper which referred to the lobby's views. As my hon. Friend said, we are legislators, and we act in the public interest. We take into account the views of national bodies, which are important, but we must make up our own minds.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and I disagreed many times in Committee, especially about his attack on magistrates, which he withdrew. The Minister said that there were 27,000 magistrates and that their opinions differed widely depending on which clutch one talked to. If the measure is so popular, why is not it currently used by magistrates in more than a handful of cases?

The present legislation is not drafted in such a way as to encourage its use. We intend to introduce an integrated package of powers along the three particular tracks to which I referred earlier. That package, together with much more training for the magistracy in these matters, will lead to the much greater use of those powers by magistrates courts—and a good thing, too.

Amendment No. 90 is similar in intention to amendment No. 82. My reasons for opposing it are identical to those which I adduced in opposing amendment No. 82. Similar objections arise. I cannot accept the amendment, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 42, line 34, after 'wellbeing', insert

to protect them as far as possible from public scrutiny and insult, and in any such conveyances as are used to transport them to provide them with adequate ventilation, light and standards of physical comfort.'.

The amendment will bring the regulations governing the custody and transportation of prisoners outside prison into line with the European prison rules. Rule 50 states:

"When prisoners are being removed to or from an institution, they shall be exposed to the public view as little as possible, and proper safeguards shall be adopted to protect them from insult, curiosity and publicity in any form."

The second part of rule 50 states:

"The transport of prisoners in conveyances with inadequate ventilation or light, or in any way which would subject them to unnecessary physical hardship or indignity, shall be prohibited."

The European rules are not binding in law but the Council of Europe recommends that

"governments of member states be guided in their internal legislation and practice by the principles set out in the text of the European Prison Rules … with a view to their progressive implementation."

The Committee of Ministers included that recommendation in the preamble to the rules, adopted by it on 12 February 1987.

In addition to requiring the adoption of the European prison rules, the amendment would extend to the prisoner custody officers the requirement of domestic rule 38, which states:

"A person being taken to and from a prison in custody shall be exposed as little as possible to public observation, and proper care shall be taken to protect him from curiosity and insult."

The need for regulations governing the physical conditions in vehicles used to transport prisoners was graphically illustrated by the death from heat stroke in 1989 of Terence O'Shea. He was being transported from court to prison in a prison van with inadequate ventilation. The pathologist who carried out the investigation into the death said that, even five hours after his death, Mr. O'Shea's body temperature was still 2 deg Centigrade above normal. Perhaps the Minister of State will remember from physics that one can almost double the temperature to convert it into degrees Fahrenheit. That means that Mr. O'Shea's body temperature would have been about 4 deg Fahrenheit above normal. I do not know whether the Minister remembers the formula—I do: it is F minus 32 divided by nine equals C divided by 5. I am sure that the Minister will find that, by inserting 2 deg Centigrade into the formula. Mr. O'Shea's body temperature was 4 deg Fahrenheit above normal which is serious.

If the transportation of prisoners is contracted out to private companies which, by definition, are bound to have different motives from public organisations, there may be a temptation for them to cut costs and not provide adequate care and attention for the prisoners, which may result in inadequate ventilation and space. Our amendment seeks to make such unnecessary and wrong cost-cutting impossible.

The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to private companies. He should bear in mind the fact that, if a private company has a contract, it will have an incentive to keep standards high so that it does not lose the contract when it is renewed. I appreciate that there is an ideological divide, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that what we have found in Southend-on-Sea when we have privatised some services is that private contractors want to maintain standards so that they can keep the job next time round?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good argument, and I agree that that is the case, but the other side of it is that, to keep the business, a contractor would have to compete with the public sector, and to do so, he would undercut it on cost. The question is, where do the priorities lie in terms of cost-cutting? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that, where hospital services, such as catering, have been privatised in his constituency of Southend, East, there are numerous examples of things going wrong if there is too much cost-cutting. We are simply saying that there is a threat of such things happening. The Terence O'Shea case shows that we are talking about a real problem.

I am sure that the Minister of State will remember discussing this matter in Committee, when she said:

"although I cannot accept the amendment with its current-wording, it would be churlish of me indeed not to take it away and consider bringing back at a later stage a suitable amendment which covers the hon. Gentleman's points, particularly about adequate lighting and ventilation, which I believe is already covered."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 1991: c. 564.]

Opposition Members came to this debate expecting the Government to table an amendment on this subject. Sadly, however, we have been disappointed. I do not believe that the right hon. Lady is being churlish, because that is not her nature, so other mechanisms within the Home Office must be causing this important matter not to be amended in legislation. The consequence is that the recommendations of the European Economic Community and the other rules to which I have referred, which exist purely to ensure good practice, are being omitted from our legislation. We regret that, and will listen carefully to see why the Minister has failed to table the amendment that we expected.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) has given me a little to think about. He reminded me of my physics lessons. Although physics was not one of my best subjects at school. I was not so bad at it that I could not recognise the intensity of heat to which Mr. O'Shea was subjected when he was being escorted.

We take extremely seriously the importance of protecting from curiosity and insult those who are being escorted and of ensuring adequate heat, ventilation and lighting. Although I have failed significantly in the eyes of the hon. Gentleman—kind though he has been towards me this evening and sorry though I am to have been unable to table the amendment to which he was looking forward—we shall table an amendment in another place in the form, we believe, of an order-making power so that, in relation to contracted-out prison escorts, the Secretary of State can make rules to protect prisoners from public scrutiny and insult.

The rules will be similar to the present rule 38(1) to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) alluded in relation to private, contracted-out escort services. It is, however, important to remember that the O'Shea case occurred when the public sector was responsible for escorting. The rules need to be changed to ensure that, while prisoners are being escorted in the private sector, they have protection similar to that which they enjoyed before.

In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will feel reassured. Although I have been unable to table such an amendment this evening, it will be tabled in another place.

Opposition Members welcome what the Minister has said. It appears that she recognises the seriousness of the problem but was prevented from tabling an amendment today because of the lack of time to consider it fully. I note that she has said that the Government will introduce a measure in another place in the form of an order-making power. I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the Minister's attitude and look forward to an amendment being inserted in the Bill in another place.

Accordingly, on behalf of the Opposition, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 43, leave out lines 13 and 14.

With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 117, in page 43, line 16, leave out 'to which this section applies' and insert

'which—

(a) is established after the commencement of this section; and

(b) is for the confinement of remand prisoners, that is to say, persons charged with offences who are remanded in or committed to custody pending their trial, or persons committed to custody on their conviction who have not been sentenced for their offences;'.

No. 118, in page 43, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert——

'(4) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that this section shall have effect as if there were omitted from subsection (2) above either—

(a) paragraph (a) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph; or

(b) paragraph (b) and the said word "and" or

(c) the words from "which", in the first place where it occurs, to the end of paragraph (b).

(5) No order shall be made under subsection (4) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

No. 119, in clause 74, page 47, leave out line 8.

Clause 66 provides the framework for a private sector experiment through the provision of a new remand centre at Everthorpe.

In Committee, I introduced a group of amendments which would have had the effect of considerably widening the opportunity for private sector involvement throughout the prison service. We argued for that proposal for many hours, and I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has not been convinced by my arguments and has not agreed to the bolder step that I suggested.

I hope to have a little more success with this group of amendments. They are technical amendments, which would allow the experiment at Everthorpe to be extended in the light of the experience of that project. I acknowledge that my enthusiasm for private sector involvement in the remand system—and perhaps, eventually, in the prison service—is not shared at all by Opposition Members, or fully shared by some of my hon. Friends, who believe that we should proceed with much greater caution. I accept and acknowledge that majority view.

However, I hope that my right hon. Friend might see the wisdom of incorporating in the Bill a framework under which, subject to the agreement of Parliament. the experiment could be taken a stage further if the plans for Everthorpe prove successful. The changes I propose in these amendments would give the Home Secretary and the House the flexibility that the clause as drafted denies.

Surely, on the day on which Lord Justice Woolf s report has at long last been published, hon. Members can agree at least on the desirability of improving the prison regime still further. We shall need time to reflect on the detail of the Woolf recommendations. I have already spotted the suggestion concerning the provision of community prisons, with a view to maintaining links between a prisoner and his family and the community. I am sure that that would be very beneficial. Then there are the suggestions concerning alternative methods of managing prisons.

As I said in Committee, the need to improve the prison regime is urgent and great. It would be wrong to close our minds to some of the more innovative opportunities that the private sector may be able to offer. I acknowledge the need for a cautious approach, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will feel that in these amendments we have struck the right balance, and that she will find it possible to accept them.

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has said. In so doing, I am reminded of Corrie primary school on the island of Arran. Many years ago, I was a Minister in the Scottish Office for about a year and a half. There were lots of exciting things that I wanted to do, and lots of exciting reforms that I wanted to introduce, but looking back on that year and a half, the only specific thing that I recall achieving was keeping Corrie primary school open. The local council had proposed that it be closed, but as a Minister I had power to overturn that proposal. I did so, on the grounds that I thought that the school would prosper. Happily, it survives to this day. To justify my faith in my real achievement, I go to Arran every year for a holiday. That is one way of seeing the greatness of what I have done in politics over a period of 26 years.

In what way is Corrie primary school relevant to this clause, which, so far as I can see, is intended to be a great reforming provision? On the basis of what is laid down, it seems that only one remand prison will be available for consideration. Criminal justice measures come before us very rarely. If we have this as the basis of our experiment, and if we wait three or four years to see how it progresses, the prospect of reform will be very limited indeed. We are not saying that there is a case for changing the whole character of the legislation—indeed, that cannot be done at Report stage—but we should have the opportunity—perhaps next year, perhaps the year after—to bring forward some regulations by which the matter could be reopened.

Why has there been so little progress? At the time of the Corrie school incident to which I referred, we had a very large, enthusiastic and talented civil service, whose members knew far more about everything than I did. That is why they did nothing at all—which was probably very wise. In the prisons section of the Home Office there are some extremely talented people, who probably know more about everything than I do. There is always a temptation for individuals to hold back, to avoid going too far. I hope that this Minister will have a great reforming career. Indeed, I know she will. She has great ability and integrity. I am asking her not to overturn the clause or to reopen the whole business, but simply to accept that, if there is a possibility—perhaps next year or the year after that—of reopening the subject by bringing forward regulations, that possibility should be grasped.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has been very reasonable, which is unusual for someone who consistently supports farmers. What he is saying is that things like this should not simply slip through but should be subject to affirmative resolution. Nothing could be more reasonable. Most of the views that my hon. Friend expresses are ones that I, as a Conservative, find it difficult to support. However, I hope that the Minister will accept that this is a very reasonable proposal which does not go too far.

We do not want to see the Minister's hands tied so that nothing can be done. There should be some arrangement whereby she could come back to the House and advise hon. Members to consider arrangements that had worked out. Perhaps they would not have worked out. All I am saying is that we should have some arrangement whereby, without drafting a completely new law, the case could be reopened. I hope that the Minister, who always displays reasonableness, will allow this little chink of light for the benefit of those who think that there is something worth while here.

This is the part of the Bill to which we object most strongly. I am sure that no hon. Member fails to understand the reasons for our objection. We believe that pressure is being exerted by certain elements in the Conservative party to push the Bill in an even more radically rightward direction.

Earlier today, we were talking about the most important report of Lord Justice Woolf. When I pressed the Home Secretary on whether the change of direction was a philosophical one, he did not seem to understand my point. That point is absolutely germane to this debate. For 12 years, the Government, instead of addressing the fundamental problems of our penal system, have thrown money—£1 billion—at the problem by building new prisons, but that did not work. More recently, they have come up with the notion—stimulated by organisations such as the Adam Smith Institute—that private prisons may provide the answer. In fact, neither is the correct approach, because the Government have got the philosophy wrong.

If the Minister is right in terms of her commitment to Woolf, she will one day reflect—probably quietly, away from the television lights and the Chamber—on the fact that acceptance of the philosophy of Woolf involves accepting a total change of direction as a fundamental necessity. If she were to accept the pressure from some of her right-wing colleagues, on the Standing Committee and outside it, to broaden the scope of privatisation—which is what this amendment would do—she would be making the mistake of retaining the old bankrupt philosophy. What Woolf has provided—if only the Government could recognise it—is an opportunity to come up with the correct solutions to the problems of penal policy. The whole country would be grateful if the Government would show the courage and clarity of thought which are necessary to recognise that.

I expect that I shall not be successful, but I must try to persuade the right hon. Lady that, if she were able to recognise that dichotomy, she would reluctantly tell her colleagues that the Government had seen the light. I realise, of course, that she has to be polite to her colleagues. On this first day post-Woolf, the Government should show a willingness to change direction by refusing to go down the road of privatisation. The Labour party is totally opposed to the proposals for private remand prisons. We have always said that this would be the thin end of the privatisation wedge. Indeed, before the Bill had completed its Committee stage, the Minister had changed her mind and moved further in the direction of privatisation per se, rather than just privatisation of remand prisons.

We find those proposals repugnant. The case against privatisation was put most eloquently in July 1987. I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary, who was sitting on the Front Bench only a few minutes ago, is not here now to hear me quote the words that he uttered as Home Secretary. He said:

"I do not think that there is a case, and I do not believe that the House would accept a case, for auctioning or privatising the prisons or handing over the business of keeping prisoners safe to anyone other than Government servants."—[Official Report, 16 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 1303.]

Why did privatisation get on to the Home Office agenda? The answer is simple. It did so because of the failure of the Government's policies, which has shown itself in one simple way—the overcrowding of our prison system. The number of prisoners escalated from 43,326 in 1983 to an alarming 50,265 in 1987. The pressure was particularly bad in the remand sector, where unconvicted prisoners endured some of the most squalid conditions. It goes against any concept of justice that people who have not been proved guilty of an offence are kept in the worst cells and the worst prisons.

The pressure grew for something to be done. We know that the Government's first reaction was the frantic building of more prisons. They expanded the prison building programme so much that they faced a bill of £1 billion on top of the running costs of £1 billion a year. That was a massive investment. If anyone was throwing money at a problem, it was the Government.

People could see that that was not working. It was suggested that we should go down the American route, but who wants to do that? Hon. Members who served on the Committee with me will be sick to death of my citing the American experience. In America, there were 3·33 million people in prison in 1974 and 1·3 million in 1990. I do not often correct the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon.

Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but by a slip of the tongue he got it wrong earlier. He said that we had the worst prison record in the industrialised world. While we may have the worst record of imprisonment per head of population in the Council of Europe countries, including Turkey, our record is not worse than that of the United States, and I hope that it never will be. The increase in the supply of prisoners there seems never-ending, and that looms large in the minds of the Government and the people of the United States.

The other suggestion which came out of the woodwork, or out of the Adam Smith Institute, was privatisation of the prisons—if not all of them, at least the worst affected, which are those on the remand side. Instead of building more prisons, the Government should have done something about reducing the prison population. They should not now, belatedly, be returning to the idea of privatisation. It is a delicious irony that these proposals for expanding the role of the private sector in the prison system should come at a time when the prison population is beginning to fall.

The Labour party's recommendations on reducing the prison population have at last been heeded. The Government have finally listened to the experts. I am not saying that the Labour party has great expertise, but it was prepared to listen to the experts before writing its policies on penal reform.

If this is the wrong policy at the wrong time, why are the Government pursuing it? Part of the answer must be that they are giving in to commercial interests. It is no secret that certain construction companies close to the Conservative party stand to gain from the privatisation of prisons. That such interests are influential in determining penal policy is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice. I am old enough to remember former United States President Eisenhower warning against the military-industrial complex. I should be warning against the penal-industrial complex, whose participants have more to gain from an increase in the prison population than from a reduction.

7.45 pm

There will be pressure for more prisoners. As I said in Committee, that is not a conspiracy theory—it is an inevitable law of economics. People do not go into such business to make a loss. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) spoke of privatisation. He will know that the guarding of a defence institution by a private security company is all very well with a top-rate company, but without regulation of the industry, chief constables worry about the quality of the firms at the lower end of the market. Competitive tendering forces Government bodies to accept the lowest or almost the lowest of tenders. The senior executive of a leading private security company said to me only in October, "Do you know, Mr. Sheerman, that in Scotland a defence establishment is being guarded by a private security company which pays its employees £1 an hour?" The hon. Gentleman will know about Scotland.

This is not a conspiracy theory. The economics of the situation, in an unregulated industry, will lead to the cowboys taking over not only in the rest of the private security world, but in private prisons. The Government have no plans to regulate security industry, and without such regulation, nothing that the Government say can reassure the Opposition that there will not be a sector of the prison system run by the cowboy element of the private security industry.

Behind these measures is a black hole into which the Government's policy will fall—their unwillingness to regulate the private security industry. I know that I am anticipating a later debate, but the two are closely linked. In Committee, Conservative Members bizarrely told us that prisons built by private developers were unutterably better in design, construction and siting than those built by the public sector, which the Government argued were badly designed and planned buildings, with poorly executed work. Yet if a private contract is given to a firm to run as well as build the prison, they argue, standards suddenly and miraculously improve. That is a devastating comment on our building and development industry. I happen to know many people who work in the building industry, and that is a slur on their work. It is a misunderstanding of the public and private sectors.

Good, well-designed prisons can be built and run by the public sector. The Woolf report says just that. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said that we had a good prison service and a rotten system, he hit the nail squarely on the head. That is the problem that the Government cannot address. Can the private sector build prisons and operate them well and cheaply?

It is interesting that all the rhetoric about effectiveness that we heard in the early days of this debate seems to have disappeared. The financial memorandum states:

"Competitive tendering for the operation of remand centres is not expected to have a significant financial implication."

The American experience leads to the same conclusion. Even Charles Logan, a member of President Reagan's commission on privatisation, in the best researched pro-privatisation book on the American scene, agrees that it is still unproven that private prisons will cost any less than prisons in the public sector.

It was noticeable and alarming that, in discussions with Deloitte Haskins and Sells, private-sector operators claimed that savings could be made by reducing staffing levels through design innovation and technology. Groups such as Inquest are greatly worried about the prospect of turning remand prisons into electronic boxes. The appalling number of suicides in recent years shows that remand prisoners need close attention and contact with more and better qualified staff, not more electronic wizardry and gadgetry. All the research shows that human contact is most important in preventing suicide. That was not mentioned in today's statement and the questions and answers following it. Even since the ghastly events at Strangeways, more people there have committed suicide.

I do not want to bore the House with the American experience, but despite the vast prison population there, there are no private federal prisons and there are only 9,000 adult offenders in privately run gaols. Therefore, the experience of the United States is extremely limited.

As I understand the figures, 25 per cent. of prisoners are federally delivered up to the private sector, and there is now a total of 20,000 beds in the private sector in the United States.

I think we split down the middle. My latest figures, which I got from the House of Commons Library only this week, show that there are no federal prisoners in the private sector, but that the numbers in the private sector may have risen. The hon. Gentleman may have more up-to-date figures than I do, but between 9,000 and 20,000 is a tiny percentage of the 1·3 million prisoners.

In Committee, the Minister rested her case on the Australian experience. I have checked that, and found, that the position is certainly not as impressive as she would have us believe. The experiment has been going on for only a short time. The number of prisoners in the one prison that is in the private sector is small. Most published material relates to Borallon prison in Queensland, but the claims made about its success are premature. Most experts in our penal lobby argue that it is far too early to make claims about improved recidivist rates, that the prison was operational only in January 1990 and that to make such a claim borders on the irresponsible. It is much too early to speak about cost-effectiveness. Borallon is still running in, and for much of the time has been running at under capacity. The Australian and American experiences do not lead to the conclusions that Ministers seem to suggest.

There is a problem in accepting the Government's arguments when one considers the moral aspect. It is easy to get entrapped by the Government's logic and to argue on their terms. In that way, we are reduced to talking about pounds and pence—the cost of imprisonment. On the day the Woolf report is brought to the attention of the House, we should think about philosophy and underlying values. At the forefront of our argument are our strong moral objections to the use of private prisons.

The deprivation of liberty is the strongest punishment that can be imposed on an individual. Once a court has decided on a prison sentence, the state should be directly responsible for that prisoner throughout his or her sentence. The prospect of private companies deriving commercial gain from imprisonment is grossly distasteful. Private companies, motivated by the requirements to maintain profit margins and share dividends, will compromise inmate care and welfare provision. The Government are taking a cavalier attitude to that and to public safety.

We are gravely concerned that control and security may be seriously compromised by undertrained and inexperienced employees of the private-sector industry. We doubt that our security guards will have the ability to handle the difficult and potentially violent situations that can arise.

I do not have to expand on my case on a day like today. The report about Strangeways and the evil disturbances in our prisons last April leads any fair-minded Member and citizen to the conclusion contained in paragraph 1.4 of the Woolf report. It pays tribute to the men and women involved for their professionalism and care. Indeed, Woolf specifically says that two further questions should have been asked when he was given his terms of reference. The question should$not have been why the riots took place, so much as why they had not taken place years ago, given the state of our prisons. What is the conclusion? In paragraph 4, he concludes that, if it were not for the dedicated, highly trained professionalism of those who run our prisons—the governors and prison officers—the riots would have occurred earlier and would have been more widespread.

When the Minister replies, will she tell us what guarantee she has about the level of care, training and expertise that will be found in the most difficult area of the penal system, the remand system, or any other sector when the penal system comes under private unregulated industry? Remand prisoners are highly volatile. Many have never been in prison before and are terrified and even psychologically disturbed by the experience. Many will be found innocent. What guarantees does she have about the provision in private remand or any other private sector of the penal system?

I have made the main points of my case.

At length.

This is an important debate. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not normally take so long on Report, but, as he knows, one or two of these matters go to the heart of the Bill.

There is an inherent misconception in the proposal, which may intrigue the hon. Member for Southend, East. I know that that hon. Gentleman likes the free market, which is lauded by the Tories, but it is a strange marketplace that has one customer only and where those at the sharp end in receipt of service are not at liberty to change their supplier. Such a lack of choice does not represent a free market, more a captive one.

8 pm

We want to flush out the Government's true intentions, because the Minister was less than clear in Committee. On 31 January she said:

"The Government cannot accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale … because we would need to come to terms with the full implication of what he has to say".

Later on, however, there was a more positive reaction from the Minister:

"I am willing to consider the amendments".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 31 January 1991; c. 577, 601.]

It must have been those differing comments that totally confused the press, because when I spoke to some of them in the following two days, half of them thought that the right hon. Lady had warmed to the amendment, while the other half said that she had thrown it out without much thought. I should like the right hon. Lady to come clean about her views.

A much clearer view of the Government's intentions is provided in the magazine New Builder. It is interesting to look occasionally at the less customary sources of information. We all read The Economist, the New Statements and Society, and such publications, but it is not often that one reads New Builder. In the 7 February edition, we learned that the hon. Member for Rydedale (Mr. Greenway) and the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) had told the journal that:

"they had convinced the new Home Secretary and the Prisons Minister, Angela Rumbold, that the proposals for privately built and managed prisons in the Criminal Justice Bill did not go far enough".

We also learned that, on the proposals to end the remand of juveniles to prison department establishments and secure more accommodation, the Government were considering the proposal that councils should contract private consortiums to undertaken those projects on a design, build and manage basis. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

We also discovered from that magazine that the hon. Member for Westminster, North is even more enterprising when it comes to city-centre prisons. He considers that Brixton, Pentonville and Wormwood Scrubs represent an endless source of land for the property market. He said that those prisons occupy sites of considerable value and that

"the Home Office is warming to the idea of giving the sites to private developers in return from them building smaller, privately managed remand centres nearer the crown Courts".

Obviously New Builder has some insight into what is going on in the Tory party and its relationship with the building industry. It makes absolutely fascinating reading.

Conservatives may argue that, although the Woolf report concludes that the prison system is in an appalling state and in need of change, the Labour party is being a dog in the manger because it will not go along with the Tory party's insights into how to change such dreadful conditions in our prisons. Such an argument is a red herring. The Woolf report should lead to a radical improvement of the present prison system, not the development of a few brand new prestigious private prisons.

We believe that the state of the penal system is too important to deal with on party political grounds. The future penal system should be agreed upon by the two parties and the Woolf report should be agreed upon by the two parties, and the Woolf report should be the basis of that agreement. If the Conservative Government could bury their ideological hang-up on privatisation of prisons, they would discover that there was enormous support for policies that would radicalise our present penal system.

It is important to note the poisonous effect that the obsession with privatisation will have on the men and women working in the prison service. Such privatisation is opposed by everyone who works in the prison service—certainly the prison governors do not want it. In that connection, how on earth could Ministers introduce an amendment in January concerning what the press described as "flying governors"? No matter how the wonderful private remand centres or prisons are extolled by the Government, it seems that, when a riot takes place, they cannot cope.

The Government suddenly introduced an amendment to provide that a governor from a proper prison in the public sector would be flown in at a moment's notice to deal with any crisis. That is bad enough in itself, but the Government did not consult the governors about that proposal. I understand that the Minister had met representatives from the Prison Governors Association only a couple of days before, but no mention was made then of that proposal. That is a strange way in which to deal with the professionals who run our prison service.

The right hon. Lady should think again before she opens the door a bit more to the amendment tabled by the right of her party. On reflection, she will appreciate that it represents a dangerous path. Such a privatisation measure could sink the one opportunity we have to catch up with the civilised part of the world on penal policy.

I should not think that many hon. Members or people outside believe that our prison service is anything other than a national disgrace. It is not right simply to point the finger of guilt at the present Government, as the deficiencies within the prison system did not start in 1979—the blame must go back many generations.

In the past 11 years, the Government have had opportunities to make the necessary reforms, and some things have been done that I applaud wholeheartedly. It is regrettable, however, that in typically British fashion it took a crisis in the prison service—the riots—to precipitate the encyclopaedic report that was presented to us today.

Just because matters are in crisis does not mean that we should move to an aberrant system that is shifting, however incrementally, to a system of private prisons. I believe that Woolf and Tumim have pointed the way and that, if the Government, and future Governments, are prepared to devote resources and provide the political support, we shall have a prison system about which we need not feel a deep sense of shame. If Ministers were asked to take foreign visitors round many of our city-centre prisons, built in the previous century, I am sure that they would refuse to do so. No person of any compassion could feel anything but acute embarrassment at visiting many of our city-centre prisons.

The state of such prisons is no criticism of prison officers, who cannot like to work in such an environment. At least prisoners are in and out in a set time in most cases, but prison officers must spend much of their careers in that dreadful environment and in many senses the effect is degenerative. In passing, I pay a tremendous tribute to the men and women of the prison service who have been engaged to work for many years in adverse surroundings.

We all know that there is much scope for improving the system, but we tend to forget that there is much in the prison service that is experimental and innovative and about which we need not feel the same sense of humiliation. We need to build on those positive elements of the prison service. Lord Justice Woolf has pointed the way in which Governments must go. I cannot accept, however, that even a limited experiment with privatisation is worthy of anything other than condemnation. If by some misfortune the Government accept the amendment, more than a simple experiment would be involved, because that experiment will lead to a mushrooming of private prisons. That cannot be endorsed.

I support many reforms in the prison service and many of the alternatives to prison, but there will always be a place for prisons. I do not belong to the utopian wing of my party, which believes that if only we provided good opportunities for people they would not commit crimes, and that we must create alternatives to prison for almost all who would otherwise go there. That is nonsense. There are people who need punishment, which should be paralleled by a reforming element. So let us reform, but let us not indulge in this nonsense.

I should have thought that the privatisation mania to which we have been subjected had run its course. Perhaps the Government have been tempted to support plans for more privatisation than we had expected to prove to some of their supporters outside, who may be feeling depressed about how the Government have evolved in the past couple of months, that there is still a strong ideological commitment to privatisation and to some of the dottier ideas of the past 10 years. Without wanting to insult friends in the academic world, I must point out that such ideas should have been confined to professors' offices, but now, because of the peculiarities of the political system, they have been enshrined in legislation of which we are suffering the consequences.

I am not opposed to all forms of privatisation. As I said in Committee, I would not fight to the death to return some privatised companies to the private sector. Some concerns will inevitably remain outside public control, but I cannot concede that privatising the prisons is anything more than an idea supported by the more dotty Members of the House. I had hoped that privatisation of the prisons was just the death rattle of the ideological passions of the 1980s, but perhaps my assessment was too optimistic.

Privatisation of the prisons can come in many guises: in the form of contracting out services such as catering or cleaning; and in the form of allowing contractors to build, manage and operate. There is no single model for privatisation.

Why are private prisons to be inflicted on us? They may be a consequence of the ideologically impoverished seeking inspiration from other societies that have gone through the process and picking up their ideas, running them across the Atlantic and trying to translate them, in their feeble way, into British clones of the American experiment. Many of the perceptions of the success of the privatised prisons in the United States have been based on simplistic analyses. The Select Committee on Home Affairs investigated private prisons, and the aspects of its report that relate to private prisons contain more of the ethos of the political pamphlet than the ring of a serious report by a Select Committee.

8.15 pm

The report by Mr. Young for the Adam Smith Institute was also based on limited research experience. Extrapolating on the basis of limited experience, the report judged, wrongly, that the experiment had been successsful in the United States.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said earlier, the experiment in the United States has been too limited. An excellent book recently published by Ryan and Ward on private prisons in America and on whether the American experience has any relevance to us states:

"The American experience of privatising the delivery of punishment overall in the United States is both uneven and limited. It is uneven in that it is more prevalent in the south … more common in the juvenile sector than in adult corrections; more likely to apply to service delivery than to ownership and/or management."

So that research has shown that the experiment in the United States has been limited, and we should not draw the wrong conclusions from it. The Adam Smith Institute, which is closely connected with the Heritage Foundation in the United States, has praised a system that is undeserving of eulogy. Mr. Young could see no evil in the private sector and was unwilling to see Governments do anything in the prison sector free from his criticism.

The Select Committee that visited the United States produced a political report. By that I do not mean to criticise its Chairman, who has not attempted to hide his close connection with the private security industry. He has been an able proponent of the private prison system, and his predecessor as Chairman—this is also a matter of public record—now serves as chairman of an organisation that is considering building private prisons.

The Home Affairs Select Committee did not perform a good service for the House. I am appalled by the idea of a prison industry, by the idea of the state delegating responsibility for punishment to the private sector and by the idea of prisons being run for profit. I fear that a private prison system will be largely unaccountable. It will not deliver the nirvana that some of its proponents argue it will—places where the food is great, where warders run around not dressed in uniform and where wonderful recreational facilities abound: in short, places not unlike Hi-de-hi holiday camps. That is all an illusion.

On the basis of my experience of the private security industry, I must conclude that the private sector is ill equipped to manage, run and staff prisons. I shall discuss later why I believe that. Bidding for contracts can mean only that good companies will be driven down to the lower level of their competitors. Staff salaries will suffer, as will staff training. We shall not begin to reach the stage recommended by Lord Justice Woolf. He has argued that, although the standard of training in the United Kingdom could be described as reasonable, we must aim for higher standards. The Netherlands may provide us with a model.

Our standards of training are already light years ahead of those in almost every private security company. If the private sector cannot remotely match even the present system of training, which Woolf has argued is inadequate, I cannot believe that it will have either the resources or the enthusiasm to emulate the standards that he requires of prison officers in both sectors.

I hoped that the Bill would merely introduce a narrow experiment and that, when that experiment had been properly evaluated, it would be allowed to die the death. I fear, however, that the Government have other things in mind; and I deplore that.

The case in principle against the clause has already been adequately deployed, and I do not propose to continue with that line of argument. I wish the Minister to explain how she expects the clause and the amendment—with which she is rumoured to be sympathetic—to fit in with the Woolf recommendations for remand prisons.

In my view, both the clause and the amendment are inconsistent with the purposes of the Woolf report; moreover, they make the achievement of the ends recommended in that report—after careful consideration—much more difficult. According to Woolf,

"the inquiry has concentrated particularly on the position of remand prisoners. This is because they represent a significant proportion of the prison population, and because they unjustly suffer some of the worst conditions in the prison system … To emphasise the importance of these matters, the inquiry recommends that there should be a separate statement of purpose setting out the prison service's responsibilities relating to remand prisoners. This statement of purpose should reflect the principle that remand prisoners should normally be accommodated, treated and managed separately from convicted prisoners."

That, surely, is a profoundly important recommendation. How does the clause fit in with it? It seems to want to establish a bifurcation in the custodial treatment of remand prisoners. At least the original clause did not intend all of them to be subject to privately contracted arrangements; but, if the Woolf recommendations apply to the prison service, they will presumably have to apply, and be monitored, in the private sector, which strikes me as a bizarre administrative approach.

Woolf went on to consider the problems of remand prisoners in much more detail. On page 250, in paragraph 10.79, he wrote:

"The many initiatives which have been taken in recent years to try to tackle the problem created by the size of the remand population have on the whole been successful. Indeed the scale of their success suggests that there were, and almost certainly still are, a substantial number of people remanded in custody who should not be in prison … The problems created by the unnecessary remands need to be tackled from a number of different directions. Each involves co-operation between the Courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Probation Service and the Prison Service."

If the clause and the amendment are passed, a fifth wheel will be added. Similar co-operation will be needed with the private sector, involving a separate series of relationships. I believe that that will confound the present administrative confusion, in the part of the prison system in which the greatest problems are widely recognised to exist.

We must judge the appropriateness of the clause and the amendment by whether the tests recommended by Woolf are more or less likely to be met. On page 327, in paragraph 12.309, Woolf suggests

"Accredited Standards for remand centres".

That will mean a set of separate tests and monitoring arrangements to find out whether the privatised service is operating effectively, which cannot make sense.

The whole report reflects considerable disquiet about the management of the remand population. Woolf diagnoses that as stemming in part from the assumptions that are made about the degree of security that all remand prisoners require. The privatisation proposal strikes me as, at best, irrelevant to the solution of the problems described so cogently by Woolf, and, at worst, likely to make the task of eliminating them much more difficult.

As well as recommending the implementation of certain broad principles, Woolf suggested that helpful guidance would be provided by the proposals in the Prison Reform Trust's publication about regimes for remand prisoners, by Dr. Sylvia Casale and Miss Joyce Plotnikov. Will that helpful guidance be required of those who run the private sector? It is difficult to explain or justify a bifurcation of the system in a sector that has had so many problems, leading to—admittedly—so much unfortunate practice.

It is not as though the Government were proposing a "pure" privatisation. Those who run the prisons will have to operate according to rules and regulations established by Government; the controller, for instance, will be a Crown servant. This is an example of gesture politics on the part of Home Office Ministers who are trying to placate the holders of an uninformed view within their own party, which carries no support outside that party and which the Government would be wise to reject. They now have the perfect reason not to act; indeed, if they accept the amendment, it will be seen as a pre-emption of the Woolf recommendations—as, indeed, thumbing their nose at recommendations, and a pretty contemptuous approach to some serious suggestions. That would be highly unfortunate.

In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) moved several amendments to clause 66 that would have been rather more dramatic in their effect than amendment No. 116. Perhaps he listened carefully to the debate and to the comments of our hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), who said that, if we want to extend clause 66, which applies only to remand prisoners, we should proceed cautiously and step by step to ensure that contracting out is not only acceptable to the Home Secretary and the Government but an effective means of managing prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale said that, if the Government accepted the amendment, that was the way in which he would expect us to proceed.

The Wolds is the only remand prison that can be contracted out under clause 66, which the Government are minded to enact. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) expressed concern about private prisons being a dreadful failure or an aberration. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is saying only that, if it is proved that they can be effectively managed by the private sector, the Government, having carefully considered the implications and ramifications, might extend that proposal to, for example, a young offenders' institution. That is a reasonable proposition for the House to consider.

We have had a long and considered debate. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) made the Labour party's position clear. It opposes the private sector being involved in the running of prisons. I understand that, but I do not necessarily agree with the ideological point that the prison service can be run only by the public sector. I do not accept that only the public sector should be responsible for the management of prisons.

The debate is being held on the day when the Wolff recommendations became public. I reaffirm—I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield accepts this in the spirit in which he made his comments to me—that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I, and indeed the whole Government, are committed to improving the prison service. I do not agree with the suggestion by the hon. Member for Huddersfield that the Government have tried to improve the prison service simply "by throwing money at it", although since 1979 much public sector money has been spent on improving prison service establishments, which were in a distressful state.

As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, only three years ago, our prisons were full and it was not possible to refurbish them. We therefore opened eight new prisons, and will open a further 12 in the next few years. Coupled with the decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced today to end slopping out by 1994, that will contribute to achieving the important target of reforming the prison regime. If a prisoner must slop out four times a day, it does not help to establish a good regime under which he can undergo a sensible education, work and training programme.

The right hon. Lady has delicately avoided giving a firm commitment to implement the Woolf recommendations, which is what Labour Members have been waiting to hear.

The hon. Gentleman has already received an answer. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a package of measures to implement immediately a major part of the Woolf recommendations. As the report was published only today, he reasonably said that many of its recommendations will be considered for inclusion in a White Paper. No Government, of whatever political persuasion, could have done more than my right hon. Friend.

I must confess to the hon. Member for Huddersfield that New Builder is not my early morning or bed-time reading. Perhaps I should ensure that I read it as well as Punch, the Spectator and The Economist. I must also confess that I do not yet read the New Statesman and Society.

What about Christopher Robin?

As all my hon. Friends know, Christopher Robin is a favourite of mine.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) suggested that clause 66 and the amendments would be incompatible with the Woolf recommendations. I do not share that view. I do not see why private remand centres, which perhaps would use different methods but would have the same aims, could not operate successfully. They would operate under contract to the Home Office. I do not see why co-operation with other parts of the criminal justice system would be more difficult under these proposals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Woolf recommendation to segregate remand prisoners within the prison regime was the basis of the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee on private sector involvement in the remand system?

My hon. Friend is correct. The Government are taking the first step in considering contracting out a remand prison. We believe that this opportunity will not easily arise again. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, this is a chink of light. If, and only if, the contracted-out remand centre proves to be a success might we move towards privatisation of other parts of the prison service. The House should accept the amendment.