To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will encourage new investment in and revitalisation of town and city centres.

Yes, through the combination of a strong national economy, sensible planning and specific measures such as city challenge to unlock local commitment.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing problems in the towns of Crayford and Erith in my constituency and in Bexleyheath shopping centre, caused by the proliferation of new out-of-town shopping developments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we restore and revitalise our town centres so that they do not become ghost towns? We must have more investment, life and jobs in our town centres to make them vibrant once again.

I have made it clear that I believe that the future development of stores should encourage and enhance town centres wherever possible. We have made that clear in policy planning guidance notes 6 and 13 and I shall be issuing some further directions.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to answer the questions that were put to him more than six months ago following the reversal of his discredited planning policy, which has blighted thousands of businesses in towns and city centres? What assistance does he intend to provide to those local authorities and businesses that have had to sit back helplessly during the past 15 years while the Government have slavishly supported the principle of out-of-town developments—a policy which has undermined the effectiveness of local councils and businesses in their attempts to regenerate towns and city centres? What will he do to compensate those councils and businesses for his mistakes?

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is concerned to climb on board Conservative policy in these matters and I know that he is extremely embarrassed by the fact that he did not think of it first. But the fact is that out-of-town shopping centres have played an important role in the new kind of retailing in which Britain leads. There is a balance to be gained, on which I am determined to insist. I do not want to stop those developments that are there, but I do want to ensure that, as far as possible in future, any developments will enhance the city centres. That is a perfectly reasonable balanced policy, but, as such, it is unlikely to attract the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to promote the sometimes novel idea these days that people should live in city centres, so that they do not turn into ghost towns at night and so that we have a mix of commercial premises, shops and residences where they should be, as well as out of town?

The genius of towns is that they are places where people can live, work, shop and take their leisure together. One of the disadvantages that has arisen in recent years—often as a result of the municipal policy of councils that did not want mixed development—has been that people have been pushed out to the edge of towns instead of giving the life that is necessary to the centre.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in recorded nitrogen dioxide emissions since 1984.

Total United Kingdom emissions of nitrogen oxides, expressed as nitrogen dioxide equivalents, increased from 1984 to 1990 by 540,000 tonnes, and have since declined year by year. Emissions in 1992, the latest year for which validated figures are available, were 110,000 tonnes below the peak values.

Despite that, the Minister knows that air pollution is an increasing problem in towns and that bad air is triggering even more attacks in children who suffer from asthma. Why does not he just accept that money spent on an integrated transport system would not only save many people in Britain from greater discomfort, but would clean up and improve the air for all of us in our city centres?

I agreed with the earlier part of the hon. Lady's question. I have a daughter who suffers from asthma and I know at first hand in my family the problems experienced by asthmatics, so I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady's point of view.

It is no use assuming that pollution is the Government's fault, however. We all create pollution in one form or another and all use vehicles in one form or another, so pollution is partly of our own creation. But the Government recognise the importance of reducing pollution, which is why we spent money on research and, in conjunction with the Department of Health, are examining ways and means of improving the situation—and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made some interesting and pertinent announcements a week or two ago that will contribute to alleviating the problem that concerns the hon. Lady.

As vehicle emissions are a major contributor to air pollution and are linked to increases in childhood and adult asthma, will the Minister confirm that the Government are arguing for increases in petrol duty above those already planned and for cuts in the road-building programme? Will he back the launch today of the clean air through oxygen campaign for the oxygenation of fuel to cut emissions?

I cannot comment on matters that are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I am that my right hon. Friend is taking the action to which he referred. As to oxygenation, I am interested—as are our expert advisers—in any schemes or products that could help to reduce pollution. However, the value of oxygenates remains unknown and some claims made for them have not been proven. There is a long way to go before the action that the hon. Gentleman suggests could be known to be helpful.

The Government may not be entirely at fault for rising levels of air pollution and asthma, but Government inaction must carry a substantial part of the blame. Why is it that this country has only 34 national nitrogen dioxide monitoring stations? Why did the Government decide recently not to make monitoring a statutory duty for local authorities? Above all, why do the Government refuse to adopt a properly integrated transport strategy, which would be the long-term answer to the problem?

At long last we have an admission from the hon. Gentleman, as opposed to an emission, that the Government are not wholly at fault. I go further, and suggest that the Government have an extremely good record on emissions. We are meeting all the deadlines that the European Union requires of us and have plans for improvements. As to monitoring stations, I take guidance from my specialist and technical advisers—as would the hon. Gentleman if he were in my position. We are advised that the monitoring devices and their location are as good as anywhere in Europe. I am entirely confident that the results that we are receiving from those devices are entirely accurate and give a fair picture of what needs to be done.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to know that I do not consider that the Government are blameworthy in this sphere —[Interruption]—which makes a change. Will my hon. Friend the Minister support increased research into electric vehicles, which could have a major impact on reducing inner-city pollution? Will he, together with his colleagues in the Department of Transport, further encourage cycling in cities and outside them, and consider the use—particularly in London—of the river, which is totally under-used? That could go some way to reducing congestion and improving air purity in our cities.

My hon. Friend makes some interesting points. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London are made aware of those concerns.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the settlement of local government finance for 1995–96.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the settlement of local government finance for 1995–96.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the settlement of local government finance for 1995–96

I discussed the finance settlement with local authority associations on 10 October.

When the Minister discussed those plans with local authority associations, did he give them an assurance that the report in the Local Government Chronicle on 7 October, to the effect that he did not put up a fight against Treasury plans to freeze local authority expenditure, was untrue? Can he assure the House that the Treasury plans published in the Red Book will not be cut further, leading to additional cuts in vital services and higher unemployment?

The local authority associations had obviously seen that report, and my right hon. Friend, if I am quoting him accurately, said that they should not believe everything that they read in the paper.

Will the Secretary of State outline to the House what steps he is taking to remove the anomaly that exists in the local government revenue support grant settlement, whereby six outer London authorities have no choice but to pay their teachers the inner London weighting allowance, whereas it is calculated in the standard spending assessments that they must pay only the outer London weighting allowance? That is an anomaly. Will the Minister answer the question, please?

I understand that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) is meeting representatives about that this afternoon. But I can be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. His question touches on the earlier cost adjustment—the sums that are directed towards the south-east area to compensate for higher labour costs. I made it clear to the House last year that I was not satisfied with the way in which those sums were directed in the south-east area, and that I would therefore review the relationship between central London and outer London and the taper towards the south-east. I shall propose changes to that when we announce the rate support settlement, and I hope that they will give some satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman.

Why is it that, in the previous SSA settlement for local government, the Secretary of State did not take into account the Prime Minister's pledge to help people who could not afford to pay VAT? Many of my constituents find that, when they apply for a community charge rebate, the assistance that they get for VAT is taken into account. Will the Minister do something about that?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the SSA systems. Compensation for VAT has been announced in the context of the pensions measure. As regards the SSA, we try to distribute an amount according to the needs of local authorities and their ability to deliver a standard system. The hon. Gentleman came with representatives from Coventry last year to discuss certain matters. In the present settlement those matters will, of course, have been put right from his point of view, so I hope that he will be satisfied.

When my hon. Friend speaks to the local authority representatives, will he make it clear not only that there should be concern over the way in which the area costs adjustment is currently calculated but that fundamental change is needed to prevent the kind of unfairness that currently exists, particularly in counties such as Northamptonshire, which has suffered considerably as a result of not being included in the adjustment?

I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about that. I have met him and his fellow Members of Parliament from the county, and we have plans for a further meeting quite shortly on the matter. I recognise that the area cost adjustment is, of course, liked very much by those who receive it and that those who do not receive it find it difficult. It is a question of balance. I hope to get the most sensible balance that we possibly can in that area.

May I inform my hon. Friend that my constituents are interested not only in how much money is provided but in how it is spent? They are therefore extremely anxious to secure the abolition of the high-spending Lancashire county council, but unfortunately the county has seen fit to spend huge sums of ratepayers' money circulating to every head teacher, every head governor and every Lancashire county council employee a wholly distorted view. We very much hope that the commission will not permit itself to be influenced by that wholly unfair action on the county council's part.

Whether or not moneys have been spent legally is a matter for the district auditor. As regards the future structure of Lancashire, until the Local Government Commission issues its recommendations I have no role to play. When it does so, I have no doubt whatever that my hon. Friend will be one of the first through the doors.

But is it not the case that Conservative local authorities tend to get less Government grant per head but nevertheless charge the lowest council taxes on average? Is not that best exemplified by Gravesham borough council, which, in its last year of Conservative rule, had the lowest council tax in Kent, yet which, in its first year of Labour rule, already had the fourth lowest?

It is true, of course, that the grant tends to be directed to those inner-city areas with the greatest need. But I am very happy to pay tribute to Gravesham borough council for the excellent way in which it administers the funds in north Kent. It plays a very important role in the whole of our strategy for the area.

When considering the settlement for 1995–96, will the Minister pay attention to the country's second city? Birmingham funded the international convention centre with only its own taxpayers' money and European money, but the Conservative central council will meet there next year only if it receives a £53,000 grant and subvention. The Tory party should pay its own way before using Birmingham's facilities.

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that once a local authority has received grant, it can use it for the purposes that it deems most fit for the area. Birmingham chose to devote its funds to the construction of facilities. Contractual relationships between Birmingham and anyone else are entirely a matter for those concerned.

Is my hon. Friend aware that East Sussex county council, which currently enjoys the benefits of a Lib-Lab pact in its ruling group, appears to have overspent by £1 million so far this year on its social services budget? When my hon. Friend comes to use his powers both in terms of the settlement and by way of capping, will he bear in mind the profligacy of many Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities?

As my hon. Friend knows, we issue the rate support grant in consideration of the needs of local authorities; the limits to which they are allowed to spend have no political colour. It is an absolutely objective system, the Opposition party accepts that it is objective and while I hold this job it will continue to be objective.

As objective as it has been in Westminster and Wandsworth, shall we say.

Does the Minister understand that the universal capping of council budgets is not only unjustified and undemocratic, but has failed to work in its own terms? That, by the way, is what many members of the Minister's own party are now saying.

Will the Minister confirm that six Conservative associations—including one in Croydon, in the constituency of the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford)—submitted resolutions to this month's Conservative party conference which called for capping to be scrapped? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that so great was the fear that those resolutions might be carried that not one of them was called? When will he recognise that nothing symbolises the over-centralisation of the country more than authoritarian ministerial control over services that local communities should be free to provide?

I am perfectly aware that capping is not popular with all councillors, including some Conservative councillors. I am not ashamed about that; they are quite free to express their opinions. But there are other considerations, such as what the nation can afford and the requirements of public finance. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would tell me whether he intends, in the first year of a hypothetical Labour Government, to abolish capping immediately and allow local authorities to spend all the accumulated receipts without restraint. That would be a very important contribution to public finances.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to make the most of the planning opportunities provided by continued development of the retail industry.

By encouraging retailers to develop forms of retailing which can, where possible, locate in places, such as town centres, where everyone can benefit from the competition and choice that they bring.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Boots Properties is currently finalising plans for exactly the kind of town-centre shopping development that he has recommended? Does he agree that such town-centre shopping provides access for all—both those with and those without cars—and also has benefits in terms of car emissions? Will he give some further information about the timing and content of the planning guidance that he has said that he intends to publish?

It would be wrong for me to comment on the specific example given by my hon. Friend, because it might be the subject of a review by the Department and by me. I certainly believe, however, that encouraging larger stores to play their part in the revivification of town centres will be good for everyone. It will provide opportunities for those without access to motor cars. That will be a necessary part of any concept of sustainable development in the future.

I hope to extend the information on the current planning guidance pretty soon.

Does the Secretary of State accept that traditional town and city-centre markets are an important part of the retail industry? Does he recognise that, in their dash for deregulation, the Government propose to remove local-authority market franchise rights? That will cause severe damage in areas such as my constituency in Stoke-on-Trent. Will the Secretary of State instigate an urgent review on this piece of Government dogma before the damage is done to our inner cities and town centres?

I have looked at this matter carefully because not only the hon. Gentleman but my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and others have raised the issue with me. I hope to be able to make an announcement soon.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the necessary, and probably overdue, issue of planning guidance that protects our town and city centres against out-of-town developments. That is desirable. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the guidance is sensitive enough to enable councillors to object to undesirable urban developments such as the proposed removal in Taunton of the facilities offered by the County hotel and their replacement by retailing facilities?

I shall not discuss the particular aspect raised by my hon. Friend, but he is right that we are talking about guidance. It does not apply in any specific case. There may be good reasons for deciding not to agree to a development. Not long ago, I turned down, on appeal, a development in the centre of Ludlow. I believe that there are cases when the proposed development is unacceptable either for design or for other reasons. We must then take appropriate measures. Generally, most people in Britain would like to see a further enhancement of our city and town centres rather than development outside. They do not object to much that has been built outside because it provides services that people want and has changed the way retailing takes place. However, they do not want it to be overdone.

We welcome the Government's change to supporting our town centres and shopping areas within those centres. However, will the Secretary of State recognise that the change in retailing increasingly means that small corner shops are closing in outer areas of town? Will he realise that people who depend on those shops need public transport? It is essential that we have good public transport to our town centres and retail shopping areas. It is also essential that the needs of the disabled are protected in those new shopping areas because it is increasingly difficult for many disabled people to get round the new type of shops.

I doubt whether it is increasingly difficult for disabled people. Many of the newer shops provide better facilities for the disabled and I am impressed by some of the changes that have taken place in some of the large retail outlets recently.

I remind the hon. Gentleman that nearly 50 per cent. of the budget of the Department of Transport is spent on public transport when it accounts for only 10 per cent. of journeys.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in England during the last 12 months; how many were living in temporary accommodation at the end of this period; and what were the equivalent figures for 1979.

In the year ending June 1994, 128,000 households were accepted as statutorily homeless by local authorities in England; in 1979, 56,000 households were so accepted. At 30 June 1994, 51,450 households were living in temporary accommodation; no comparable figure is held for 1979.

Does the Minister recognise that the disgraceful increase in the number of homeless and in the numbers in temporary accommodation, which I can assure the Minister has risen fivefold since the early 1980s, reflects in part the behaviour of certain councils such as Westminster which has been deliberately keeping council properties empty and for sale while leaving homeless families in temporary accommodation? If the inquiry that begins today confirms the district auditor's preliminary finding that Lady Porter was guilty of improper, disgraceful and unlawful conduct, will the Minister be the first to condemn her?

It might reflect also the behaviour of councils such as Southwark which leave some of their social housing empty rather than allow people to come from other boroughs to fill the empty houses even though they are in need. The hon. Gentleman needs to look a little closer to home and he will find some of the answers to his questions.

On Westminster, if there is proven to be any wrongdoing, we will condemn it as we have always said we would. That is a matter for the auditor, not for the Government and I am not involved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector provides accommodation for many people who would otherwise be homeless? Will he confirm that, unlike the Labour party, the Government wish to support and encourage the development of the private sector?

That is true. The number of households living in the private sector has increased from about 1.6 million to almost 2 million, which is welcome. We clearly wish to sustain that development. It depends heavily, of course, on housing benefit. It may also depend to some extent on people who have empty property and are unable to sell it. We need to keep looking at ways in which we can ensure that the private rented sector continues to fulfil housing needs in Britain.

Will the Minister confirm that. his Department has received the preliminary results of the research it commissioned by Pat Niner at Birmingham university on the homelessness code of guidance? When does the Minister intend to publish that research, or will the Government's intended changes to homeless law be introduced in the next 12 months, regardless of the research and of public comment on it?

We have made it clear that we intend to legislate on those homelessness provisions as soon as parliamentary time permits. The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the remarks of the chairman of the Chartered Institute of Housing, Mr. Peter McGurk, at a meeting at which the press were present, where he said that he thought that the Government had got their homelessness proposals about right.

As the private rented market was decimated by decades of rent control and as Labour-controlled councils have more than 10,000 empty council houses in London, is not it complete hypocrisy for the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) to talk about this issue?

My hon. Friend has put it in much more pungent terms than even I would have been able to do.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the European Environment Commissioner; and what was discussed at the meeting.

I last met the Commissioner on 4 and 5 October at the Environment Council. We discussed a wide range of environmental issues.

The Government still have not used the powers given to them under the transfrontier shipment of waste regulations to ban shipments of toxic waste. When do they intend to use those powers?

The Government's policy in these matters is under discussion with our colleagues in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman will realise that we are trying to ensure that dangerous waste of various types is properly dealt with. In a transitional period, it is necessary to deal with waste rather differently if facilities are not present in some European Union countries. We hope to do that in the future. I am trying to find the best way of dealing with the problems that we have now. Of course, in the longer run we will have an entirely different system.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Environment Commissioner, will he explain to him the detail of the integrated pollution control system that we will have in this country following my right hon. Friend's announcement last week? Will he press for a European directive to drag the standards of our partners in Europe up to our extremely high standards?

I am happy to say that a number of our colleagues in the European Union accept that what we are doing in integrated pollution control leads the field. I hope that the European Union system will be based on the British system. We are negotiating that at the moment. Some countries, notably Germany, have their reservations, but I believe that in the end what is obviously the best system will win out.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the vote in the European Parliament on 30 September opposing South Africa's proposal to resume trade in elephant meat and skin? The Commissioner apparently is not taking that very seriously. Will the Secretary of State impose upon him the need to take it seriously? Will he also give us the views of the British Government on the South African proposal to downlist the elephant from appendix 1 to appendix 2 of CITES?

The hon. Gentleman and I have been on the same side on whales and I think that the same will be true of elephants. [Interruption.] Uncharacteristically for both of us, we are in favour of large animals. We are trying to use our best endeavours, not just negatively to oppose the propositions that have been put forward, but to find ways in which the undoubted expertise in southern Africa can be used to help other parts of Africa, where the position of elephants is much worse. A real problem exists. There are too many elephants in some parts of southern Africa and far too few in others. I want to try to reap the benefit of what is happening in the south.

Come on Sabu.

I would say to those who speak from a sedentary position that many people take this matter extremely seriously, although perhaps not in Bolsover.

Did the Commissioner and the Secretary of State discuss the Government's proposals for an environmental protection agency, and did the Commissioner express his disappointment at the fact that the Government's draft Bill, which some of us have heard about but few of us have seen, omits any reference to the precautionary principle or to sustainable development? I express my sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, who has had to face the opposition of the Secretary of State for Wales, but I assure him that, in this, the Secretary of State for Wales does not speak for the people of Wales, any more than he does in relation to anything else.

The Secretary of State for Wales has been extremely supportive on these matters. I am concerned to have an environmental agency that will fully meet the promises that we have made internationally on sustainable development. Responsibilities should be based on sustainability and growth— the two must be held together, which is precisely what I am seeking to do. I intend that the draft Bill should be precisely that. I cannot promise to take on board all the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman may wish to make, but I will look at them carefully.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the chairmen of the privatised water companies about the future of the water industry.

My right hon. Friend and I have discussions with water company chairmen from time to time on matters of current and future interest to the water industry.

Is the Minister aware that, more than a year after Ofwat issued guidelines on disconnections, only four companies have complied with them? Disconnections in England and Wales are now twice as high as before privatisation. Is not this another example of woefully inadequate regulation, which results in high disconnections, high prices and high salaries?

Disconnections have decreased by 33 per cent. on last year, so the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. I know that the Labour party is committed to doing away with disconnections, but it should realise that it is out of touch with people. In the area represented by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and myself, North West Water conducted a poll of its customers and found that an overwhelming majority wanted to retain the right to disconnect, bearing in mind that the process, which goes up to a court order, is exhaustive and necessary to protect proper customers from bad payers.

When my hon. Friend next meets his counterparts in the European Council, will he urge them to adopt European water directives that are based on proper scientific evidence? Our constituents are very concerned about the rate of increase in their water bills, which can be inflated unnecessarily by directives being based on unscientific evidence.

I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend. There is a suggestion in Europe that water should be of a pristine quality, which seems to be going much too far. The cost of ensuring such water quality would lead to extremely expensive bills in some areas and my right hon. Friend and I are ensuring that our colleagues in the European Union understand that point.

The Minister spoke of the reduction in the number of disconnections. Does he share my concern about the increase in the number of what are called self-disconnections as a result of the introduction of prepayment water meters by water companies? Does he agree that the legality of these devices is questionable and that the system needs rapidly to be reviewed?

I have said many times from the Dispatch Box that it is my view, that of the regulator and, I think, that of many people across the party divide, although I recognise some dissension, that metering is one of the answers, if not the answer, to the payment of water bills in the future. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is only one option— there are others. I take the point that he made about prepayment, but the overriding concern—expressed synthetically by the Opposition — is about disconnections. I remind the House, however, that the disconnection facility was written into a Bill in 1945 that was promulgated by a Labour Government.

When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of South West Water, will he remind him that water charges were eventually pegged in the south-west only because of the efforts of Conservative Members of Parliament and because of the actions of Ministers in the Department of the Environment? Will he further tell the chairman that he would do better to spend his time welcoming that development instead of scuttling off to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to see whether, even now, he can impose greater price rises on the south-west than is justified?

I spent some time in the west country during the recess and wherever I went I was astonished at the reaction of many people to the immense efforts of Conservative Members of Parliament, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), to make the case most strongly for the amelioration of water bills, commensurate with the remedial work necessary to improve quality. As ever, my hon. Friend is quite right.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority about emissions from abandoned mine workings; and if he will make a statement.

My Department maintains regular contact with the National Rivers Authority about this and other matters. The NRA report published in March on this matter of concern was taken into account in our consideration of the legal framework for abandoned mines.

Is not it a plain fact that there is absolutely nothing to stop British Coal or its successors turning off the pumps and walking away and that, if that happens, the River Wear, one of the most beautiful waterways in Britain, and many others will be devastated? Who will pay the costs of maintaining pumping after British Coal has disappeared? What assurance can the Minister give that pumping will be maintained for as long as is necessary?

I am rather disappointed that the hon. Gentleman clearly has not done quite as much homework as his earlier requests, comments and correspondence implied. The NRA is the enforcing authority and the Coal Authority will be responsible for the safety and environmental aspects of abandoned mines, including subsidence and effects on the water environment, except where the responsibility rests with the private sector. They have a specific budget for this purpose, and the Coal Authority will maintain all necessary pumping operations to prevent such water pollution; in fact, the appropriate Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry made that clear in another place during the debate on the Coal Industry Act 1994.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the NRA is doing a remarkably good job clearing up such pollution? Is not one of the problems the fact that some of the old mine workings predate even the nationalised coal industry and that we have a major problem in this respect?

That certainly is correct and it is the reason for the approach that we are taking with the NRA and the Coal Authority.

I welcome the Minister to his new post, but I must tell him that, in assuming his new responsibilities, he should be aware that everyone, including local authorities in mining areas, the NRA and British Coal, agrees that the present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. Will he accept that it was irresponsible of the Government to pass the Coal Industry Act 1994 without resolving once and for all the grey areas that bedevil the subject and thus ensuring that we all knew how the problems were to be dealt with? Does he realise that if, during the passage of an environmental protection agency Bill, he can come up with a formula for resolving the problems, everyone in the coal areas will be grateful and he will receive the Opposition's co-operation?

Interestingly, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I welcome his forward-looking approach. We all accept that this is a difficult matter, but steps are being made in the right direction. I remind him that the consultation document "Paying for our Past", which is now completed, will allow us to continue our review.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions he has made on the combined standard spending assessments for the new unitary authority on the Isle of Wight.

We shall announce our proposals for standard spending assessments for 1995–96 shortly after the Budget.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion and thank him on behalf of the Select Committee on the Environment for all his hard work and enthusiasm when he was its Chairman? I understand that he will be replying to my Adjournment debate on SSAs on Monday evening, but, in the meantime, will he confirm to my constituents that he is well aware of my concerns about the level of the SSA for the Isle of Wight's new unitary authority and especially of the problems caused by severance by sea?

One of my vivid memories of the Select Committee on the Environment is the fact that my hon. Friend took every opportunity to advance the cause of his constituents, in connection not only with standard spending assessments but with everything else. In expressing my gratitude for his kind remarks, I confirm that we shall discuss those issues next Monday. I look forward to it.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to present proposals arising out of recommendations of the Local Government Commission for England; and when the proposals for Warwickshire will be reached.

Timing of any orders will depend, first, on when the Local Government Commission makes its recommendations for each county; and then on other factors such as the wider parliamentary timetable. The commission is due to submit its final report for Warwickshire in December.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a substantial number of my constituents and other Warwickshire residents wish to retain the local government status quo and oppose the idea of a unitary solution being imposed on Warwickshire? Is he further aware that there is much cross-party support for the retention of the status quo? Will he therefore join me in calling for a free vote on the matter when it is discussed in the House of Commons?

My hon. Friend's last question is not, of course, a matter for me. But on his more general point, we have not yet had the final proposal, and he will have every opportunity to try to persuade the commission. After we receive the final proposal, no doubt he and other Members representing Warwickshire will take every opportunity to alert my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to their views.

Is the Minister aware that there is much support among the Opposition for progress towards unitary authorities, despite our reservations about the way in which the commission has operated? However, does he accept that several matters concern us, on which we shall need assurances from him? One of those matters involves potential safeguards for the employees involved. Is the Minister aware that when the metropolitan counties were abolished a generally acceptable scheme was introduced to allow for the transfer of employees and to protect them? Will he give an assurance that he will examine that scheme and consider introducing it for the non-metropolitan areas?

Naturally, the future of the employees concerned is a matter of anxiety for them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have consulted on the various measures necessary to protect their interests. No decisions have been made as yet, and I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that, although the Boundaries Commission expressed no very strong views on how the future boundaries of York city might be drawn, people who live in the villages round York and within the existing city boundaries have extremely strong views? The overwhelming majority believe that any future York city boundaries should be tightly drawn and should not extend into the Greater York planning area. If that is news to my hon. Friend, I hope that he will digest it with an open mind, and nudge the Secretary of State so that he may digest it likewise.

Clearly, Warwickshire's boundaries extend rather further than I had thought, but I will certainly bear my right hon. Friend's comments in mind. As he knows, we have not yet come to a final decision on the county of North Yorkshire.

May I add to the Opposition's welcome to the Minister in his new appointment? Further to the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), does he accept that the matter is not simply a case of dealing with the staff issue as such, but that the staff's anxiety is beginning, wrongly, to influence the whole review? Instead of its being judged on whether we have the right structure, organisational effectiveness or community democracy, in many areas the review is judged according to its impact on the staff. Would not it be right to withdraw that issue and give the assurances that my hon. Friend sought, and then to get on and deal with the review on its merits?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome. As he knows, I was present at a meeting where he and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised precisely those issues, and Ministers are still considering them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an early announcement would be helpful in reassuring the staff, and we are moving towards that.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the current level of consumption of unleaded petrol in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the environmental effects of the reduced use of leaded petrol.

Unleaded petrol currently accounts for over 58 per cent. of the market. Since the fuel was first introduced, emissions of lead from road vehicles have been cut by almost 50 per cent. and, at the same time, average airborne lead concentrations recorded in urban, rural and kerbside monitoring sites have fallen by approximately 74 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great success of the Government's policy over the past nine years can be measured by the dramatic fall in airborne lead concentrations, which, as he just said, amounts to some 74 per cent? Does he also agree that, as a result of the transfer from leaded petrol to lead-free petrol, there has been an increase in other emissions, especially those such as benzene, which contain carcinogens? On that basis, does he agree that there is still a need to encourage conversion to catalytic converters in more than the existing 15 per cent. of the vehicle fleet in the country to reduce the threat of benzene, which has simply replaced the existing threat of leaded petrol?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the success of the policy and the way in which there is much less lead in the atmosphere. Perhaps he is overstating the matter to say that the problems with benzene are as great or parallel. In fact, there is not much evidence to show that unleaded petrol contributes much to an increase in the amount of benzene. However, he is also right to point to the need for catalytic converters and for the use of, particularly, hot catalytic converters, which work from the first starting of the motor.

The Minister will be aware that there is growing concern about benzene and that it is used largely in the sale of super unleaded, 98 octane petrol, where the replacement of the lead content, the octane rating, has been boosted by the addition of benzene. Surely that area, and the whole policy, need to be considered because of the grave health concerns.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we should always look at the concerns. I do not think that we should overdo it. The level permitted by the European Community directive is a maximum of 5 per cent. The typical UK content is lower; about 2 per cent. So, already, we are well below the limits which are placed on us. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should keep a very close watch on this and we are doing so. If there is any cause for concern, and I believe that there are ways in which we could meet that concern, I will certainly act.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the amount of not only lead emissions but other pollutants is falling and will he update the House on the controversy over whether unleaded petrol or diesel-powered cars are better for the environment?

There is a great deal of improvement in many areas, but we must constantly look at ways in which we can do better. I am not in any sense complacent. The problem with diesel really depends on the nature of the journey. When diesel cars are used largely for longer journeys, there is a real environmental advantage. If they are used for stopping and starting in towns, the balance goes the other way. As is so often true about environmental decisions, they are not as clear cut as some would have us think. Our duty is to try to get the best answer and the best balance that is possible. I believe that the Government have a good record, not only in absolute terms, but in comparison with our continental colleagues.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the local authority associations to discuss the progress of the local government review.

My right hon. Friend met the chairmen of the local authority associations only yesterday. He expects to meet them again on Monday 12 December.

Notwithstanding the discussion that has already taken place in the local government review, may I urge the Minister, when he next meets the local government commission, to tell it that the Government are still committed to the concept of unitary local government and to explain the reasons why that concept is still right: it strengthens local democracy, it removes a two-tier system that is quite confusing and it allows councils to be responsive to the needs of the communitiesthat they represent. It is right for towns such as Warrington, Macclesfield and Halton to gain unitary status in the review.

The hon. Gentleman puts a very persuasive case for unitary authorities, which are right for some if not many areas. But we are not committed to a particular pattern of local government and there will be areas in which public opinion and the recommendations of the commission are incompatible.

When my hon. Friend next meets local authority association leaders, will he restate the commitment given to me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that when the commission has finished its work on the shire counties, it will have an opportunity to consider the metropolitan areas, such as my constituency, where a strong desire for change has been expressed?

I am happy to repeat that reassurance.

Is not it about time that this local government review was scrapped? It has already cost the taxpayer more than £1 billion and it will mean the sacking of more than 100,000 people who are engaged in local government work. For the life of me, I cannot understand why some of the people on our side can go down the road of unitary authorities, which will result in more people being added to the dole queues and more quangos as opposed to democratically elected councils. Is not it fair to say that, although 300 towns and cities in this country are represented here, more Members of Parliament come from areas that have a rural character, where villages are miles apart and where a two-tier system is absolutely necessary? The best thing the Government can do is leave well alone and let the status quo remain.

It is part of life's rich pattern that there should be different views on local government and its future. I note that that pattern is more complicated on the Opposition Benches than Conservative Members perhaps imagined.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of home ownership in the United Kingdom.

In the period March 1979 to December 1993, the level of owner-occupation has increased from 56 per cent. of all tenures to 67 per cent. in England, from 35 to 55 per cent. in Scotland, from 59 to 72 per cent. in Wales and from 51 to 68 per cent. in Northern Ireland.

Does my hon. Friend accept that those figures reflect a deep commitment on the part of the British people to home ownership which the Government have done so much to promote over the years? Did my hon. Friend see a recent survey that showed that, despite the recession, it was the aspiration of most young people to own their own homes? Will he therefore endorse and expand those initiatives that the Government have put in place to make that aspiration possible?

I can certainly confirm that the survey to which my hon. Friend referred is one of a series of surveys that show that that is the preferred aspiration. However, it is not the right answer for everyone. We have taken several initiatives to encourage home ownership. If my hon. Friend has any other suggestions as to how home ownership might be made more possible, I shall be happy to consider them sympathetically.

On one of these so-called initiatives to encourage home ownership—the much-trumpeted rents-to-mortgages scheme—will the Minister confirm that in the first six months of the scheme, from September 1993 to March 1994, there were just two completed applications and that that pathetic response was achieved despite the spending of more than £400,000 of the public's money on publicity and propaganda? That is £200,000 per application. Will the Minister therefore confirm that, even by this Government's appalling standards, that scheme has turned into one of the most expensive fiascos on record? Had local councillors been responsible for waste and profligacy on that scale, they would by now have been surcharged and disqualified from office. Should not the same happen to the Ministers responsible?

The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the purpose of an information campaign is to inform and that it is very early, in terms of the development of the scheme, to judge the numbers. It takes a long time to go through the legal processes. If we are to judge by the experience in Scotland, the numbers will grow in the weeks and months to come. The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that any scheme to extend home ownership is something that he is unhappy about. That is rather typical of the Labour party's attitude generally.

While congratulating my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends on the great success in getting more people into home ownership, and while urging them to continue to do that, is not there a parallel need to do more to release the private rented sector? If we wish to see a mobile population which is able to take jobs at one end of the country or the other, we must also ensure that people are able to find homes in those areas.

My hon. Friend is quite right. We are committed to choice and diversity, and that includes the private rented sector—directly, through encouraging lettings in that sector, and indirectly, through encouraging the participation of housing associations, to ensure that the number of private lettings increases.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts concerning the control of waste disposal.

I have regular contact with my EU counterparts. The most recent discussions I have had with them on issues relating to waste disposal were at the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg on 4 October.

Referring to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), does the Minister appreciate that there is a good deal of concern in south Wales about waste disposal, and that the situation has been further aggravated by an application from the American company Browning Ferris to install a plant at Newport? The firm has a rather infamous record, so will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Wales with a view to getting the application rejected? Does he agree that it is wrong to make south Wales the dustbin of Europe?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look at any application properly and without prejudice. In these environmental matters, however, there is a need to clean up the waste that has already been created. We must play a proper part in that if we are to avoid leaving a dustbin that is not cleaned up. The hon. Gentleman owes it to his constituents to explain that fact to them.

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10 to 18, 21, 188 and 189; and Government motions to disagree.

Part I of the Bill provides for, among other things, a new custodial sentence for persistent young offenders—the secure training order. The order may last for between six months and two years, the first half of which would be spent in a secure training centre and the second half of which would be spent under supervision in the community.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have made it clear that the new secure training centres will be different from anything tried before. They will be centres housing a specific category of persistent offender, and the regime will be tailor-made for them so as to provide the right kind of training and care within a secure environment.

Lords amendment No. 2 and its consequential amendments would allow the courts, when making a secure training order, to choose between local authority secure accommodation and a secure training centre for the custodial part of the order.

Lords amendment No. 4 and its consequential amendments would allow the local authority, when detaining a juvenile subject to a secure training order, to apply to the court for the remaining period of detention to be replaced by a period in other non-secure local authority accommodation, or a period of supervision or a period of detention in a secure training centre.

Amendment No. 4 would also allow the director of a secure training centre to apply to the court for the remaining period of detention to be spent in local authority secure accommodation or other accommodation, or for a period of supervision.

The proposals for the new centres were carefully designed to address the problem of persistent young offenders. The amendments would undermine our ability to respond specifically to that serious problem and would make the operation of the new provisions haphazard, inefficient and much less effective.

I intervene because it is proposed to locate one of the new centres in my constituency. How long would it take to implement the Home Secretary's proposals, and how long to implement those in the amendments?

I am astonished that the hon. Lady, coming as she does from north-east England, should raise that point, but I will deal with it precisely and expressly. The amendments are based on the assumption that local authority secure accommodation would be used instead of secure training centres. I remind the hon. Lady of the attitude of Labour local authorities in her part of the country. At a meeting with directors of social services in the north-east on 19 February 1993, it was agreed that firm proposals to provide the additional 12 secure places assessed as being required would be brought forward by the end of April 1993.

By the end of July 1994–15 months later—no commitment had been forthcoming from those Labour-controlled authorities. At that point, the Department of Health had to make the decision to transfer the resources elsewhere. I trust that the hon. Lady regrets getting to her feet to ask that question.

I am seeking a specific response. When would the Home Secretary's proposals be implemented, and when would it be possible to implement the amended proposals?

It is obvious from my remarks that I can give no indication when local authority secure accommodation would be available, because Labour-controlled local authorities, including those in north-east England, have not presented proposals, despite giving firm undertakings to do so. That is a complete answer to the hon. Lady's question.

In accepting the amendments, much was made in the other place of the alleged flexibility that they would bring to the secure training order. Although that argument has superficial attractions, it does not stand any scrutiny. Secure training centres, in their design and their regime, will be tailored to a specific type of offender of a relatively narrow age range. Only in such a dedicated institution will it be possible to provide the specialised regime needed to tackle the behaviour of that group and the range of educational and training programmes that will meet their individual needs.

In contrast, local authority secure accommodation cannot provide that focused regime. That accommodation caters for a variety of difficult and disturbed juveniles in a wide age range. Some are serious offenders, others are on remand, and many are not offenders at all. With such a group to cater for, local authority units cannot provide the concentrated, specialised regime that is the aim behind secure training centres.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, for any 12 to 14-year-old to be made subject to a secure training order, it is almost certain that he would already have been the subject of a supervision order? In fact, that is a requirement of the legislation. That would have meant that he would have been in local authority secure accommodation. That would still be available to the court, even with the secure training order—so why do we need this provision?

My hon. Friend is entirely right when he says that the Bill requires, as a condition of eligibility for the secure training order, that someone should have been subject to a supervision order—and, indeed, had failed to comply with its requirements. So the logic of the situation is that attempts would have been made to improve the behaviour of offenders in that category, without obliging them to be detained in secure accommodation, but that those attempts would have failed.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that householders in Scarborough are fed up with the activities taking place at the Stepney road children's home, which range from mindless vandalism and theft to arson? Is he further aware that the county council social services department has shown itself utterly incapable of controlling that establishment? Quite apart from the fact that that establishment should be closed down now, does not that case show the importance of my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment?

My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the particular example he cites, because I do not have any detailed knowledge of it, but the general point made by him shows that, once again, he is the authentic voice of North Yorkshire. He speaks for his constituents and represents their views, in marked contrast, on these matters particularly, to those who contribute to the debates from the Opposition benches.

May I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) that that area of North Yorkshire, vital though it is, is not the only area in Britain that is gravely concerned about the misdemeanours of young people who are not properly controlled in local authority homes? I have one such home in my constituency, about which I have battled for at least two years, and all the residents have a long list of problems.

In the latest incident, a young girl was let out at half past two in the morning; she was involved in a car accident and lost a leg. But no child of that age should be able to roam around outside a home at that hour while in the care of the local authority.

I have great sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend. Indeed, there are many examples in Birmingham of the large number of offences that have been committed by a very small group of persistent young offenders, for whom the sentence is particularly designed.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make some progress.

Should not the Home Secretary make it absolutely clear that there is a distinction between the local authority homes, which have just been mentioned, and local authority secure accommodation? Will he acknowledge that Leeds has secure accommodation for 27 children, and that there are plans for its expansion, as he knows? Does he agree that no person has ever got out of that home? Indeed, the Minister of State commented in Committee on the very good standards there. Will he not draw a distinction between children's homes and secure accommodation?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said a few moments ago, he would have heard me explain in some considerable detail why local authority secure accommodation is not appropriate for the group of persistent young offenders for whom the secure training order is particularly designed.

The secure training order will be a sentence of the court. It is Parliament's responsibility to ensure that the effect of any sentence is consistent for all cases. If the amendments are accepted, the secure training order could be served in a wide range of institutions, with varying regimes. Many of the local authority secure units are very small, with places for as few as eight or 12 young people. Persistent offenders will simply not get the training they need if they are dotted around the country in twos and threes in such units.

In contrast, if all secure training orders are served in secure training centres, the courts will have confidence in the regime involved, as it will be underpinned by statutory rules and set out in the contracts with the individual operators.

My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. It is a question not only of locking youngsters away, but of giving them proper education while they are there. Is he confident that, if the Lords amendment were allowed to stand, the children would receive adequate education tailored to their particular needs?

Not only am I not confident that that would happen were the amendments to remain in place, but one of my principal points of opposition to them is that it would be almost impossible to provide the high calibre regime of education and training for those young offenders that it is our intention to provide in secure training centres.

An additional difficulty with the amendments is that they provide the courts with no guidance on which cases should go to secure training centres and which to local authority accommodation. It would be impossible to predict how the courts would use the power to choose between secure training centres and local authority accommodation, or what portions of sentences would be served in custody. It would be necessary to provide accommodation in both centrally provided secure training centres and local authority accommodation, but the proportions would be unforeseeable and there would be a huge element of risk of either under or over-provision in either case.

4 pm

As a result, the measures would be rendered unnecessarily expensive and wasteful of resources. Further pressure would also be placed on the local authority stock of secure accommodation, which, even with the planned expansion to take account of other measures in the Bill, will be insufficient to meet the increased demand created by the need to accommodate juveniles subject to the secure training order.

Is the Home Secretary really saying that he needs to provide guaranteed numbers in order to get the private sector to provide training centres? Is that not the real motive for resisting the Lords amendment, which would not stop the setting up of training centres, but might introduce some doubt about whether they would secure the numbers they would require to be economically viable?

I have just dealt with that point. As I said, the uncertainty that would arise if the amendments were allowed to stand would mean that the measures would be rendered unnecessarily expensive and wasteful of resources. We know that the Liberal Democrats do not give a fig for resources or for expense, and that there is no responsibility in their attitude to these matters; Governments, however, must approach them rather differently.

Beyond the practical issues in the amendments are important points of principle that concern the Government. As I said a moment ago, the secure training order is a custodial sentence, subject to the Criminal Justice Act 1991: in other words, the length of the sentence should reflect primarily the seriousness of the offence, which is a decision for the court at the point of sentencing.

To allow the courts, in effect, to adjust the length of the custodial part of the sentence at a later date—presumably on account of some change in behaviour or circumstances—would be at odds with that principle. Indeed, it is extremely doubtful whether the courts would welcome such detailed involvement with the future treatment of a young offender after the point of sentencing.

There may be very rare cases in which a juvenile serving the secure part of the secure training order clearly needs to be moved to other accommodation—when he or she develops a mental or physical illness, or when there are grave concerns about his or her ability to cope with the regime.

That is partly why the Bill already contains, in clause 2(4), a power for the Secretary of State to transfer an offender

"where the circumstances of the case require".

It is not intended to use the power routinely, but it provides an avenue to allow the moving of juveniles in exceptional cases, and goes some way towards meeting the aim of the amendments.

The Opposition parties have scaled new heights of double dealing during proceedings on the Bill. Both parties abstained on Third Reading, to avoid the public opprobrium that they richly deserved; yet in debates on the detail of the proposals, they have sought to wreck those proposals at every turn.

The official Opposition, in particular, voted against giving courts the power to lock up persistent young offenders—young people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) pointed out, have been given every possible chance to reform and have refused it. The public must be protected from them, and the Conservative party would provide that protection; the Opposition would leave the courts with no power whatever to act. By their actions on this part of the Bill, the Opposition stand condemned as totally out of touch with public feeling, and we shall make sure that the public never forget it.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I am happy to give way to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).

There are serious and insuperable difficulties in the amendments—difficulties of both practice and principle. For that reason, I urge the House to reject them.

The Home Secretary read his peroration, which was presumably prepared by Conservative central office, with style and drama. The trouble is that nobody believes him. Nobody believes him when he accuses the Opposition of not wishing to place powers in the hands of the courts.

Why is the Home Secretary opposing the Lords amendment? Clearly, he has no faith in the magistrates because it simply gives magistrates courts discretion to deal most effectively with the youngsters who come before them. The Home Secretary wants to take away discretion from the courts. The message of the speech that he has just made is that he does not trust the magistrates.

The Home Secretary should listen to the complaints from, and the concerns of, Conservative Back Benchers. Their complaints and attacks are not about the Lords amendments but about the Government's abject failure to tackle the problems of crime. Is the Home Secretary suggesting that we should leave discretion to him as the only residual way of dealing with inappropriate placements? He must be joking.

The Home Secretary has blamed others for the lack of local authority secure accommodation, but it is the Government, the Conservative party, who have ensured that such accommodation is not available. The delay in providing secure places has been due to the Government's unwillingness to suit their actions to their words. I can give a simple illustration. Long before I came to the House, I was one of many people who campaigned for the provision of secure places to end the scandal of young people aged 15 and 16 being held in adult prison accommodation. They are still being held in adult prison accommodation because, despite the then Home Secretary eventually promising in February 1991 to provide secure places, they have still not been provided. We now have the promise that some of them may just about be delivered this year, but, because of the confusion between the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office, the money was not made available and the support was not provided. The Government are to blame.

How can the hon. Gentleman blame the Government for the delay in light of the example that I gave the House a few moments ago about the Labour-controlled authorities in the north-east, which gave a commitment in February 1993 to provide those secure accommodation places and had failed to make good that commitment in July 1994? They made that commitment on the basis of what they knew about the arrangements under which the accommodation was to be provided.

I like the way in which the Home Secretary leads with his chin every time. He has just read again from the script that he gave us a few moments ago. I gave him an illustration that I have followed over the years and which I know about. There are still no secure places not only in Wales but in other parts of the country because the Government have failed to respond to requests from local authorities to make available the necessary resources and to support their applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) has knowledge of the position in the north.

After hearing the Home Secretary, I am almost lost for words. Many local authorities have been seeking to extend and develop secure accommodation while the Government's record is lamentable. At Medomsley, a new kitchen was built on the existing prison in 1986. That cost £2.5 million and was never opened because the Government got into trouble with their prison policy and closed Medomsley. They now want to build one of these new secure training centres there. There is a planning application with the local council, but the Home Office has failed to pay the planning fee so the council cannot deal with the application.

My hon. Friend has illustrated once again the way in which this muddled and incompetent Government fail to deal with the problem even when they choose the method to do so. I am surprised that the Home Secretary does not want to apologise for the way in which he has failed to deal with the issues.

Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the specific example that I put to him and to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) on the precise point of the provision of local authority accommodation? Labour-controlled local authorities in the north-east promised to provide that accommodation in February 1993 and had still not made good that commitment in 1994. What about an answer to that?

What about an answer from the Home Secretary about the fact that the local authority requested the Government to fulfil the promise made by the then Home Secretary in February 1991 and that this year the Government have still not delivered the goods? The Home Secretary is not credible. He comes back with the same form of words. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West has swept him from the board. The Government are responsible for the matter. They have failed to deliver.

We are dealing with another age group–11 to 15-year-olds—on which the Government are failing the country. That group is dealt with in the part of the Bill that the Lords amended. The Government's embarrassment is illustrated by the disgraceful way in which the Home Office Minister portrayed events on the "Today" programme this morning.

At every opportunity, Hansard records in the House and in Committee the way in which the parliamentary Labour party has tackled every important issue positively and constructively, including how we deal with young offenders. Those hon. Members who follow the record will know that we set out an alternative agenda on Second Reading that would have tackled crime, nipped young offenders in the bud and dealt with the problems faced by our people. We have opposed the bad ideas, supported the good and proposed positive improvements and alternatives to some of the more muddled ideas proposed by the Government.

As my hon. Friend said, the Home Secretary has failed. I shall put to my hon. Friend the question that I sought to put to the Home Secretary. What is the position if, having had a child assessed by psychiatrists, educationists and everyone else, all the reports go to the court and the court decides, for example, that the child should go into secure training? What would the position be if it were found that two years were not long enough to secure the re-education and rehabilitation of the child, who still remained a danger to society and needed to be constrained? There is no provision for that.

My hon. Friend is right. If the amendment is rejected, varying the time limits would be in the hands only of the Home Secretary. A limited period is specified in the Bill. The Home Secretary would have sole discretion to vary in any direction.

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that has just been, put to him? In Committee, his party suggested half the length of sentence and a minimum of only one month.

The hon. Gentleman would have heard my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) if he had not been so keen to intervene with his prescripted question, which is, of course, inaccurate. In one of the amendments to the Bill, we sought greater discretion over the time that youngsters would be sent to secure accommodation to save the Home Secretary from the mess that he is getting into with this legislation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer to some of the questions that have arisen are in the section on juvenile offenders that is contained in the unanimous report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on juvenile crime? Many of its recommendations have been warmly endorsed by the Opposition Front Bench. The report considers a new national agency scheme that would take charge of the problem of persistent juvenile offenders. I regret to say that, despite all the warm words of the Home Secretary, the report has been ignored by the Home Office.

My hon. Friend is right. In the past 12 months, the Home Secretary has been concerned only to score one or two points by implementing some of the measures contained in his speech to the last Conservative party conference. He has been seriously unsuccessful in achieving that end. He would have been much better advised to spend time studying the excellent cross-party report produced by the Home Affairs Select Committee rather than trying to implement his own ideas.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) is wrong to suggest that the Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that an agency should replace secure training centres? The recommendation was that there should be an agency in addition to secure training centres.

The hon. and learned Gentleman's loyalty to his Home Secretary knows no bounds— he should receive some reward. I should have thought, however, that he would be more loyal to the findings of his Committee, rather than leaping in to diminish their value and to defend the Home Secretary.

I took the precaution of bringing the Select Committee's report with me. The recommendation states:

"We recommend the establishment of a new national agency to manage the custody and supervision of persistent juvenile offenders and others who receive custodial sentences."

It could not be clearer— even to Conservative Members.

I wonder whether the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) wishes to intervene once more to withdraw his defence of the Home Secretary and to defend his own Committee, or does he wish to make no further contribution?

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is muddled. The Select Committee decided to assume that secure training centres would be implemented by the Government. We went on to propose that, in addition, an agency should consider the running of all these matters at some stage in the future. To suggest that, in some way, the Select Committee was proposing that there should not be secure training centres along the lines that the Government recommend is complete nonsense. Anybody who asserts that clearly has not read the report.

I suppose that we should expect an expert advocate to be able to twist and turn in that way, but it says little for the hon. and learned Gentleman and I am sure that members of his Committee will be disappointed to find that he has not been more loyal to their findings.

The Secretary of State mentioned secure accommodation in the north-east of England. I have just been on the phone to representatives of the social services in Northumberland, who tell me that they are having talks with the Department of Health with a view to trebling the amount of secure accommodation in Northumberland and with authorities in Sunderland and Newcastle on building secure accommodation somewhere in Northumberland. Rather than not doing anything, it looks like the north-east is well ahead of the Home Secretary.

I am afraid that the Government always seek to knock the easy target of local government—usually inaccurately and when the error has been made by them rather than by local government. Labour Members are ready to criticise local government when it fails to do its job, but the Government are always ready to criticise local government, even when it is doing a decent job, despite their failure to support and assist its work.

The context of this amendment cannot be disguised by the irrelevancies of Conservative Members' interventions. This is an enormous rag-bag of a Bill, which implements a conference speech that itself was ill-considered. Much of the Bill is ill-considered and badly targeted. The Government have failed to take part in sensible discussions and to accept common-sense improvements from the Labour party— or even in this case from Conservative Members of the House of Lords.

The Bill will fail to tackle the real target of reducing crime, speeding up justice, cutting reoffending and making society safer. On a number of issues— custody for young offenders, the protection of innocent people and, above all, criminal injury compensation, which we shall debate later— the Government have handled the programme in a ham-fisted manner and have caused outrage in the House of Lords as well as elsewhere in the country.

In moving the amendment that the Home Secretary wishes to overturn, Lord Carr made it clear that he did not seek to alter or weaken the sentence of the court. That is an important point to remember. The amendment was passed because it is clear that the creation of colleges of crime for 12 to 15-year-olds will cause further problems and will not be an ideal way of meeting the need for secure places for persistent and particularly difficult young offenders. Their lordships sought to mitigate the dangers of the Government's proposition.

Even the Government do not pretend that youngsters will be sent away to a secure unit for ever. Those youngsters will return home at some point and it is crazy deliberately to create a regime that makes preparation for that return more difficult and makes it more likely that a returning youngster will reoffend, and in ways that are more serious and damaging to the community as a whole and to individual victims. That, however, is the truth about the system that the Home Secretary wishes to create. If he is determined to press ahead with his colleges of crime, it is only common sense to allow the courts the discretion to be flexible when deciding where a young person serves part of his sentence. That does not mean discretion to social workers, to the Home Secretary, to managers or to accountants but discretion to magistrates, whose responsibility it is to consider the safety of the public.

The first effect of the amendment would be to enable a court making a secure training order to specify that the period of secure detention is to be spent in local authority secure accommodation rather than a secure training centre. The court could specify that only after consultation with the local authority.

rose—

I shall give way in a moment. Work by the Dartington social research unit into the benefits of different types of regimes—[Interruption.] I understand from the comments of one or two Tory Members that they believe that taking note of research is odd. Like the Prime Minister, they want to understand a little less before taking decisions that will damage the public and the eventual victims.

The research to which I referred—

rose—

The hon. Lady must contain herself for a moment. Research into the benefits of different regimes reveals that considering the family circumstances of a young person is most likely to achieve success, especially as many young people leaving secure units return to their families.

The Association of Chief Police Officers highlighted the problem with existing secure accommodation in its evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in February 1993. It stated:

"in areas of the country where secure places are not available, the young offenders are taken long distances, which often reduces the opportunity for. family contacts to be maintained, thus actually increasing the difficulties of the offender and weakening family support when it should be encouraged."

The Government are intent on pressing ahead with that very type of regime in the centres that they propose. The amendment would not stop them doing so, but it would allow the court an element of discretion, and thereby avoid some of the worst effects of the Government's proposals.

The hon. Gentleman made great play of people using scripts, but I am not using one; nor was my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). I note that the hon. Gentleman is careful not to leave his script; perhaps he is afraid that he will not be able find the exact spot when he returns to it. The flaw in his argument is that he seems to think that it is perfectly sensible and sound to send tearaway children into local authority care, but, as is the case in Birmingham, local authorities frequently admit that they cannot control those children.

It is sensible to proceed logically, which is why I did not want the hon. Lady to interrupt me in the middle of my logical speech. She has just woken up to the subject that we were debating a few minutes ago and from which we have moved on.

Local authorities do sometimes find it difficult to deal with some very difficult young people, and that is why many are frustrated by the fact that the Government have not given them sufficient resources to provide adequate local authority secure places. That is the disgrace. If the hon. Lady does not know enough to appreciate that that is the problem, I suggest that she study the issue with some diligence. I now return to the matter of secure training orders, to which we had proceeded before the she intervened.

The Magistrates Association said:

"It is vital that links should be maintained with the child's family and community by a designated social worker so as to facilitate rehabilitation. In the Association's view, this can only be achieved in small, locally based units."

It is, therefore, sensible to accept the logic that magistrates should have the opportunity, where appropriate—where an application for an order is made and in the limited circumstances dealt with in the amendment—to consider whether it is appropriate to vary where a young person is placed.

We all know that there are good parents and bad parents. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all too often the parents, because of their own criminal or other deviant behaviour, are part of the problem?

That is sometimes true, and that is the sort of factor that magistrates should take into account in exercising the discretion that the Lords amendments would give them. If the hon. Gentleman considers that point, he may find himself in agreement with the sense of the Lords amendment, because it does not fly in the face of his argument.

Secondly, the courts would be able to decide that the regime in a local authority secure unit, including education and training, would be more appropriate for the young offender than the regime in a secure training centre. There has been considerable discussion on the matter, and there is much evidence to support that case.

The Minister responding to the debate in the House of Lords suggested that secure training centres would deal specifically with persistent offenders and would therefore be better able to provide a regime to tackle offending behaviour. However—this answers the objections of a couple of hon. Members—the criterion in the Bill for the use of the order is that a young person should have been convicted of at least three imprisonable offences, not necessarily on different occasions. That would include many young offenders who are not very persistent.

The Minister in the House of Lords also said that the age group would be relatively small, but, as clause 5(2) makes clear, secure training centres will accommodate, young people between 12 and nearly 17. The oldest will be those who were sentenced when nearly 15 to a two-year order, and who have been recalled from supervision to the institution after release. That wide age group, and the likely sophistication of some of the inhabitants of the homes, give us cause to worry that they will develop into colleges of crime, rather than places that will return young people to the community more likely to obey the law.

The Home Office's research has shown that local authority secure units provide a better quality of regime for young people than do larger institutions. A court may therefore prefer to commit the young offender to a small local authority secure unit that would provide more individual personal attention and therapy, and a less institutional atmosphere, than a larger secure training centre. Such a unit may also be able to prepare the way for continuity when the young person is released.

Where a court wished a young offender to be held in local authority secure accommodation rather than in a secure training centre, the Lords amendments would give it that choice. Obviously, such a choice would be based on the evidence and the facts, and would be made only in the narrow set of circumstances set out in the amendments.

There are several circumstances in which the power to exercise flexibility over the period of detention might be used. First, a court may commit a juvenile to a secure training centre many miles from his or her home area, although it feels that detention in local authority secure accommodation would have been more appropriate, if no such place is available at the time of sentence. A local authority place may become available later, and it may be clear to the secure training centre staff that the child would be more appropriately held in such a place.

That is a simple example of a situation in which it would be common sense for such a variation to be made. It is not adequate to say that the Home Secretary could exercise the power in such circumstances. We all know about the bureaucracy that is involved in getting such a decision to the point of being reviewed by the Home Secretary. Some of the young people would probably be pensioners by the time that process was complete.

Secondly, a child in a secure training centre may be disturbed or suicidal, and the way in which training and treatment is provided may make a local placement more appropriate. Thirdly, a child in a secure training centre may make excellent progress and respond positively to the regime there.

Following assessment of a child committed either to a secure training centre or to a local authority secure unit, it may become clear that he or she would be more appropriately placed in an open community home, with foster parents or in some other manner that would be more effective in preventing future offending. Surely that should be our priority—to prevent future offending, to avoid future crime and to protect people who could become victims. Finally, there could be circumstances such as compassionate grounds—for example, the death or serious illness of a close relative—which would make a transfer to accommodation nearer to the home area desirable.

Those are just a small number of examples of when it would be appropriate to employ the flexibility provided by the Lords amendments. I do not envisage that the flexibility provided by the Lords amendments would be used on that many occasions. That is why I find it difficult to understand why the Home Secretary is so negative in refusing to accept them.

I intervened briefly on the Home Secretary to ask for confirmation that the measure or the related measures do not extend to Scotland. I should be grateful for the confirmation of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on that point. We may well be facing something much more formidable in the proposed criminal justice Bill for Scotland, which, I think, will be announced in the forthcoming Queen's speech.

I am always prepared to sympathise with my hon. Friend about likely developments in Scotland, but it is very unwise for an English or a Welsh hon. Member to comment on them. My understanding is that we are talking about a matter that will affect England and Wales. It will be interesting to see what legislation there will be in the next Session and whether the Home Secretary will succeed in blocking the bringing forward of a Bill to provide a body to deal with miscarriages of justice or whether the Lord Chancellor will succeed in pressing for that legislation, which was one of the 27 points which, still, have not been delivered. With my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I shall look with interest to see what is set out in the Queen's speech.

In practice, it seems that the directors of secure training centres, which, of course, will be run by private commercial organisations that have a direct financial interest in maintaining high occupancy, may not often apply to a court to move a child elsewhere. Nevertheless, the amendments, if accepted, would introduce a desirable element of flexibility, subject at all stages to court decisions, into the operation of the secure training order. Our objective should be to ensure that the secure training order, in view of the Minister's insistence in proceeding with it, is as workable as possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the contents of the whole part of the Bill under discussion were a poor attempt to bring real care and training to the young who offend and re-offend? It was once again a hurried measure, by a hurried Home Secretary, who has hurried ideas and who hurriedly fails every time.

My hon. Friend is quite right. The measures were put into a statement in the House without thought, and even without consultation with the Department of the Home Secretary's predecessor, who, unfortunately, did not have the sense or gumption to think things through, to listen to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and to come up with something a good deal more sensible. The problem today is that we are able only to consider the Lords amendments, which provide a limited opportunity to introduce a little flexibility and common sense into the measures that have already passed through the House. For the acceptance of that little bit of common sense, rather than simply to look for a quick fix or a quick headline, I appeal to the House. That little element of flexibility would not undermine or damage what the Home Secretary seeks to do. It would simply provide a little common sense—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

which would allow the system to be slightly better targeted and less damaging than it could otherwise become. I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he can hold his breath until I get to the end of a sentence.

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I wish that he had held his breath a little longer. Will the Labour party give a commitment to implement the agency that was recommended by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and about which the hon. Gentleman has said much this afternoon?

It took a long time for the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee to think up that question and to return to his feet. We would be far more interested if he would tell us whether he would press his Home Secretary to implement that recommendation—or, has he so little confidence in the recommendations of his own Committee that he is not bothering to do so, and so little interest in the recommendations of his own Committee that he did do not even know that that recommendation was there until my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green produced the evidence? During the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, we made clear the constructive alternative strategy that we would adopt. That strategy would succeed in dealing with problems of crime, which are not even addressed by the Home Secretary or the Government.

I understand why the Government and their tame Back Benchers wish to distract attention from the wording of the Lords amendment. They want to do that because the amendment is modest. Indeed, it was tabled by a Conservative peer in an attempt to prevent the Government from digging themselves even deeper into difficulties in future. That is why the House should accept these modest amendments which were passed in another place.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), tried very hard to disguise the fact that the Labour party is opposed to secure training units and to the provision in the Bill, but he failed. The public, who are crying out for something to be done about persistent juvenile offenders—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I have hardly started my speech.

The public, who are crying out for something to be done about persistent juvenile offenders, will note the Labour party's attitude. I want to bring a more dispassionate approach to the issue because, although we can have party political arguments in this place, people of all parties want something to be done about persistent juvenile offenders. That is what the Bill attempts to achieve.

Is it not true that none of the centres will be built or in operation before the next election? Is not the real reason why the Home Secretary refused to answer my earlier intervention that nothing in relation to the secure training orders will be up and running before then? The Government cannot even get round to paying the planning fee to make progress with the planning application.

I have some sympathy with the idea that it is taking too long to get the secure training units up and running. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) and the Labour party that it might have been helpful if, when the legislation was passed a year ago, the House had accepted it with enthusiasm. Instead of its taking a year to get the measures through Parliament, we could then have had the legislation on the statute book six months ago and—for reasons which will become obvious—that would have been very helpful in a particular case.

I said that I wanted to try to take a dispassionate view of the matter. In supporting what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary wants to do, I want to refer to the case of a 14-year-old boy who appeared at York youth court on Monday. That 14-year-old has acquired the nickname "Blip Boy" because of his effect on police crime statistics in the York area. He has already been convicted of 38 burglaries and thefts. At York youth court on Monday he admitted a string of further offences which included five burglaries and attempted burglaries, theft and handling, aggravated vehicle taking, assaults, possessing controlled drugs and possessing an offensive weapon, all—and this is the point—while he was living in social services accommodation in North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

Lady Barron, wife of Sir Donald Barron who is much respected and a very senior public figure in the York area—as is Lady Barron—and apolitical in the extreme, said that she would have liked to have given that 14-year-old boy a custodial sentence, but she could not do so. All she was able to do was to give him a two-year supervision order—but had it been within her power to give a form of custodial sentence, that would have been the court's preference.

I want to refer to some of the things that that young man has done. A 65-year-old woman required hospital treatment after she was assaulted by the boy when she spotted him burgling a neighbour's house. The youngster has also assaulted social workers who tried to restrain him in social services accommodation.

I am told by York magistrates court that the young man in question fulfils all the conditions set out in the Bill for a secure training order. He has already been the subject of several section 25 orders and has a long record of absconding from local authority secure accommodation. A senior figure at the court told me this morning that it is highly probable that, as long ago as six months, the court would have preferred to give the youth a custodial sentence, because it was perfectly obvious that every other measure had failed—and not for want of trying. The social services had tried everything without success. I do not criticise them for that; indeed, the House should commend the work of social services departments that are trying to deal with these juvenile offenders. The fact is that they cannot always succeed, however. The task is beyond them. We need something else, and that is why the secure training orders are so important.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, with the Lords amendment, such a person could be made the subject of a secure training order as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, when an obligation would be placed on a local authority to keep the person in secure accommodation? If the amendment is not agreed to, we shall have to wait until one of these centres has been built before anyone can be given a secure training order.

I understand that, but we are dealing with legislation that will have to apply for a long time to come, not just the next six months or so. I do not therefore believe that we should take the route proposed in the Lords amendment. Magistrates, after all, will not be compelled to sentence a juvenile offender to a secure training order. They will still have at their disposal the whole current range of sentences, including a supervision order, or a requirement to be in local authority social services accommodation, or a section 25 order: none of that will change.

We need a clear-cut alternative that goes beyond what is currently available. The Select Committee report mentioned 200 or 300 youngsters in this context, although that report was referred to today with considerable inaccuracy by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. When we scrutinised this matter early last year, we were told that 200 or 300 places would probably be required, and there will have to be specialist care, education and training in them. I do not see such care being provided in local authority accommodation. It will require a special kind of unit, and that is what the Government want to provide.

The hon. Member for Durham, North-West talked about the speed with which the system could be put in place. It is clear to me that the secure training units need to be built as quickly as possible. If my right hon. and learned Friend catches your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will tell us how quickly he believes the units can be established. This matter has nothing to do with whether magistrates or police officers support the Conservative party, another party or no party. They all genuinely believe, with the public, that magistrates do not now have at their disposal what they need to deal with these youngsters. So we should give secure training units a try. If people are watching our debate this afternoon, they will see that, once again, the Government have come up with an imaginative idea to respond to public concerns, but that the Labour party has confirmed yet again that it does not have a single policy on how to deal with these youngsters.

I do not think that the conclusion of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) followed from his argument. His argument was that there is an urgent problem, which he instanced by a case from his area. He then failed to recognise that a more immediate way of dealing with that problem is to allow secure training orders to go ahead under the terms of the Lords amendment, which would allow them to be brought into effect straight away using existing local authority secure accommodation. The Government have belatedly provided for more such accommodation and for an increase in the number of places available in it.

It ought to be common ground that such measures arise because of genuine public concern about the fact that there are at least some young offenders who have frequently absconded from the accommodation in which they were placed and who have persistently reoffended. There is certainly a small number of very persistent young offenders who have received a great deal of press attention and who present the public with serious problems. There is therefore genuine anxiety on the part of the public, who want reassurance that the courts, empowered by this House, can put such people in places from which they cannot abscond and then reoffend. They should also be given the right training and education while they are locked away in the right sort of accommodation.

How one sets about that is the subject of some public argument at the moment—what should the legal framework be? The Lords have genuinely considered the Government's approach; they have not thrown it out of the window, but have sought to modify it and to give the courts a choice. A reason offered for legislative action in this area has been the belief that the courts did not have enough options open to them. One hears magistrates say in private that they feel that their hands are tied. One effect of the Lords amendment is to untie their hands and to give them more than one way of applying a secure training order.

Listening to the Home Secretary, one might imagine that the amendment was the product of rabid anarchists. In fact, it was moved by, and carried with the support of, members of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own party—indeed, the amendments were moved by one of his distinguished predecessors in the course of a responsible discussion of a difficult problem. The amendments came about because of the considerable experience of some Members of another place, several of whom served in Conservative Governments.

Listening to the Home Secretary, one might also imagine that the amendments will affect a large number of young offenders and will, if left in the Bill, undermine work with a large number of them and delay its effectiveness. None of those suggestions is true. We are talking about only 200 young offenders who could be the subject of such orders—that at least is the maximum number of places that will be initially provided.

If the Lords amendments are not agreed to, there will be delay and no chance of bringing in secure training orders until the places in the private sector institutions are provided. With the amendments, the Bill could be effective from the moment of Royal Assent, and the orders could be used as a means of dealing with young offenders.

One could also be forgiven for imagining, from what the Home Secretary said, that the Government have a clear picture of the kind of regime of supervision and training that will do the trick in the institutions. Several times the Home Secretary said that, with their 40 young people each, the institutions will enjoy the right supervision, training and education regimes. That betrays a degree of knowledge about what we are going to do with these people which neither I nor many professionals in the field claim to share. There is no such certainty about what measures will effectively help some young offenders to lead useful lives and to abandon the ways of crime into which they have entered at such an extraordinarily early age.

There is a great deal of professional discussion of such issues. All the experience of recent years suggests that Home Secretaries who come along with solutions turn out not to have them at all. What happened to the short sharp shock that was supposed to be a proven method of dealing with young offenders? We have it no more because it did not work. The borstals and approved schools went because gathering together large numbers of persistent young offenders in such regimes did not appear to work. It was not that Ministers thought they were unpleasant or undesirable institutions; they simply had a high reoffending rate and other means had to be sought to deal with the problem. The Home Secretary should not glibly use phrases such as "an appropriate regime of education and training" as though there were a known and recognised answer to the problem.

Clearly, improving youngsters' education so that they have the opportunity to make a useful life must be part of the exercise. Some young people who become involved in that level of crime appear to be pretty intelligent and shrewd about how to carry out crimes and how to evade them. They have energies which need to be channelled effectively. A number of them are clearly in need of discipline and a framework in which they can begin to understand that they have obligations to others.

One can see some of the elements, but pretending that one has the right answer has been the mistake of successive Home Secretaries. The present Home Secretary would be wise not to make that mistake, particularly given that his own Department's research casts such doubt on the matter. The Home Office research and planning unit paper No.66, entitled "Juveniles Sentenced for Serious Offences", published in 1992, states:

"The study also found that offenders who had been in secure units in the local authority community home system were significantly less likely to have been reconvicted two years after release than those released from young offender institutions."

The research evidence does not suggest that there is an alternative regime in a different institution which we know will work. We are arguing only about how we can guarantee the security that the public require; there is no menu of better methods of providing training for young people readily available.

The professionals working with this age group in local authority homes and social service departments or with the next age group in young offender institutions are trying with great difficulty to deal with changes that society has thrown at them. It is an extremely challenging task to which there are no simple answers.

Clearly, in some cases there are arguments strongly in favour of the smaller local authority home with secure places. A larger institution may offer less prospect of building up stable relationships with staff for children of 12 or 13 who have had no stable home relationships and for whom a purely institutional environment with no stable relationships with other people may offer no way out of the way in which they have traditionally reacted to the lack of stability in their lives.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities have had secure accommodation for quite some time. Could he explain why they have not so far succeeded in solving the problem?

I do not think that anyone has the solution to the problem; that is the burden of what I am saying. Nor should the Home Secretary pretend that he has the solution. One result of our discussions is that it will be possible and accepted for local authorities to apply greater security in their own secure accommodation places, and the new institutions, when created, should also be secure, but that says very little about the effectiveness of the regimes within them.

Young people will not be in those places for long. Two years later, they will be out in the community with the possibility of committing many more crimes. Indeed, they will be entering the peak ages at which young people commit crimes and they will pose a threat to many more potential victims of crime if they do not come out with a better attitude than that with which they went in. That is why, in particular cases, the court is entitled to examine whether it is likely that a particular young person might be better placed in a small local authority home, which has secure accommodation with the prospect of building up stable relationships, than in a large institution where that child might become the prey of many other hard young offenders, perhaps with greater criminal experience and tendency than him or her.

There is also the problem of distance. The secure training units will be limited in number and may be so far from the homes of some young people that making plans to readmit them into the community at the end of the order or sentence will be difficult. Parental, family or friend contact, which may be crucial in getting them back into society, cannot be achieved.

Clearly, the circumstances may vary. The Lords amendment is asking only for the opportunity for the court to choose in the light of the various circumstances. Indeed, it provides the opportunity for the court to be convinced by the initial experience of private sector secure training units that they offer a better regime for certain youngsters. I remain to be convinced of that, but there seems no good reason why the court should not have the option to place the child in one or other type of institution.

I return to the point that I made to the Home Secretary in an intervention. His resistance to the Lords amendment is driven by the belief that he has to offer the private sector a tempting deal. He has to be able to say to the private sector, "Do not worry. The courts will not be able to send them anywhere else. They will have to send them to you, so your capital will not be at risk. You will have a guaranteed number of places." That is one of the difficulties—and there are a number—about relying on the private sector to provide crucial facilities for custody and for taking away liberty because someone represents a threat to society.

We have great reservations about the privatisation process in the prisons. Taking away people's liberty for the good reason that their liberty poses a threat to society is something that the state does in limited circumstances and over which the state ought to exercise firm authority and control on everyone's behalf.

The Lords amendment is a reasonable compromise with the Government's position. The associated amendments, which provide opportunity for subsequent movement from a local authority place to a secure training centre or vice versa, represent a useful element of flexibility for the court, but not for the Home Secretary or social services departments.

If the Home Secretary were not so worried about the need to offer the private sector a financially reliable deal, he would accept the Lords amendments and recognise that his faith in the secure training units could be tested against the possibility of local authority places being more appropriate for some youngsters.

Was not the response of the Opposition to my right hon. and learned Friend's exposition of the justification for secure training orders amazing? It was utterly wide of the mark, it was wrong in comprehension, and one can only assume that it was delivered in a state of panic, because the words of their leader—"tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"—is so manifestly contrary to the way in which the Labour party has behaved in the House over the past 15 years.

If the Labour party were tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, it would have supported the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, it would have supported the various Criminal Justice Acts, Public Order Acts, and Prevention of Terrorism Acts. The embarrassment of the Labour party is in realising that it has opposed all those measures because it can not carry its supporters in the House, while the public are totally on the side of stronger action being taken to reduce terrorism and crime in all its forms. That embarrassment causes the Opposition to behave in a totally illogical and incomprehensible way when we propose reasonable, sound and sensible suggestions.