Standing Committee B
Thursday 11 June 1998
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]
10.30 am
New Clause 15
Detention of Girls Under 18
`An offender who is convicted of any offence punishable with
detention and who is a girl under the age of 18 shall be kept separate
from adults and shall be detained in a separate institution, or in a
separate part of an institution also holding adults, unless, after
assessment and in exceptional circumstances, it is held to be in the
best interests of the offender to be held with adults for a temporary
period.'. [Mr. Allan.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): I beg to move,
That the clause be read a Second time.
The principal purpose of the new clause is to make it
unlawful for girls under 18 to be held with adults in prison
except in the most exceptional circumstances. It is
necessary to bring Britain into line with the United
Nations convention on the rights of the child, article 37
of which deals with this issue. We recognise that the
Government entered a reservation about exceptional
circumstances, but we believe it is now time to take the
issue forward.
In some senses, we rehearsed this debate when we
discussed previous amendments on 15 and 16-year-old
boys being held in Prison Service institutions. However,
there are differences for women under the age of 18. The
first is the numbers involved. Between 60 and 80 were in
the system at any one time in 1997, with a total of 300
held in custody over the year. The smaller number of girls
held in detention means that the Government would be
able to achieve the goal of removing them from the Prison
Service system.
Specific young offenders institutions are not available
for women in the same way as they are for men. Young
women offenders are put into women's prisons and are
not held in separate institutions for young offenders.
Again, that is because of the numbers of involved.
I refer the Committee to the excellent report "Lost
Inside" that was produced by the Howard League and
Baroness Masham of Ilton. It highlighted many of the
issues relating to the position of young women in prison
and it interviewed a prison officer who said:
"Prison doesn't deter them. When they leave here they have a
criminal record so employment is impossible for them and mostly
they will only have a hostel to go to where they'll get little support.
If they have a drug problem they will go back to shoplifting or
prostitution to fund the drug habit. It's a circle. It's sad. They don't
know any other life."
Such testimony from those involved in the system shows
the extent to which it does not serve the wider public or
girls under 18.
We hope that the Government will make a commitment
to holding such women in local authority secure
accommodation. That is far more appropriate except for
the most severe offences. Occasionally serious crimes will
require a prison sentence, but most girls are convicted of
ordinary, run-of-the-mill offences. Local authority secure
accommodation is most appropriate for them.
I also refer the Committee to the thematic report on
young prisoners, which was conducted by the chief
inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham. He
expressed grave concerns about putting youngsters into
main Prison Service institutions and wished to see
separate institutions set up.
Amazing problems are caused by the mixing of adult
and juvenile prisoners. For example, the Howard League
came across a 15-year-old who was placed in a cell next
to a woman convicted of procuring 15-year-olds for
prostitution. Such coincidences are unfortunate, but they
are inevitable if the mixing of adult and juvenile prisoners
takes place.
The new clause would make it clear that young women
should be taken out of Prison Service institutions.
I understand the Government's reservations about similar
proposals for young males; they did not want to accept a
provision that they could not deliver. However, a small
number of young women would be covered by the new
clause, so it outlines an achievable goal. It would enable the
Government to tackle the issue and they would receive
widespread praise if they accepted it.
Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): It is well worth
discussing this subject. It is important to bear in mind that
the new clause covers the detention of girls aged 15, 16
or 17, and would prevent them being kept in prison
alongside adult offenders. By now, the Committee will be
well aware of the Opposition's views about mixing the
age ranges; our views apply to young women as well as
to young men. We have advanced strong arguments that
15 or 16-year-old young men, or boys, should not be held
on remand in adult prisons. The same arguments would
apply to young women.
We should take the issue seriously. It has often been
said, under Governments of all political complexions, that
young girls look up to older women, who mother them
while they are in prison. The hon. Member for Sheffield,
Hallam (Mr. Allan) gave an example from the Howard
League report of a 15-year-old girl who was put in a cell
next to a woman whose offence was the procurement of
15-year-olds for prostitution. That example illustrates the
argument.
We should debate the matter to consider how we might
deal better with young women who are in need of secure
accommodation. That brings us back to the question of
the availability of local authority secure accommodation
as an alternative to prison. Again, the Committee wil be
well aware of the views of Conservative Members on
that subject.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the
Home Department (Mr. Mike O' Brien): As the hon.
Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has rightly
pointed out, this is a serious issue and I have some
sympathy with the anxieties expressed by the hon.
Member for Hallam.
On the face of it, the notion of detaining vulnerable
young girls with hardened adult prisoners seems
unacceptable. If all under-18s were vulnerable and all
over-18s were hardened criminals, we should certainly
need to ensure that they were not held together. However,
as we know, the world is not like that. We should
remember that important point and keep it in the
forefronts of our minds when considering the proposal.
The real issue for the Prison Service is to minimise the
risks of holding vulnerable prisoners with those who
might have a negative influence on them. We are all
aware that neither vulnerability nor negative influence are
absolutely correlated with age. We must be careful to
ensure that we do not inadvertently put in place, for
apparently good reasons, what might turn out to be
impractical and possibly arbitrary cut-offs that adversely
affect those we want to help.
The new clause covers two issues: first, that of
accommodation and, secondly, that of mixing offenders
of different ages during activities. The root of the problem
is the small number of girls aged under 18 that the Prison
Service has to deal with. There were only 91 such girls
within the Prison Service estate at the end of March this
year. They are, therefore, a minority, wherever they are
placed. However, we are duty bound to do our best for
such girls under the circumstances.
The Prison Service is currently considering the possible
solutions to the problem. There are a number of
alternatives. The first alternative is to create a separate
secure estate specifically for juvenile females that would
parallel that being planned for juvenile boys. A population
of about 91 girls might justify the establishment of only
two separate units. Such units could well be of a suitable
size to provide effectively the range of programmes that
might be required under the proposed detention and
training order. That is the plus side.
The down side is that the establishment of only two
units would separate many of these girls from the valuable
support of their families. As the hon. Member for Hallam
will know, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in its
report on juvenile crime, pointed out that contact with
families is very important in reducing the likelihood of
the offender re-offending in the future, when he or she
leaves custody.
The two units would probably have to be placed so that
there was one in the north and one in the south of the
country. With only two units there would be no possibility
of the girls moving to open conditions as part of their
preparation for release, as is possible at present. Those are
two serious down sides, which make the creation of two
sites one in the north and one in the south
unacceptable.
Mr. Allan: I understand that Lord Williams of Mostyn
announced in another place that the Government's policy
was to set up two units one at HMP New Hall, near
Wakefield, and the other at Holloway.
Mr. O'Brien: I shall come on to our planned approach
to that. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be talking about
different institutions, but the setting up of units is also
being considered.
Another option would be a single juvenile estate, for
both sexes. The advantage would be that a larger estate
would overcome the geographical problems I mentioned
and allow effective remedial programmes to be provided.
However it would entail problems. The mixing of boys
and girls in regime activities might raise more difficulties
than mixing girls and women would particularly,
perhaps, in cases where there had been sexual abuse.
Girls' needs might be more akin to those of women than
those of boys. That solution would therefore not be ideal.
A further option would be to make use of the secure
training centres, when those became available, or local
authority secure accommodation. The first secure training
centre came on stream in April. Both options raise the
issue of capacity. The STC estate will comprise 200
places when completed and will probably be most suited
to younger children. The local authority secure estate is
already used for a number of purposes: welfare cases,
section 53 custodial sentences and some remands. The
secure remands that we discussed under clauses 89 and
90 will make use of those facilities. The question that this
alternative raises is whether it is right to hold girls who
are nearly 18, who might be difficult and might have
convictions for serious offences, with much younger boys
and girls.
The last option is to create several separate units to
accommodate juvenile girls in the women's prison estate,
and to ensure that any mixing of regime activities is
closely monitored and controlled and is in the best
interests of all concerned.
The issues are difficult. I am sure that we will all have
the interests of juvenile girls at heart in trying to resolve
them. However, the upshot is that there is not at present
a simple answer; the new clause would make the situation
worse by restricting the options even further.
One of the strengths of the proposed detention and
training order is the built-in flexibility. The ability to place
offenders in custodial facilities best suited to their needs
is a feature of the new arrangements. The proposed new
clause would restrict how the new order might operate in
practice, as it would require a girl serving a detention and
training order to be transferred to adult facilities on
reaching 18. That would necessarily interfere with the
purpose of such a sentence, which is not what the
Government would want.
We must also remember that there are those who may
need to be accommodated elsewhere. Within the small
population of female under-18-year-olds that we are
concerned with, there are some girls who may pose a
particular risk to the rest. They have to be accommodated
somewhere and allowed to associate, but it may not be
appropriate to house them with other under-18s. Section
1C of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 allows, on a
case-by-case basis, for named juveniles to be sent to
a prison rather than a young offenders institution for a
specified reason. Placement in a mother and baby unit
is one acceptable reason, as is the need for medical or
psychiatric care.
The Prison Service has a responsibility to protect young
and vulnerable prisoners from detrimental influences, but
it also has a duty to look after all prisoners with humanity
and to help them to lead useful and law-abiding lives in custody and after release. If the service is to achieve those
aims, all prisoners must have access to meaningful
activity, such as education or training and appropriate
programmes to help them address their offending
behaviour.
As I have said, the question of how best to meet the
needs of young offenders is complex and there is no
quick-fix solution. The hon. Member for Hallam has
already warned of the dangers of quick-fix solutions. If
we supported the clause we would be in danger of
thinking that there was a quick-fix solution when there
is not.
There are very small numbers of sentenced under-18s
in women's prisons. The average number at any one time
is around 90. The need for these girls to be near their
families has to be balanced with the need to be with others
of their own age. Work is in hand to address the issues of
age mixing in female prisons and the regimes provided
for these young offenders.
10.45 am
The Government, when debating this issue in the other
place, promised to report back to Parliament on progress
when the new detention and training order was
implemented, and this will be done. In the mean time, a
considerable amount has been achieved by the Prison
Service in separating those sentenced to detention in a
young offender institution from those over 21.
A framework for enhancing the regimes for women and
female young offenders in prison is part of the major
initiative on regimes being undertaken by the Prison
Service this year. The impetus for this work has come
from a number of sources, not least from the strongly held
belief shared by the Prison Service and the Government
that custodial sentences are not an end in themselves but
can make a real difference to the offender and to the
public. The aim is to provide positive and constructive
regimes which prevent offending.
Again, I fully understand and share the concern
expressed by the hon. Members for Hallam and for
Hertsmere and those in the other place about the
inappropriate mixing of vulnerable female prisoners with
other female prisoners who might have a negative impact
on them. However, I feel that the arrangements we are
seeking to put in place will provide sufficient flexibility
to allow us to continue to work toward addressing the
issues. I must stress that I recognise that we are not there
yet. We still have a way to go.
While I can endorse the concern about the need to
separate under-18s from women who may have an
adverse influence on them, we need to ensure that we do
not undermine the flexibility that can enable us to address
the real problem of the under-18 females, both through
our review of juvenile secure accommodation and through
the Prison Service's review of its policy on age mixing.
Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment is either
necessary at this stage or the best way to address the needs
of vulnerable female prisoners.
I hope that I have set out clearly the Government's
position, and that in the light of what I have said, the hon.
Member will not seek to press the new clause.
| 
