Amendment made: No. 629, in

clause 206, page 115, line 19, leave out from 'that' to 'be' in line 20 and insert

'an extended sentence under section 208 would not'.—[Hilary Benn.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

This might be the only opportunity to discuss the detention of young people in the context of serious offences. What is the current and intended policy about where people aged under 18 in this category should be detained? The Solicitor-General will know that, for a long time, Southwark has managed a place called Orchard lodge, which is on the edge of the borough and has dealt with some

disordered youngsters in a secure way. So far as I know, it has an extremely good reputation. I hope that the Minister will confirm that similar facilities are intended in this case, namely that they should be small, local authority-run secure units, and not adult prisons. I am conscious that we still have young people under 17 in adult prisons. Do the Government intend that that should end, and if so, when? Are other sorts of provision intended? At present, young people can be detained in any place determined by the Secretary of State.

Do the Government take the view that all young persons convicted of serious offences should have their cases reviewed when they come of age, with no automatic presumption that they should continue in custody indefinitely? The most famous case—or the most notorious—was the James Bulger case. Rightly, in my view, the authorities considered that the offenders' sentences should be reviewed when they reached 18. The way in which child offenders are treated in adult life should depend on how they respond to their treatment and punishment when in custody.

We should not wreak vengeance on adults for sins that they committed as children. We should take a rehabilitative and forgiving view, however difficult it may be, if children who committed offences do not pose a risk to the public once they reach the age of majority. Their cases should be reviewed, and if it is considered safe to release them, they should be able to make a fresh start in adult life. We should start with the presumption that they should be treated differently from those who commit such crimes as adults, who must clearly take full responsibility for their actions. What is the Government's policy on those issues?

I shall pick up on some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. In my previous incarnation, as chair of Lancashire social services, I was responsible for interviewing and reviewing the cases of young people in secure accommodation. I visited many local authority secure accommodation centres throughout the country. Most of them were operated in the best interests of the young people and undertook the sort of rehabilitative work that has been mentioned this morning.

I specifically want to pick up on the point that the hon. Gentleman made about young people reaching the age of majority. I recall the case of one young man who had committed a serious offence and was in secure accommodation as a result. If he had been an adult, he would have been in an adult prison, his sentence would have been coming up for review and he would probably have been allowed parole or his case would have been otherwise reconsidered. However, because he was in secure accommodation and had reached the age of 18, he was automatically transferred to an adult prison.

I made representations on behalf of that young man, because he had responded very positively during the years that he spent in secure accommodation. I had regular meetings with him, and the staff wrote reports

on him, but the system did not seem to see him as a young man or consider his needs. He was automatically transferred to an adult prison, where he was unlikely to have continued to receive the same support.

We should look at the continuum of care offered in secure accommodation. We should consider the circumstances in which young people are put in prison at the age of 16 or 17—but, just as important, we should consider what happens when they are transferred once they reach 18.

I shall make two brief points. First, subsection (3) is badly drafted. It would be much better if it said, in cases not falling within subsection (2), that the court must impose a sentence of detention for public protection ''if satisfied that no other disposal is appropriate.'' At present, it is terribly long-winded. Secondly, what is the word ''legally'' doing in the second line of subsection (3)? It seems to envisage not only that the court can deal with the defendant legally, but that it can do so illegally.

I shall deal first—

Alpha and omega.

The last shall be first. Good questions have been asked. I shall try to answer the problem that was spotted, with his usual eagle eye, by the hon. Member for Woking. I am sure that it is of considerable import—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question agreed to.

Clause 206, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.