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

We are making good progress. The clause raises an important matter that has been the subject of recent court judgments. I seek clarification from the Minister on his understanding of the European Court's judgment and on whether he thinks that this proposal is compatible. My understanding is that the clause will allow prison

rules to include provision for the award of additional days of imprisonment to those serving a fixed-term sentence or to prisoners on remand who have committed disciplinary offences.

The European Court's argument was that the courts should pass sentence, not prison governors, because deprivation of liberty was a matter for the civil courts and should not be regarded as an administrative sanction for prison governors to impose. It would be sensible for me to ask the Minister to state what the court decided in 2001 and how the Government believe that clause 235 would be compatible with its decision.

I shall briefly make a point that the General Council of the Bar has raised. It fears, in relation to another clause, that the removal of remission may lead to a decline in prison discipline at a time when the service is already at breaking point. The Bar Council says that similar criticism is relevant to clause 235. It points out what I think we know to be the truth: young offender institutions have been the subject of a great deal of criticism over the years, and the suicide and self-harm rate in some of those institutions is a matter of concern. Every time that we face the issue of additional days for disciplinary offences, we also face the prospect—I put it no higher—of discipline and morale problems. That is why I referred to young offenders. I simply want to float that point. I say to the Minister that the clause—probably correctly—causes some people concern.

The clause re-enacts the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which enables rules to be made under the Prison Act 1952 for additional days to be added to a prisoner's sentence should he be found guilty of a disciplinary offence. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on 15 July 2002—not 2001—that disciplinary proceedings that led to awards of additional days were a breach of article 6. They breached the provisions that relate to a fair trial because it was prison governors who took the decisions. The European Court therefore ruled that that was not allowed.

For that reason, on 15 August, Parliament amended the prison rules to allow the Secretary of State to appoint independent adjudicators. It is perfectly in order, in re-enacting the provision in the 1991 Act, for additional days to be awarded in serious cases. However, an independent adjudicator must award those additional days, not a prison governor. Prisoners have the right to be legally represented at public expense in those proceedings.

These two changes have been made to the system to permit added days to continue to be awarded in certain cases. I must confess that there was some concern in the Prison Service at the time of the judgment about the impact that the changes would have. However, that concern has not been borne out by subsequent events. Although independent adjudicators only can award added days, prison governors still retain several administrative measures such as withdrawal of privileges and the removal of television. A number of sanctions are available in a prison to assist prison governors in maintaining good

discipline and to encourage offenders to behave themselves when they are in prison.

It is interesting to note that added days were done away with in Scotland quite a long time ago. The anxiety that the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Woking referred to, which people felt at the time of the judgment, has not been borne out by subsequent events. The Prison Service now feels that the most appropriate route is to have the independent adjudicators who deal with the most serious cases, because of the penalty that can be provided. I refer to the more serious cases, because not all the cases that would have been considered for added days under the old arrangements now come forward to the independent adjudicators. At the same time, prison governors are encouraged to use the range of administrative measures and sanctions at their disposal to deal with other infractions of prison rules. In fairness, one could say that the system is working well and that the fears originally expressed have not come to pass.

I am grateful to the Minister and have two questions. First, am I right in assuming that there has been no further challenge to the corrected policy that adjudicators can have the quasi-judicial function, and that they are therefore outside the administrative provision? Maybe the Minister remembers—I do not—whether the court in its original ruling said that. It would be sufficient if the matter was one for non-administrative, independent decision making and, if so, that was trailed by the judgment.

Secondly, is the court understood to have held that a maximum period is permitted for extra penalty? My assumption is that it would not be possible in any event to put any more remission back on than the person in question had earned by good behaviour. He or she could only forfeit their good behaviour bonus. It would be helpful if the Minister has information to answer that question. If he cannot answer now, perhaps he can later. It is a matter of principle that even if someone misbehaves, he or she should not be in a worse position at the end of their time in prison than they would have been, in light of the judgment of the court in the first place.

I shall gladly respond to the hon. Gentleman's second point in writing. In relation to his first point, the new system was designed to comply with the European convention on human rights. I am happy to confirm that there have been no challenges to the new arrangements since they were put in place.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 235 ordered to stand part of the Bill.