---

Mr. Llwyd: I support the amendment, but I have reservations about the new form of penalty in any event. As I understand it, the Justices' Clerks Society was not consulted when the idea was first discussed. I acknowledge the need for proportionality, but it represents quite a departure from the usual criminal law to impose a wholly unconnected penalty for such offences. Indeed, it might have a detrimental effect and hamper the rehabilitation of an offender who, on release, might not be able to get employment as a result.

I believe that the punishment must fit the crime, but this is not the right approach. It is laughable to think that the professional criminal will in any way be deterred by the fear that he might lose his licence.

Mr. Maclean: I do not consider the amendment necessary, in view of the established principle of sentencing which already ensures that its aims are met. It is a fundamental principle of sentencing that the punishment should fit the crime. The courts must consider the nature of the offence and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances before deciding what sentence to impose. The sentencer must also have regard to the particular circumstances of the offence and of the offender.

Consequently, a court will not impose disqualification from driving unless satisfied that such a penalty is appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the offence.

The penalty will be introduced by way of pilot schemes; we cannot consult on every single change we wish to make. In this case we have chosen to run pilots before we finalise the scheme. The pilot process will identify the implications before we go for national implementation. The pilots will also identify any need to produce guidelines for the courts, such as those produced in other circumstances by the Magistrates Association. Therefore, as we will have pilot schemes, and in view of the fundamental principle that all sentences must at all times have regard to the particular circumstances of the offence and the offender, the amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Beith: The Minister's argument is unconvincing. He repeats what he said in Committee. This bit of the Bill is odd, but it is not one of principles on which we would wish to go to the stake. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

15 Jan 1997 : Column 415

Clause 40

Curfew orders

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 28, leave out line 26 and insert

'for the word "sixteen" there shall be substituted the word "fifteen".'.

Mr. Beith: The amendment relates to the electronic tagging of juveniles. Its purpose is to restrict the use of electronic tagging to young offenders who are 15 or over.

The Government have issued much publicity on the merits of electronic tagging, aided by companies that were involved in the pilot project. I was struck that the press releases that came into my hands after an announcement over Christmas were not from the Home Office, but from Securicor. I began to wonder who was in charge at the Home Office--Securicor seemed to be setting the agenda.

The research has had some useful results. It has demonstrated that considerable progress has been made in dealing with the technology, which failed lamentably at earlier stages. It looks as if it can be made to work, but, from that research, it is difficult to draw useful conclusions either about the cost of tagging or its suitability for very young offenders.

It seems that tagging would have to be used much more than seems likely before it was cost-effective for the companies concerned. I have been told that there was heavy staff involvement from the companies concerned in the project and that one company had 25 staff involved for 50 offenders. That ratio is not going to be maintained. Unless courts make far more use of the electronic tagging system than seems likely, the cost will be high. Even in America, where it is more well established, the proportion of offenders involved in electronic tagging is small, but in the limited time that we have available tonight, I want to concentrate on its applicability to very young offenders--those under the age of 15.

What young, increasingly hardened offenders need is not technology to ensure that they are kept under house arrest, but supervision. They need responsible adult role models--people who give them guidance and set an example. It is no use simply satisfying ourselves that we have confined a youngster embarking on a criminal career to a particular place unless we do some good in that place. If the youngster is under adequate supervision there, electronic tagging is of little importance or significance.

The case for using electronic tagging of an adult offender may be easier to make if we are trying to ensure that that offender does not go into areas where he or she can readily commit crimes, but if we are talking about a 13 or 14-year-old persistent offender, that youngster should be under extensive supervision by a parent, teacher, social worker or probation officer--skilled professionals. If there is no family back-up, skilled professionals will have to do all the work. If there is some family back-up, skilled professionals should be helping the family. The last thing that is significant in this case is our ability to maintain an electronic tag to show that the young person is in that place. The important thing is who is there to ensure that that young person has the role model, guidance, help and all the rest of it.

15 Jan 1997 : Column 416

Resources will be grossly misapplied if they go into the electronic tagging scheme, instead of appropriate supervision and management of difficult, seriously misguided and sometimes dangerous youngsters. Therefore, our amendment suggests that, if the Government want to proceed in developing the electronic tagging scheme for adults, let them do so, but, for the youngest offenders, the Government's efforts should be directed at their supervision, control, training and development, not at a scheme that can achieve none of those things and that would grossly misuse resources.

I invite Ministers to think again. Courts will not be likely to make much use of electronic tagging for this purpose, but if they are able to do so at all, there is likely to be a significant misapplication of resources, which should be used in the way that I have described.

Mr. Maclean: What I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands--although we had a good discussion about it in Committee--is that, in the Government's view, a curfew order for the 10-to-14 age group will be an additional valuable tool to deal with juvenile offenders. There is nothing to suggest that supervision orders and another range of activities cannot take place at the same time.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that, if we have electronic tagging for youngsters, we will do nothing else--that we will simply invest all our hopes in the panacea of electronics. That is not the case. Indeed, research published recently shows that the tagging equipment works effectively: 75 per cent. of offenders were tagged successfully, and completed their curfew orders. It also shows that there is tremendous merit in using the new electronic technology that is available--and, of course, backing that up with supervision by parents, teachers, social workers, probation officers or anyone else. There is nothing to stop supervision orders being made in addition to tagging, or as part of it.

9.30 pm

We have made a number of modifications to the curfew order to reflect the younger age of the people to whom we are extending it. We have said that the maximum term should be three months rather than six, and that before making an order the court must obtain and consider information about the family circumstances and the effect that the order will have on the family. That is to ensure that the legislation is targeted appropriately on the youngsters on whom we think it will have the best effect.

We intend to introduce the order on a pilot basis. There may be new and unanticipated difficulties with the younger age group, and a pilot study should help to identify the problems and ensure that we can use the system as effectively with that group as we have found from our studies that we can use it with the older age group.

In view of those assurances--and, if he reads the report of the Committee stage, he will see that we made the point at greater length then--I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will conclude that the amendment is unnecessary and his fears unjustified.

Amendment negatived.

15 Jan 1997 : Column 417

Clause 42

Publication of reports

Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 29, line 16, leave out 'child or young person' and insert

'person of over the age of sixteen years'.

The amendment would restrict the identification of juveniles in reports of youth court proceedings to those aged 16 or over.

Clause 42 allows convicted juveniles who appear in the youth court to be publicly named if the court

"is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so".

The current legal provisions on the anonymity of children and young persons are governed by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Section 49 prohibits the identification of children and young persons who appear in youth courts. There are only two exceptions, which apply if the court believes that allowing publicity is appropriate to avoid injustice to the child--for example, if it is the only way in which to locate alibi or other defence witnesses--or if a young person involved in proceedings relating to a serious offence is unlawfully at large. In that instance, the court can authorise identification only on an application from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Section 39 of the Act states that the Crown court may direct that media reports shall not identify a child or young person. In practice, Crown courts normally prohibit identification, but exceptionally, after conviction, judges sometimes order that they may be identified.

When clause 42 was debated in Committee, it transpired that the Government intended not that youth courts should follow the Crown court's current practice of using the power to identify juveniles sparingly, but that they should use the power extensively for certain categories of offender. On 10 December, the Minister of State said:

"some people are persistent offenders. In their case, I should expect the power to be used extensively rather than rarely . . . I hope that courts will use the relevant power widely in the case of these offenders, as the rule rather than the exception. That would permit members of the local community, such as the chamber of commerce, traders, retailers, the neighbourhood watch, the police--or councils, perhaps, in instances of council estates being terrorised--to effect limited publication in a defined area of the names of those people for whom innocent members of the public should look out."--[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 316-17.]

The Magistrates Association has not asked for any change in the law on the matter. When the proposal was canvassed in the media in late 1996, the Association issued a statement, which stated:

"It is the Magistrates Association's view that reporting restriction on young offenders should not be changed . . . The Association points out that young children have a different psychological perception and are treated differently in youth courts where they are dealt with by magistrates who have been specifically training in dealing with juvenile matters.


Repeat offenders for whom school, family etc have been a failure, gain kudos and popularity amongst their peer groups from offending and naming them would make them heroes."

Probation service organisations and those involved in resettlement of offenders have also opposed the proposals. Their arguments were summarised in a statement, on 27 November 1996, by the Penal Affairs Consortium, which stated:

15 Jan 1997 : Column 418

"Naming young offenders . . . will hinder rather than help the prospects for steering young people away from crime.


The reason why the names of juvenile offenders are not normally published is that it can seriously hinder their rehabilitation. This is as true now as it was when the rule was introduced in 1933. The way the media have hounded a few young offenders after Crown Court trials, sometimes for years afterwards, shows how necessary the rule of anonymity is."

I should say that I have 18 years' experience of juvenile courts, and to this day I have never met a juvenile who did not, on balance, have more good than bad in him or her. If we are to close the door on them and stigmatise them from the very beginning, one of the four core points of any penal code--rehabilitation--will go out of the window.

In a briefing sent to members of the Standing Committee on the Bill, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation opposed the amendment. It stated:

"Judges already have the power to lift the provisions which stop juvenile offenders being identified. This is only used very sparingly at the moment and where it has been done it has made work with the offender significantly more difficult."

The Government have advanced two principal arguments for the amendment: first, it would help to protect the public; and, secondly, it would have a deterrent effect. On the first point, on 10 December 1996, the Minister said in Standing Committee:

"It is important that members of the public should be protected from young offenders and that courts should be able, in the public interest, to permit identification of youngsters who have been convicted, especially when they are released into the community for punishment."

He also said:

"We are taking this action largely because the community does not know the names of persistent offenders and is vulnerable to further attack from them."

The Minister went on to state:

"But I am concerned about the hundreds of young offenders whose names are never revealed, so the public remain innocent dupes ready to be attacked by them the next time."

---