House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jan 1997 (pt 47)

Mr. Maclean: That is right.

Mr. Llwyd: However, as the Magistrates Association pointed out in its statement on the proposal:

"It is not necessary to name children in order to alert communities as they are already well known in their local areas."

I believe that it is essential to realise how important the rehabilitation of young offenders is to the protection of communities and that--as bodies working with young offenders have pointed out--the rehabilitation of young offenders is likely to be damaged by this measure, which could very well be counter-productive and expensive because of the money expended and society's failure.

The Government's second argument for the measure is based on deterrence. In Standing Committee, the Minister said:

"I also believe that the prospect of being identified publicly should prompt many young offenders--and their families--to think more carefully about their actions."--[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 310-15.]

However, young offenders are the group least likely to be deterred by this type of measure. A high proportion of juvenile crime results from impulsive behaviour, risk-taking, the escalation of anti-social behaviour in groups and in other situations in which rational

15 Jan 1997 : Column 419

calculations of deterrence play a small part. The possibility of public identification is also likely to have very little effect on the minority of young offenders who plan their offences more carefully as their principal concern is to plan and not get caught.

By preventing the identification of juveniles under 16 in the reports of youth proceedings, the amendment would avoid the unnecessary stigmatisation of this group and reduce the damage to the rehabilitation of young offenders which would otherwise result from the clause. The clause is wrong in principle and will be detrimental to the cause of rehabilitation.

Furthermore, the clause is illogical and impractical. For very good reasons, juvenile cases have been held in camera--in other words, the general public has been excluded. How can one therefore honestly say that it is acceptable to name a juvenile, perhaps in a sketchy and skewed reference in the local press, and, at the same time, to exclude the public, thereby depriving them of the true opportunity to hear the case in its totality? Sadly, I conclude that the clause has more to do with pre-election, right-wing muscle flexing than improving the criminal justice system. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has rehearsed verbatim exactly the argument that he advanced in Committee. He has also been kind enough to read out the answers that I gave him.

Mr. Llwyd: I did not speak to such an amendment in Committee so I do not know where the Minister gets that idea from. Perhaps it is a bit late in the day for him.

Mr. Maclean: I recall the same argument being rehearsed verbatim. I am not impugning the hon. Gentleman's integrity but someone must have borrowed someone else's notes because I remember it well. How was the hon. Gentleman able to recite my answers if I did not reply extensively to the same debate in Committee? I have tonight heard the same argument as I heard in Committee. If it was not advanced by him, I apologise.

There is not much more that I can add to what I said in Committee other than to stress that the court will have the discretion whether identification shall be made. The court may consider identification inappropriate in the case of some first-time offenders convicted of a less serious crime but think otherwise in the case of some hardened, persistent young thugs and hooligans who, unfortunately, exist in this country but are--thank goodness--in a minority.

I am thinking of the type of hooligan about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) used to speak and who were called the Sutton posse. Gangs of dozens of youngsters terrorised town centres but could not be named although shopkeepers and members of the public were desperate to know who they were. They are the sort of offenders that we believe the court should have the power to name.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has not made a convincing case for us to accept the amendment. The arguments that I advanced today and in Committee still stand.

15 Jan 1997 : Column 420

Mr. Llwyd: I am not convinced by that reply which was no doubt also trotted out in Committee, although I do not recall the exact words. I am increasingly becoming a fan of the other place which, I hope, will put the clause where it belongs--in the dustbin.

Amendment negatived.