---

9.15 pm

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Opposition's amendments Nos. 128 to 131, 136 and 137, to which the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) spoke, and the other amendments would unhelpfully limit the use of electronically monitored restriction of liberty requirements, so that in Scotland such an order could be made only as a condition of a probation order.

Our proposals would allow a court to deal with an offender by making a restriction of liberty order alone, or by making a restriction of liberty order together with a probation order. The Opposition amendments would withdraw the first of those options. As a consequence, a court would not be able to make a free-standing restriction of liberty order, even if it considered that to be the most appropriate option. That would be hard to justify, and I would not recommend accepting those amendments to clause 4.

I shall deal now with the Government amendments in the group. As was said in Committee, in some cases the effectiveness of electronically monitored disposals may be enhanced if they are associated with the sort of supervision offered by probation. On that basis, the Bill provides for a facility which enables a probation order to be associated with a restriction of liberty order. Government amendments clarify how that facility will operate.

Mr. Davidson: The amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are useful, as they strike at the centre of the Government's proposal by probing the way in which the Government intend to use restriction of liberty orders.

The Minister's response to my hon. Friend's excellent argument suggested that orders made without probation will be a cheap way of dealing with someone who should be punished by being sent to prison. In those circumstances, a restriction of liberty order without supervision misses the point.

I recognise that the clause goes beyond the idea of electronic tagging. Under subsection (2)(b), for example, a person could be instructed not to attend football matches, if he had been convicted of an offence arising from his attendance at such a match. Clearly, electronic tagging would not be suitable in those circumstances. That person should not simply be left and trusted not to go to matches. Provision should be made for some form of probation or supervision, to ensure that the restriction is not seen as a soft option. There is genuine anxiety that, if restriction of liberty orders are unpoliced, they will be seen as a soft option.

Does the Minister accept my hon. Friend's contention, arising from practice elsewhere, that success is likely where the restriction is for a short period, and where the person concerned is well motivated? Other evidence suggests that restriction of liberty works best if the person is in a job and if the restriction is part of a comprehensive treatment programme. The order seems tailor-made for

20 Jan 1997 : Column 712

many middle-class people. Is it intended to distribute restriction of liberty orders evenly throughout the population, or will certain social criteria be taken into consideration?

We have already discussed the increasing number of women who experience serious difficulties in prison. I think that restriction of liberty orders may represent a reasonable alternative to imprisonment in some circumstances, depending on the nature of the offence. People would require a degree of supervision--perhaps they should have some form of probation--but the Minister did not touch upon that aspect. I ask him to clarify those points in his response.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) supports restriction of liberty orders--as he has done more than once before. I make it clear that we are particularly guided by the experience of the pilot scheme in England, which has proved a success. The technology is seen to be reliable and it has worked effectively. The courts have made extensive use of the option and we can see no case for denying it to Scottish courts. Of course, there will be a pilot scheme and, depending on how it works, the option could be extended more widely thereafter.

The Opposition amendments would make a restriction of liberty requirement a condition of a probation order instead of a discrete disposal. While I do not object to considering that approach in the longer term, it raises some practical issues that must be resolved beforehand. I shall examine them quickly.

First, an issue arises because responsibility for supervising a probation order rests with a local authority officer while responsibility for the electronic monitoring of any restriction of liberty condition would rest with a person nominated by the Secretary of State. Therefore, in fulfilling his duty to supervise a probation order, the local authority officer would have to rely on someone over whom he had little direct control to monitor one of its conditions.

Mr. McFall: Could not the Secretary of State nominate a local authority officer?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We would first have to assess and evaluate the success of the pilot scheme--which is what we intend to do. My second point is that evaluation will be extremely difficult. It may be difficult to ascertain whether any shortcomings are due to electronically monitored requirements or to the general order. I believe that it is necessary to proceed as I have recommended.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 6, line 20, after '(1)' insert

'Without prejudice to section 245CC of this Act,'.--[Mr. Carrington.]

Amendment proposed: No. 245, in page 6, line 20, leave out

'of 16 years of age or more'.--[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 246 to 250, 252 and 253.

Mr. Wallace: I shall resume my seat if I have the wrong amendment. Amendment No. 245 would delete the

20 Jan 1997 : Column 713

reference to persons of 16 years and over, which would have the effect of extending the tagging provisions to those aged under 16. I find it absolutely extraordinary that a measure that has received considerable publicity and marks an important departure in the treatment of juveniles in Scotland should be moved formally by the Minister without any attempt to justify the measure to the House. It is quite extraordinary behaviour from the Minister.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman will sit down, I shall happily explain exactly what it means and then he may resume his speech.

Mr. Wallace: I rather suspect that you would rule that out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the intervention would be too long. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Minister has moved a major amendment formally.

I shall explain briefly why my party opposes the measure. As I understand it, the option of tagging children under 16 will be available only to the courts. The Minister assured the Committee that the electronic tagging exercise would be run as a pilot scheme, but at the same time as running a pilot scheme, he is trying to extend its provision.

More seriously, in Scotland we have a distinctive scheme of juvenile justice, in which the overwhelming number of young offenders are referred to a children's hearing. Only a handful of those under 16--no doubt the Minister will be able to give us the figure--have been referred to the criminal courts in recent years. I have strong doubts that electronic tagging is an appropriate disposal for those whose offences are such that it is thought right to determine them in the criminal courts rather than the children's hearing system.

We are embarking on a costly scheme for children under 16 when a pilot scheme is still in operation. I suspect that it is being implemented where it is most inappropriate, and the Minister has not given any explanation. We look forward to hearing one.

That is the pattern of so much of the Bill--it has been done to give the Secretary of State a cheap headline. It sounds as though he is tough, but in this case he has misread the situation and is trying to introduce electronic tagging in cases for which it is wholly inappropriate. I look forward with interest to hearing how the Minister tries to justify the proposals, when he finally gets round to doing so. He will need a good argument to persuade us that the proposals are appropriate and amount to anything more than an exercise in window dressing.

Mrs. Fyfe: I agree whole-heartedly with the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Government amendment No. 247 says:

"the court shall obtain and consider information about that offender's family circumstances"

before making a restriction of liberty order. Would that include finding out whether the offender had younger siblings who were likely to admire the older brother or sister for having such an imposition placed on them and might look up to them as a hero because of that mark of distinction? I wonder whether such information on an offender's family circumstances might include the attitude of his schoolfellows. The same problems might apply to them.

20 Jan 1997 : Column 714

As has been said already, the measure has attracted widespread publicity. Senior police officers have said that they find it wholly objectionable and impractical and that being tagged could result in some young ne'er-do-weels having more street cred. It is remarkable that the Minister should move the amendment formally without any word of explanation.

---