| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Connarty (Falkirk, East): I do not know whether my hon. Friend has visited his local constabulary headquarters, as I have, and asked to see the old birching book in which are recorded the names of those who had been birched. The same names appeared again and again. Those people came from a deprived background and could not break out of criminal behaviour. They were frequently flogged, but there was no improvement in their behaviour.
Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. The hon. Member for Ayr has said in the past that he would like a return to birching or flogging of offenders. Those in favour of birching argue that, once people have been birched, they will not come back for more, but the evidence shows that people were birched more than once. It is not the punishment that deters people from offending, but the circumstances that they live in. Their situations and the people they mix with encourage criminal behaviour. Offenders also tend to believe that they will not get caught, so they do not worry much about the punishment. It is time that Conservative Ministers and Back Benchers began to wake up to that fact.
The issue is why the courts should be given the power to extend electronic tagging to under-16s. The consultation exercise that the Government carried out at the end of last year has been mentioned. Indeed, in our debate on Monday, the Minister accepted that those who were consulted were "overwhelmingly opposed" to giving the new power to children's panels. When he was questioned directly by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), he accepted that the police were opposed to an extension of the power.
If the children's panels will deal with the majority of young offenders, and if everyone who has been consulted--including the police--opposes giving the children's panels powers to impose electronic tagging orders, why are the Government persisting? The Minister tried to base an argument on the number of young offenders who go before the courts rather than the children's panels. He said:
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has conducted much research into the Government's pilot schemes, and other electronic tagging schemes throughout
29 Jan 1997 : Column 381
COSLA said that electronic tagging should be targeted on offenders who have a stable home base. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North said, youngsters who commit such serious offences do not come from stable homes. It is therefore not appropriate for them to be electronically tagged. Indeed, one of the ways in which to deal with such youngsters is to remove them from their home base, since it can often be the reason for their offending in the first place. Why should they be electronically tagged and confined to a place that is unsuitable for them?
COSLA said that another criterion of the scheme is that it should be targeted on offenders with secure employment and economic independence. I wonder how many of the 171 youngsters who ended up in court in 1994 had secure employment or economic independence. I suggest that the answer is nil. Why on earth the Minister is going ahead with the proposal is beyond me.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton):
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that page 24 of "Curfew Orders with Electronic Monitoring" says:
The idea of electronic tagging is crazy. No one in the House, including hon. Members behind the Minister, supports it. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, it is an election gimmick in an effort to grab the law and order agenda. It will not work, and in a few months' time the Minister will not be in his post. Thank God for that.
Mr. McFall:
Many fine points in the debate have shown the hollowness of the Government's proposal for electronic tagging for under-16s.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) mentioned the pilot projects and the results of them. There have been no pilot projects in Scotland, either on adults or on under-16s. The financial memorandum to the Bill states that the pilot projects would be cost free, yet in England they cost £1.5 million. The fact that no resources are forthcoming from the Government blows a hole in the idea.
29 Jan 1997 : Column 382
I should like to take the Minister through the history of the matter, because it is important to put it on the record. On 17 June, a White Paper was published, the responses to which had to be in by 31 July. There was no mention of electronic tagging for 16-year-olds. The Bill was published in October, immediately after the Queen's Speech, and there was no mention of electronic tagging in it. The Bill went into Committee in November, yet there was no mention of electronic tagging until near the end of that month, when the Government announced a consultation exercise and asked individuals to submit responses by 4 January--notwithstanding the Christmas and new year holidays.
In the debate last week, the genesis of the idea was mentioned. I have some information to share with the House. I received a "Dear John" letter, dated 21 January, from the chairman of Securicor plc, Sir Neil MacFarlane, the former Minister with special responsibility for sport, drawing to my attention the good work that the company does on the issue of electronic tagging. Mindful that the Government are conducting a consultation exercise in Scotland, and ready to undertake work on their behalf, he says:
Mr. McFall:
That is a matter for the Minister. I was being charitable; we need an equal mix of charity and forensic ability. I am providing the charity and the hon. and learned Gentleman has shown the forensic ability. Let us hope that the Minister provides the eloquence; I fear that the third leg may disappoint us.
Sir Neil said that his project officers had undertaken a close study and that he was sharing the results of his research with me. He quoted one extremely profound statement:
There were 102 responses to the consultation exercise over the six-week period, of which 101 were against, including four from police authorities. I want to share my secret with the House, and tell right hon. and hon. Members that the one person who was unequivocally in favour was the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie).
Mr. Gallie:
Has the hon. Gentleman lost his sense of hearing? I gave a response here tonight.
"In 1994, only 171 young offenders had a charge proved against them in court."--[Official Report, 20 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 715.]
He also accepted that those 171 young offenders were guilty of the more serious offences. We must question whether electronic tagging would be appropriate for such young offenders.
"The majority said they would agree to be tagged again . . . Avoiding custody was an important consideration, as was not jeopardising one's employment, or the chance of it"?
Mr. McAllion:
We are talking about young offenders who are guilty of serious offences. It turned out that, of the 171 young offenders who were before the courts in 1994, only 25 were given any kind of detention. Only a fraction of those 25 would qualify for an electronic tagging order. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that youngsters who commit serious crimes--the kind of youngsters who the hon. Member for Ayr says terrorise communities--should be put back into the very same communities and electronically tagged rather than disposed of in detention centres? I do not think that that makes any sense.
"In Scotland, the Government is now consulting on whether electronic monitoring should be made available to children's hearings in considering compulsory measures of supervision for children under 16 referred to them on offence grounds."
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
When the hon. Gentleman got that letter, did it occur to him to speculate on how Sir Neil MacFarlane had such information, especially relating to children's hearings, which had not up to that point been in the public domain?
5 pm
"It is established beyond any possible peradventure throughout the world that tagging is of value in the field of criminal justice. Wherever those operating the criminal justice system want it to succeed, it succeeds."
Was that statement from a senior judge in Scotland or from the most senior judge in England and Wales? No. It was from Mr. Tom Stacey of the Offenders Tag Association. It is nonsense and rubbish, and there are nothing but commercial interests at stake.
I have the 102 responses, no thanks to the Government. I had to seek them through the Library; it took us nine days to get them from the Scottish Office. The responses to the question run to six or seven pages, and give detailed observations on why it is not appropriate. I want to share with the House the answer given by the hon. Member for Ayr to that most profound question. His answer, in full, was: "Yes." He added a note at the end, saying:
Let the hon. Gentleman expand on why he is the odd person out in Scotland.
"I trust my comments, which do require expansion, are helpful."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |