---

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In fact, as I thought I made clear, Mr. Gallie's voice was not listened to in its entirety. He was for tagging following children's hearings as well as following court hearings. That view has not been accepted. I admit that it came into the Bill late. It came in after certain discussions within government. I understand that the proposal emerged publicly in October of last year, which was around the time that information was becoming available as to the success of pilot schemes in England. Initially, there were certain practical and technical difficulties with the tags.

6 Mar 1997 : Column 1991

Possibly because of the emergence of this new information, Mr. George Howarth, a Labour Member of Parliament, when the matter arose during proceedings on the English Bill, said that there may be merit in extending the experiment further so that young offenders who commit more serious offences can be kept away from custodial sentences. The possibility that some young people will be diverted out of custody, but properly supervised, was one which he was minded to support. That encapsulates the Government's view.

I suggest to the Committee that it would be contrary to the whole philosophy of dealing with young offenders to exclude something which shows some prospects of keeping young offenders out of institutions. Time and again in the debates over the past few weeks people have been complaining about young offenders going to institutions. "Schools of crime" and other descriptions have been applied. This provision is designed to avoid that. There can be no guarantee that it will work 100 per cent., but the evidence from England suggests that there is some prospect of it achieving success in some cases. If it does, that it is a proposal which is worthy of the Committee's support.

Lord Sewel: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has rightly drawn the Committee's attention to the value which we place in Scotland on the children's panel system. I believe that there is a genuine concern on this side of the Committee that with the advent of this type of tagging for those under 16 years of age, there is a possibility of eroding the children's panel system as it is at the moment. Will there not be a possibility--I put it no stronger than that--that the procurator fiscal may decide to put a case to the court just to get the advantage of this type of disposal? We recognise that at the moment the number of children going to court is small. But may there not be the very real danger and risk that that will increase significantly and inappropriately? That is the whole point.

The noble and learned Lord draws our attention to the fact that the Government wish to carry out a pilot study before the Secretary of State makes a decision about extending the scheme throughout Scotland. It would give us some comfort if that were contained in the Bill. If the Lord Advocate came forward with an amendment indicating that these procedures were subject to some form of pilot study and that the full implementation of the scheme would be subject to a proper and searching evaluation, then we would be better placed to come closer together on the issue. As it is, the change in policy which occurred in the other place between Committee and Report stages shows haste and lack of consideration or proper basis for the introduction of policy. It was late in the day and it was hurried. A major change of direction in policy and an entirely new procedure were carried through without proper study and justification. I shall have to seek the view of the Committee.

4.53 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 66) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 137.

6 Mar 1997 : Column 1992

Division No. 1

CONTENTS
Addington, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Avebury, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Blackstone, B.
Borrie, L.
Broadbridge, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.
Calverley, L.
Carlisle, E.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Clancarty, E.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
David, B.
Desai, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.
Dubs, L.
Ezra, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Gallacher, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Haskel, L.
Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Hughes, L.
Hylton, L.
Jeger, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Longford, E.
Macaulay of Bragar, L.
McCarthy, L.
McCluskey, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McNair, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Monkswell, L.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Nicol, B.
Peston, L.
Prys-Davies, L.
Redesdale, L.
Richard, L.
Robson of Kiddington, B.
Russell, E.
Serota, B.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Stallard, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Taverne, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Thurso, V.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Wallace of Coslany, L.
White, B.
Wigoder, L.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.
Addison, V.
Ailesbury, M.
Ailsa, M.
Alexander of Tunis, E.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.
Annaly, L.
Annan, L.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.
Birdwood, L.
Blatch, B.
Bowness, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Burnham, L.
Butterworth, L.
Byford, B.
Cadman, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chelmsford, V.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Clanwilliam, E.
Clark of Kempston, L.
Coleridge, L.
Colwyn, L.
Courtown, E.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] Cranbrook, E.
Crickhowell, L.
Cross, V.
Cuckney, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Cumberlege, B.
Davidson, V.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dundee, E.
Ellenborough, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Flather, B.
Forbes, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Gainford, L.
Goschen, V.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Harlech, L.
Harrowby, E.
Hayhoe, L.
Hemphill, L.
Henley, L.
Holderness, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Hooper, B.
Howe, E.
Ilchester, E.
Inglewood, L.
Kingsland, L.
Lauderdale, E.
Layton, L.
Liverpool, E.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
McConnell, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.] Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.
Marlesford, L.
Merrivale, L.
Mersey, V.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monson, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Mottistone, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Munster, E.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Napier and Ettrick, L.
Nelson, E.
Norrie, L.
Northesk, E.
Orr-Ewing, L.
Oxfuird, V.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Pender, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Platt of Writtle, B.
Prentice, L.
Quinton, L.
Rankeillour, L.
Reay, L.
Rees, L.
Rennell, L.
Renton, L.
Romney, E.
Rotherwick, L.
St. Davids, V.
St. John of Bletso, L.
Seccombe, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Strange, B.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Sudeley, L.
Swansea, L.
Swinfen, L.
Terrington, L.
Teviot, L.
Teynham, L.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Thurlow, L.
Tollemache, L.
Trefgarne, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tugendhat, L.
Ullswater, V.
Vivian, L.
Westbury, L.
Wise, L.
Wynford, L.
Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

6 Mar 1997 : Column 1993

5 p.m.

Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 67:

Page 6, line 35, after second ("the") insert ("High Court or Sheriff").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I am doubling for my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar yet again. The effect of Amendment No. 67 would be to ensure that only the High Court or the sheriff court will be able to issue restriction of liberty orders. It will be apparent to those familiar with the Scottish court scene that that provision removes from the district courts the ability to make restriction of liberty orders. Coming from a local government background, perhaps I should be a little careful of the words I use but let me put it this way: the district courts in Scotland in part grow out of the local authorities. Those of us who have from time to time been close to local authorities and the district courts have a degree of concern that if such a major and new disposal were available to them without any qualification or moderation, as the Bill sets out, there is a risk of an increase in the number of inappropriate disposals. There is a risk of the restriction of liberty orders being used inappropriately.

I have much greater confidence that the High Court and the sheriff court will use the powers sensibly, reasonably and rationally, but I am not so convinced, given the amount of lay involvement at district court level, that we can be confident that this novel

6 Mar 1997 : Column 1994

disposal, which is far-reaching in its social consequences, will be used appropriately in all cases. Therefore, at this stage we seek the restriction of the disposal to the High Court or sheriff court. At some time in the future, when the disposal has had time to bed down, it may be appropriate to consider extending it to the district court, but I do not think that it should happen at the first stage. I beg to move.

---